Growing Acceptance of Atheists in the US, Would you vote for an Atheist?

[pefjr]

"Given my years as an Atheist I might just know what I'm talking about."Sam F

Glen has considered the source...you... and it ain't looking good. His suggestion as far as being realistic might be too hard for you with your fundamentalist leanings, but it won't hurt you to try. You can call on me though, anytime for advice.

[Glen Longino]

Glen has considered the source...you... and it ain't looking good. His suggestion as far as being realistic might be too hard for you with your fundamentalist leanings, but it won't hurt you to try. You can call on me though, anytime for advice.

Years ago Sam revealed some of his personal experiences as a kid "atheist" in captivity by his atheist parents and liberal atheist university town educator atheists.
Sam's flight to Catholic Dogma might be called "refuge in the Church" or "Security Blanket Religion" by any competent psychoanalyst, IMO.
Or, "Rebellion Against His Environment"!
No wonder he despises all atheists, "near" Christians, Islamists, Liberal Catholics, and damn near anybody else who is not lucky enough to be Sam F himself.

Recovering Theist

[Sam F]

Just to reiterate. in case some you didn't get it...
Mr. Dryfoot made the statement that Buddhism is science. To clarify that, he was asked about a statement by the Dalai Lama ...many very famous scientists... now open to possibility of next life." I asked how is that science?
He claimed that I left out the bit where the Dalai Lama said it was OK to disprove the next life.
That of course was not an answer since, among other things, science can neither prove nor disprove such a thing.
And I asked the question again (and again and again) to which Mr. Dryfoot finally replied by posting an blurb from a book which didn't answer the question.

All in all, it would appear that the Buddhist side simply can't answer that question.
That leaves secure the statement Buddhism is a religion.

Like anybody ever seriously doubted it anyway.

[Sam F]

Given my years as an Atheist I might just know what I'm talking about.

Glen has considered the source...you... and it ain't looking good. His suggestion as far as being realistic might be too hard for you with your fundamentalist leanings, but it won't hurt you to try. You can call on me though, anytime for advice.

You do understand that your statement above does not address my experience in any way.
Additionally, the claim about my supposed "fundamentalist leanings" proves once again that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Really pefjr - the Atheists this time have fallen flat on their collective faces.

[TomF]

Given my years as an Atheist I might just know what I'm talking about...

You've had a number of years as a Catholic, but that doesn't give you experience enough to speak with authority for all Christians. Why should being an atheist give you authority to speak for all atheists?

[Sam F]

Years ago Sam revealed some of his personal experiences as a kid "atheist" in captivity by his atheist parents and liberal atheist university town educator atheists.

Let's just say that your characterization is a bit exaggerated, shall we?

Sam's flight to Catholic Dogma might be called "refuge in the Church" or "Security Blanket Religion" by any competent psychoanalyst, IMO.

So sad - Atheists can't manage an original argument to save their lives and instead resort to stereotyping - again.
Most amusingly this Atheist "security blanket" trope is not a charge that Atheists themselves are immune to.

http://www.amazon.com/Faith-Fatherle.../dp/1890626252

Starting with Freud's "projection theory" of religion-that belief in God is merely a product of man's desire for security-Professor Vitz argues that psychoanalysis actually provides a more satisfying explanation for atheism. Disappointment in one's earthly father, whether through death, absence, or mistreatment, frequently leads to a rejection of God. A biographical survey of influential atheists of the past four centuries shows that this "defective father hypothesis" provides a consistent explanation of the "intense atheism" of these thinkers. A survey of the leading intellectual defenders of Christianity over the same period confirms the hypothesis, finding few defective fathers. Professor Vitz concludes with an intriguing comparison of male and female atheists and a consideration of other psychological factors that can contribute to atheism.

[Sam F]

You've had a number of years as a Catholic, but that doesn't give you experience enough to speak with authority for all Christians.

Where did I ever say that I did?
You are as always free to disagree.

Why should being an atheist give you authority to speak for all atheists?

Where did I ever say that I did?
On the other hand, Atheism is not quite so vague a religious position as, say Buddhism, where one my claim endlessly a superior unspecified enlightenment over others.
Given the utter simplicity of Atheist dogma, one can easily draw valid conclusions about that faith.

[Sam F]

pefjr, this wasn't addressed to you - until now... for the second time.

How about Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel - originator of the science of genetics.
Want to tell us how afraid he and the Augustinian Abbey of St Thomas were of science?

That wasn't answered nor were all those Catholic monk/priest scientists I listed explained.
Your turn.
Care to explain how a "shamanistic" "superstitious" Church manages to produce and support such monastics and clergy over and over for centuries?

Whasamatter? Cat got your tongue?

[Farfalla]

On the other hand, Atheism is not quite so vague a religious position as, say Buddhism, where one my claim endlessly a superior unspecified enlightenment over others.

Once again you are talking out of your a**e about something you have zero knowledge of.
Buddhists believe that all beings are in fact in a state of enlightened existence but this is obscured by their ignorance of the nature of suffering.
Try doing your homework, I'll let you figure out how that fits into the doctrine of the Four Noble truths, the basis of all Buddhist philosophy.

Seriously sammy are you really that much of a desperate attention seeker that you are willing to humiliate yourself this way.
Constantly proving how ignorant you are about things that you spout about.
Once again poor sammy shown up by an athiest woman. Must be the catholic equivalent of some poor old f*rt being whipped by a young girl for pleasure.

Well sammy I'm quite happy to flog your sorry carcase every time you try to make a point about Buddhism, it's the compassionate side of me that wants to help you out

=Sam F;3471025] On the whole it would be better for non-Catholics to stay out of commenting on Catholic teachings since they invariably don't take the time to understand them in the first place and in the second place refuse to understand them when it has been explained many times to them.

You should take your own advice and stop crapping on about Buddhism because you don't know anything about it and you are too arrogant to admit it and go and do some research.

The arrogance is rooted in blind bigotry.

[TomF]

Where did I ever say that I did?
You are as always free to disagree.

Saved for posterity.

What happens when people amiably disagree with you? Be aware, of course, that we've thousands of posts of context supporting an answer ...

... Atheism is not quite so vague a religious position as, say Buddhism, where one my claim endlessly a superior unspecified enlightenment over others.
Given the utter simplicity of Atheist dogma, one can easily draw valid conclusions about that faith.

Hmm. How about atheistic Buddhists, Sam? Seems to me that the sole common element of atheism ... is disbelief in God/supernatural. Beyond that, people's views can diverge rather mightily.

BTW, you'd used a term earlier "Secularized Christians," which you never defined ... though I asked you to. You've often accused me of being "secular," and I am a Christian. So were you referring to people like me? Who believe in God, in the supernatural, and try to live according to the Faith ... but are Liberal Christians? Or are "Secularized Christians" something else?

[Farfalla]

Let's just say that your characterization is a bit exaggerated, shall we?

So sad - Atheists can't manage an original argument to save their lives and instead resort to stereotyping - again.


http://www.amazon.com/Faith-Fatherle.../dp/1890626252

Starting with Freud's "projection theory" of religion-that belief in God is merely a product of man's desire for security-Professor Vitz argues that psychoanalysis actually provides a more satisfying explanation for atheism. Disappointment in one's earthly father, whether through death, absence, or mistreatment, frequently leads to a rejection of God. A biographical survey of influential atheists of the past four centuries shows that this "defective father hypothesis" provides a consistent explanation of the "intense atheism" of these thinkers. A survey of the leading intellectual defenders of Christianity over the same period confirms the hypothesis, finding few defective fathers. Professor Vitz concludes with an intriguing comparison of male and female atheists and a consideration of other psychological factors that can contribute to atheism.

Well once again poor little sammy has been caught out "cherry picking" his quotes to leave out the important bits.

Professor Vitz does not argue that atheism is psychologically determined.

QUOTE=Sam F;3473060]Let's just say that your characterization is a bit exaggerated, shall we?

You really do have to stop being so easy to catch sammy.
It takes some of the fun out of it, but trust me not enough that I won't keep catching you every time and making you look foolish

[pefjr]

pefjr, this wasn't addressed to you - until now... for the second time.



Whasamatter? Cat got your tongue?

Whassa matter you can't read post #599

[pefjr]

Atheism is not quite so vague

You know your implication is wrong, and I do understand why you would like to have everything a religion( for company), but if you just used those 5 words you would be right. Atheism is just a denial of gods. That's all. This concludes today's lesson on Atheism.

[Sam F]

Why should being an atheist give you authority to speak for all atheists?

Where did I ever say that I did?

Saved for posterity.

What happens when people amiably disagree with you? Be aware, of course, that we've thousands of posts of context supporting an answer ...

Saved for posterity? Tom, where did I ever say that?
Provide an example, not a weaselly "saved for posterity"
Where did I say that?

Hmm. How about atheistic Buddhists, Sam?

What about them Tom?
I have long insisted that Atheism is faith-based. Buddhism being a religion - well that doesn't exactly prove me wrong, does it?
Sometimes I wonder about you...

Seems to me that the sole common element of atheism ... is disbelief in God/supernatural.

There you are simply wrong. I have already demonstrated that Buddhism does believe in the supernatural.
Or are you going to give me the weight, charge, color or any other physical characteristics of a "stream of consciousness".
Perhaps you can prove empirically the fact of reincarnation?

Yeah, our Buddhists here don't call it supernatural - it's just that they can't actually provide a single physical attribute of this thing that continues on to the "next life" (as the Dalai Lama terms it).
The fact is that Atheistic Buddhists are simply more-than-usually-irrational Atheists.

Beyond that, people's views can diverge rather mightily.

Wow call the new services! Or did you never notice that I have said Atheists may choose whatever they fancy?... that is beyond not believing in God of course.

BTW, you'd used a term earlier "Secularized Christians," which you never defined ... though I asked you to.

...though I didn't notice. But since when do I refuse to define terms?

It's pretty self-evident & equivalent to Cultural Christian...
"Cultural Christian is a broad term used to describe people with either ethnic or religious Christian heritage who may not believe in the religious claims of Christianity, but who retain an affinity for the culture, art, music, and so on related to it."

Lots of Atheists meet that definition. They're moral judgments are rooted in Christianity - though they're loath to admit it. That's invariably what they mean by saying "Atheists are moral too." As I have pointed out many times* (for posterity), it is highly ironic for Atheists to use non-Atheist standards.
But logically, they have no choice but to steal their standards from somewhere, having none themselves.


*such as pointing out Glen's saintly lifestyle.

[Paul Pless]

jesus. . . . . .what a ******* thread. . .

[Sam F]

Whassa matter you can't read post #599

Sure I can!
But it's not relevant.
Here's my question:

How about Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel - originator of the science of genetics.
Want to tell us how afraid he and the Augustinian Abbey of St Thomas were of science?

That wasn't answered nor were all those Catholic monk/priest scientists I listed explained.
Your turn.
Care to explain how a "shamanistic" "superstitious" Church manages to produce and support such monastics and clergy over and over for centuries?

Here was your answer:

You are confusing me with someone else.

I don't think so!

I have not said any catholic scientist was afraid of Science.

Did I say that you said that? I don't think so!

I gave you the ML quote saying it was better than the one you mentioned, and it was on "Reason" not Science.

Again, it is concrete evidence for invincible ignorance to use a Martin Luther quote to attack Catholicism. Please don't you throw me that briar patch ol' Mistah Fox! Please!

I can tell you this: Any religious Scientist must be able to separate faith and facts and know the difference at all times, or they will start to co mingle.

I can tell you this - you are wrong. Simply factually wrong. Wrong on your stereotype of Christian faith:
1. Truth can not contradict truth. That being the case there is no conflict and no need to "separate faith and facts". They cannot contradict one another.
2. Your stereotype of a "shamanistic" Catholic Church is totally wrong. If you'd given even a moment's thought to answering my question - which you neither thought about nor answered - you would have to conclude that the Church demonstrably supported scientific investigation by her own priests and monks contradicting thus refuting your stereotype.

It's the co mingling that I have a problem with.

Truth cannot contradict truth. There is no problem.

Since you didn't answer the question - I'll ask it again:
Care to explain how a "shamanistic" "superstitious" Church manages to produce and support such monastics and clergy over and over for centuries?

This time please try to stay out of Atheist websites for your proofs - like your Martin Luther quote.
Instead think for yourself.

[Sam F]

Atheism is not quite so vague

You know your implication is wrong, and I do understand why you would like to have everything a religion( for company),

I don't think you understood what I said. So let me be perfectly clear... and use your own words to do so.

but if you just used those 5 words you would be right. Atheism is just a denial of gods. That's all. This concludes today's lesson on Atheism.

Nuthin' vague about that. You just proved my point.
Thanks!

[Old Dryfoot]

jesus. . . . . .what a ******* thread. . .

It's a beauty isn't it?

I'm pretty disappointed in myself for being a part of it...

[Sam F]

I'm pretty disappointed in myself for being a part of it...

Given your inability to answer the most basic questions - I don't blame you.

[Old Dryfoot]

Your not having fun?
Because you really can't be taking anything sammy is posting seriously.

That will never happen... I'd doubt the time of day if it came from Sam's lips after this little display.

[Tom Montgomery]

Atheism is based upon Faith.

SammyF did not have enough Faith to remain an Atheist.

So SammyF converted to Roman Catholicism which, presumably, requires less Faith.

Hmmm....

[Old Dryfoot]

Given your inability to answer the most basic questions - I don't blame you.

Here ya go Sam... as long as you're at it. Take a crack at Einstein on Buddhism. Albert was a hack, I'm sure you should be able to set us all straight on the nuance of his logic.

Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: It transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural and spiritual; and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. -Albert Einstein

If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism. -Albert Einstein

A human being is part of the whole, called by us 'Universe'; a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest--a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely but striving for such achievement is, in itself, a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security.
-Albert Einstein

[Old Dryfoot]

The only thing I would disagree with you on is calling sammy's efforts here a "little display".
I think they are a major display of the bankruptcy of his ideas and the paucity of his ability to defend any single idea he has come up with in this thread

I stand corrected.

[Sam F]

Here ya go Sam... as long as you're at it. Take a crack at Einstein on Buddhism...

I asked you how being open to the next life is science.
Einstein's quote does not answer it.

..."avoids dogmas and theology"...

I guess ol' Einstein never met you, huh?
You've got a dogma (or two) alright.

"Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion."..

Hey! I thought Buddhism wasn't a religion.

If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism. -Albert Einstein

Hey! I thought Buddhism was not a religion. Isn't it supposed to be a science?

Ok. So the proof is in the pudding. Was Einstein Buddhist?
Nope. According to Wikipedia's article on Einstein...
"these views covered Judaism, theological determinism, agnosticism, and humanism. He also wrote much about ethical culture, opting for Spinoza's god over belief in a personal god"

So not only did you not answer my question again, your chosen example so so impressed with Buddhism that he neglected to join.

[Tom Montgomery]

...your chosen example [Albert Einstein was] so impressed with Buddhism that he neglected to join.

How does one go about joining Buddhism?

I think it is interesting that Sammy would consider thought and practice that "transcends a personal God" and "avoids dogma and theology" to be a religion. That would not be the average American's understanding of a religion.

This strikes me to be just as illogical as insisting that Atheism requires Faith.

[pefjr]

Instead think for yourself.

This post of yours is so full of denials, inaccuracies, and holes, it is not worth my time to correct it, and then have you just post more of the same. I am curious about your "truth cannot contradict truth". You don't know the difference in faith and truth? You will never get any respect from Science until you know, and are able to separate the two and not co mingle them . Interesting that you say, "I don't have that kind of fundy faith", yet you are now saying " no need to "separate faith and facts, they cannot contradict one another" When you referred to fundamentalist, and said you were not one, what fundy faiths were you thinking off that you can't quite buy? Do they not contradict your reasoning? You are just picking the fundy faiths that you want to label facts, but are critical of others, and especially when being Religiocentric, and with your ideas of Buddhism.

[Tom Montgomery]

Correct me if I am wrong.

Zen is a branch of Buddhism which holds that enlightenment is possible in this lifetime (just like Siddartha) rather than gradually over a series of reincarnations.

Enlightenment is the state of realization of the coequal connection of one's existence with the rest of Existence.

In contrast, Middle East monotheists believe an Almighty God grants human beings dominion over the rest of Existence.

[Chris Coose]

How does one go about joining Buddhism?

That's loaded.
You may know Tom that when Buddha woke up and began teaching the thing spread quickly throughout Asia, taking on lots of cultural characteristics. Buddhism bends with culture.
HHDL's Tibetan is considered religion. Zen is a strict practice. The newest form which is growing quickly is that in America and western Europe. Most wester practicioners approach it as a philosophy and way of life. Without the trappings of ritual bells and whistles.

Joining it tricky. We learn that attachment is a prime source of suffering. Therefore, even attachment to the 4 Noble Truths or the 8 fold path, meditation etc is to be considered a potential problem. Kind of like, everything is sacred but nothing is sacred. So, when I declare myself a Buddhist it is a really to be understood I am a student of the philosophy and attempt to live it.

Kind of like the church of the holy wooden boat. I consider neither a religion.

[Chris Coose]

I like about everything Joseph Goldstein has written on Buddhism.
"One Dharma" is easily considered.

[Chris Coose]

I am reminded of this character Downeast, like Sam, who declares that environmentalism is a religion. Another wild guy declares that AA is a religion. Christ if that were the case, besides woodboating and a host of other practices, I'd be a member of at least a dozen religions.

All I have to say is that none of that is true in my consciousness and leave the hysterics to the soap boxers.

[Chris Coose]

I think Sam has genuine concern for our Eternal Souls. AND there is a big difference between philosophical study and joining a Satanic cult. Making us aware that Buddhism is a religion is a mission to save souls.

[pefjr]

BTW, you'd used a term earlier "Secularized Christians," which you never defined ... though I asked you to. TOM F

...though I didn't notice. But since when do I refuse to define terms?

It's pretty self-evident & equivalent to Cultural Christian...
"Cultural Christian is a broad term used to describe people with either ethnic or religious Christian heritage who may not believe in the religious claims of Christianity, but who retain an affinity for the culture, art, music, and so on related to it."

Lots of Atheists meet that definition. They're moral judgments are rooted in Christianity - though they're loath to admit it. That's invariably what they mean by saying "Atheists are moral too." As I have pointed out many times* (for posterity), it is highly ironic for Atheists to use non-Atheist standards.
But logically, they have no choice but to steal their standards from somewhere, having none themselves.

Interesting. I mostly agree with your definition of a Secularized christian, close enough anyway. They believe in jesus though right,.. or.... they would not be christians. We could say the SCs are not as 'fundy ' as you might like, more educated and Science oriented. I also agree that many christian's morality is rooted in religion dating all the way back prior to our specie's origin. Big surprise, All North and S Americans, Aussies, and Europeans and other's morality are likely strongly christian rooted , with some other influences that are pre-christian Asian and many more. So, no one is loathing Sam. There it is, I admit it, don't know why you think any atheist would have to admit that, it is history. What did you think , that christians invented morality and we had to steal it from them? Ironic? hmmm...... now the bilge boys love irony, but this ain't it. This is only a surprise to you, no one else is loathing, they are laughing at your religiocentrism, narrowmindedness, and lack of knowledge of Primitive Religion and Anthropology. Oh, .. another thing...this christian morality is man made Sam. It came down the line the same as all other knowledge and common sense was passed on through the generations of mankind. No god gave out secrets to the chosen few, no son of god was ever born from a virgin, or resurrected, or any of those other fundy beliefs of yours. Now, if you want to believe that, and admit your faith, that fine with me, but if you want to stretch it and try and prove it, wake me when you find the very first tiny bit of acceptable Scientific evidence, cause I will be interested then.

[Glen Longino]

Interesting. I mostly agree with your definition of a Secularized christian, close enough anyway. They believe in jesus though right,.. or.... they would not be christians. We could say the SCs are not as 'fundy ' as you might like, more educated and Science oriented. I also agree that many christian's morality is rooted in religion dating all the way back prior to our specie's origin. Big surprise, All North and S Americans, Aussies, and Europeans and other's morality are likely strongly christian rooted , with some other influences that are pre-christian Asian and many more. So, no one is loathing Sam. There it is, I admit it, don't know why you think any atheist would have to admit that, it is history. What did you think , that christians invented morality and we had to steal it from them? Ironic? hmmm...... now the bilge boys love irony, but this ain't it. This is only a surprise to you, no one else is loathing, they are laughing at your religiocentrism, narrowmindedness, and lack of knowledge of Primitive Religion and Anthropology. Oh, .. another thing...this christian morality is man made Sam. It came down the line the same as all other knowledge and common sense was passed on through the generations of mankind. No god gave out secrets to the chosen few, no son of god was ever born from a virgin, or resurrected, or any of those other fundy beliefs of yours. Now, if you want to believe that, and admit your faith, that fine with me, but if you want to stretch it and try and prove it, wake me when you find the very first tiny bit of acceptable Scientific evidence, cause I will be interested then.

Well said, Bud!
Sam seems to Need to deny that Christians got All of their moral values from primitive people, not the other way around.
Tough titty for Sam!
His denial is his problem, not ours.

[AndyG]

Wow I thought I was going to sammy's hell for being an apostate catholic but looking at that list I've got a few sentences coming up. But it's sure going to be full of interesting people!!

As a vegetarian, heavy metal/rock fan who'se done a certain amount of pot in my life, I can't wait to meet the levitating fire walkers in the firey pit.

I'll steer clear of the Gothy Harry Potter guys, though.

Question to Sam - don't you find the above list at least a little amusing?

Andy

[Sam F]

Well said, Bud!
Sam seems to Need to deny that Christians got All of their moral values from primitive people, not the other way around.
Tough titty for Sam!
His denial is his problem, not ours.

Where did you get your morals from Glen?
Metaphorically, who wrote the check?
Tell us please.

[Sam F]

As a vegetarian, heavy metal/rock fan who'se done a certain amount of pot in my life, I can't wait to meet the levitating fire walkers in the firey pit.

I'll steer clear of the Gothy Harry Potter guys, though.

Question to Sam - don't you find the above list at least a little amusing? Andy

Now that's funny!

[Sam F]

This post of yours is so full of denials, inaccuracies, and holes, it is not worth my time to correct it,..

Giggle! 13 pages and it's not worth your time?
Oh come now pefjr! That denial of yours is extremely implausible.
How about - you can't manage to refute a bit of it?
Anyway this is how it’s done and it couldn’t be easier…

I am curious about your "truth cannot contradict truth".

No you aren't curious. Not in the least.
How do I know that? Here is how...

You don't know the difference in faith and truth?

Please explain your epistemology pefjr. How do you know truth?
Don't know what epistemology is? Here, this may help http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/
Then you can tell us how, as an Atheist, you know for sure that there is no God.
Good Luck with that!

You will never get any respect from Science...

My my! Science is now personified! Tell us pefjr, where do I find this mystical being called Science? I wanna know 'cause he/she is allegedly dissing me!

until you know, and are able to separate the two and not co mingle them .

Fact is that faith and facts are always comingled. It’s just that you haven’t noticed. Like it or not you take a great deal on faith – or have you experimentally verified everything you believe.
Of course you haven’t.

Interesting that you say, "I don't have that kind of fundy faith"…

Don’t make stuff up pefjr. I said that your “…claim about my supposed "fundamentalist leanings" proves once again that you have no idea what you're talking about.”
The Catholic Church is not and never has been Fundamentalist.
In case you hadn’t noticed – and you haven’t- Fundamentalists despise the Catholic Church.
Not that it is any surprise – you and the Fundi’s have a lot in common!

… yet you are now saying " no need to "separate faith and facts, they cannot contradict one another"

Oh I think that goes back a lot further than “now”. How did you miss this?
"If it happens that the authority of Sacred Scripture is set in opposition to clear and certain reasoning, this must mean that the person who interprets Scripture does not understand it correctly." Saint Augustine.
Seeing as how that was written prior to AD 430, it rather ruins your stereotype and makes your heartfelt belief rather dated.
So drop the Fundamentalist nonsense that you “learned” from Atheist websites – it’s simply wrong.

… but are critical of others, and especially when being Religiocentric, and with your ideas of Buddhism.

When are you folk gonna get it? It is not me “being critical of others” concerning Buddhism.
Buddhism is a religion.
I merely have based my view on dictionaries, encyclopedias, Buddhist congregations, Sri Lankan Buddhists, the Dalai Lama, and Atheist Sam Harris (among others) and every Google site that lists Buddhism among the world's great religions and now, uber scientist Einstein*. (Sheesh it just gets worse and worse. My "box" gets bigger while the Buddhist box grows smaller and smaller...)

So far ya’ll have only managed to object and believe that they’re all wrong.
Daft seems to be the best descriptive word.


*Poor Old Dryfoot, he can’t manage to quote a single source that does anything other than prove me right!

[Sam F]

Interesting. I mostly agree with your definition of a Secularized christian, close enough anyway. They believe in jesus though right,.. or.... they would not be christians. We could say the SCs are not as 'fundy ' as you might like, more educated and Science oriented.

I call your attention to the bit in bold who may not believe in the religious claims of Christianity.

I also agree that many christian's morality is rooted in religion dating all the way back prior to our specie's origin.

OK. No shock there to anybody.

Big surprise, All North and S Americans, Aussies, and Europeans and other's morality are likely strongly christian rooted , with some other influences that are pre-christian Asian and many more. So, no one is loathing Sam. There it is, I admit it, don't know why you think any atheist would have to admit that, it is history.

OK again. That answers the question "Who wrote the check?" Christians did.
That makes Atheism's morality essentially parasitic on Christianity.
Doesn't that bother you just a little bit?

What did you think , that christians invented morality

Nope

and we had to steal it from them?

Yes. That's what ya'll did.

Ironic?

Quintessentially, hilariously, ironic.

This is only a surprise to you

Nope. It appears to surprise you that I've said that all along. For years.

they are laughing at your religiocentrism, narrowmindedness, and lack of knowledge of Primitive Religion and Anthropology.

Ah pefjr, you have not demonstrated your own knowledge (about anything) to make such a statement about anybody.

Oh, .. another thing...this christian morality is man made Sam.

Epistemology? How do you know that pefjr? Prove that empirically and you'll have something.
Good luck with that!

[Sam F]

Still waiting...
How is being open to the next life is science?
How is it that Buddhism is not a religion when dictionaries, encyclopedias, Buddhist congregations, Sri Lankan Buddhists, the Dalai Lama, and Atheist Sam Harris (among others) and every Google site that lists Buddhism among the world's great religions and Einstein all agree that it is?

And how is it that a "shamanistic and superstitious" Church* could manage to produce and support so many scientists, including some who founded whole branches of science?
What a mystery!



*While Buddhists, who are so scientific, can't manage to produce any comparable list. How can that be possible??

[Sam F]

Something tells me that I'll be waiting a long long time for those answers.

[Sam F]

While ya'll are struggling mightily to answer those horribly difficult question (be sure to not consult a dictionary!!) here's something else to ponder...

For many, a chief selling point of Buddhism is its supposed de-emphasis of supernatural notions such as immortal souls and God. Buddhism "rejects the theological impulse," the philosopher Owen Flanagan declares approvingly in The Problem of the Soul. Actually, Buddhism is functionally theistic, even if it avoids the "G" word. Like its parent religion Hinduism, Buddhism espouses reincarnation, which holds that after death our souls are re-instantiated in new bodies, and karma, the law of moral cause and effect. Together, these tenets imply the existence of some cosmic judge who, like Santa Claus, tallies up our naughtiness and niceness before rewarding us with rebirth as a cockroach or as a saintly lama.

Western Buddhists usually downplay these supernatural elements, insisting that Buddhism isn't so much a religion as a practical method for achieving happiness. They depict Buddha as a pragmatist who eschewed metaphysical speculation and focused on reducing human suffering. As the Buddhist scholar Robert Thurman put it, Buddhism is an "inner science," an empirical discipline for fulfilling our minds' potential. The ultimate goal is the state of preternatural bliss, wisdom, and moral grace sometimes called enlightenment—Buddhism's version of heaven, except that you don't have to die to get there...
he insights imputed to meditation are questionable, too. Meditation, the brain researcher Francisco Varela told me before he died in 2001, confirms the Buddhist doctrine of anatta, which holds that the self is an illusion. Varela contended that anatta has also been corroborated by cognitive science, which has discovered that our perception of our minds as discrete, unified entities is an illusion foisted upon us by our clever brains. In fact, all that cognitive science has revealed is that the mind is an emergent phenomenon, which is difficult to explain or predict in terms of its parts; few scientists would equate the property of emergence with nonexistence, as anatta does...
Even if you achieve a blissful acceptance of the illusory nature of your self, this perspective may not transform you into a saintly bodhisattva, brimming with love and compassion for all other creatures. Far from it—and this is where the distance between certain humanistic values and Buddhism becomes most apparent. To someone who sees himself and others as unreal, human suffering and death may appear laughably trivial. [Te He Ha Ha] This may explain why some Buddhist masters have behaved more like nihilists than saints. Chogyam Trungpa, who helped introduce Tibetan Buddhism to the United States in the 1970s, was a promiscuous drunk and bully, and he died of alcohol-related illness in 1987. [B]Zen lore celebrates the sadistic or masochistic behavior of sages such as Bodhidharma, who is said to have sat in meditation for so long that his legs became gangrenous....
But what troubles me most about Buddhism is its implication that detachment from ordinary life is the surest route to salvation. Buddha's first step toward enlightenment was his abandonment of his wife and child, and Buddhism (like Catholicism) still exalts male monasticism as the epitome of spirituality. It seems legitimate to ask whether a path that turns away from aspects of life as essential as sexuality and parenthood is truly spiritual...
Some Western Buddhists have argued that principles such as reincarnation, anatta, and enlightenment are not essential to Buddhism. In Buddhism Without Beliefs and The Faith To Doubt, the British teacher Stephen Batchelor eloquently describes his practice as a method for confronting—rather than transcending—the often painful mystery of life. But Batchelor seems to have arrived at what he calls an "agnostic" perspective in spite of his Buddhist training—not because of it. When I asked him why he didn't just call himself an agnostic, Batchelor shrugged and said he sometimes wondered himself....

Far from being the raison d'être of the universe, we appeared through sheer happenstance, and we could vanish in the same way. This is not a comforting viewpoint, but science, unlike religion, seeks truth regardless of how it makes us feel. Buddhism raises radical questions about our inner and outer reality, but it is finally not radical enough to accommodate science's disturbing perspective. The remaining question is whether any form of spirituality can.

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/c...t_retreat.html

[Chris Coose]

Sam, There are plenty of Buddhists who would claim it is a religion and plenty who would claim it isn't. Both true. I read it that you will only accept the former and give no consideration to the latter.
Why don't you allow yourself the middle ground?

[pefjr]

Giggle! 13 pages and it's not worth your time?
Oh come now pefjr! That denial of yours is extremely implausible.
How about - you can't manage to refute a bit of it?
Anyway this is how it’s done and it couldn’t be easier…

No you aren't curious. Not in the least.
How do I know that? Here is how...

Please explain your epistemology pefjr. How do you know truth?
Don't know what epistemology is? Here, this may help http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/
Then you can tell us how, as an Atheist, you know for sure that there is no God.
Good Luck with that!



My my! Science is now personified! Tell us pefjr, where do I find this mystical being called Science? I wanna know 'cause he/she is allegedly dissing me!


Fact is that faith and facts are always comingled. It’s just that you haven’t noticed. Like it or not you take a great deal on faith – or have you experimentally verified everything you believe.
Of course you haven’t.

Don’t make stuff up pefjr. I said that your “…claim about my supposed "fundamentalist leanings" proves once again that you have no idea what you're talking about.”
The Catholic Church is not and never has been Fundamentalist.
In case you hadn’t noticed – and you haven’t- Fundamentalists despise the Catholic Church.
Not that it is any surprise – you and the Fundi’s have a lot in common!

Oh I think that goes back a lot further than “now”. How did you miss this?
"If it happens that the authority of Sacred Scripture is set in opposition to clear and certain reasoning, this must mean that the person who interprets Scripture does not understand it correctly." Saint Augustine.
Seeing as how that was written prior to AD 430, it rather ruins your stereotype and makes your heartfelt belief rather dated.
So drop the Fundamentalist nonsense that you “learned” from Atheist websites – it’s simply wrong.

When are you folk gonna get it? It is not me “being critical of others” concerning Buddhism.
Buddhism is a religion.
I merely have based my view on dictionaries, encyclopedias, Buddhist congregations, Sri Lankan Buddhists, the Dalai Lama, and Atheist Sam Harris (among others) and every Google site that lists Buddhism among the world's great religions and now, uber scientist Einstein*. (Sheesh it just gets worse and worse. My "box" gets bigger while the Buddhist box grows smaller and smaller...)

So far ya’ll have only managed to object and believe that they’re all wrong.
Daft seems to be the best descriptive word.


*Poor Old Dryfoot, he can’t manage to quote a single source that does anything other than prove me right!

Dull and repetitive sermon, Sam

[Tom Montgomery]

BTW, you'd used a term earlier "Secularized Christians," which you never defined ... though I asked you to.

...though I didn't notice. But since when do I refuse to define terms?

It's pretty self-evident & equivalent to Cultural Christian...
"Cultural Christian is a broad term used to describe people with either ethnic or religious Christian heritage who may not believe in the religious claims of Christianity, but who retain an affinity for the culture, art, music, and so on related to it."

Lots of Atheists meet that definition. They're moral judgments are rooted in Christianity - though they're loath to admit it. That's invariably what they mean by saying "Atheists are moral too." As I have pointed out many times* (for posterity), it is highly ironic for Atheists to use non-Atheist standards.

But logically, they have no choice but to steal their standards from somewhere, having none themselves.

So many Atheists are Secularized Christians? Many Atheists are Cultural Christians?

You are looney tunes.

[Sam F]

Sam, There are plenty of Buddhists who would claim it is a religion

Yeah, I noticed.

and plenty who would claim it isn't.

Yup, I noticed that.

Both true.

No problem! Some time ago I posted a fellow's claim that Christianity is not a religion (and he is one of very many).
That's true. Right?

I read it that you will only accept the former and give no consideration to the latter.

I'll accept it just fine - if Christianity is not a religion.

Why don't you allow yourself the middle ground?

See? I agree! All you need to do is admit that Christianity is not a religion.

[Sam F]

Dull and repetitive sermon, Sam

Repetitive sure.
How's this for repetition?
Explain how a shamanistic and superstitious Church managed to support and produce so many scientists - including some who founded branches of science?

Why can't you answer that?

And no the "they do it in spite of the Church" doesn't work.
That's identical to saying "researchers at the NIH do their work in spite of the NIH." That may be perfectly true - if bizarre - but it doesn't explain what the NIH is doing supporting scientific work - just as you haven't accounted for the Church supporting and producing so many scientists.

Let's see your explanation.

[pefjr]

Repetitive sure.
How's this for repetition?
Explain how a shamanistic and superstitious Church managed to support and produce so many scientists - including some who founded branches of science?

Why can't you answer that?

And no the "they do it in spite of the Church" doesn't work.
That's identical to saying "researchers at the NIH do their work in spite of the NIH." That may be perfectly true - if bizarre - but it doesn't explain what the NIH is doing supporting scientific work - just as you haven't accounted for the Church supporting and producing so many scientists.

Let's see your explanation.

That's easy Sam, they didn't co mingle science with voodoo. In fact several of them fought the voodoo with their science and won. It took many years in some cases but they won because the Fundies of today brag on them like you have. Maybe you should venture over to the Sarah Palin thread and try and save some souls. There are a few on that thread that needs some help with morality. They are trying to put a jinx on Sarah with half @ss voodoo liberalism.

[TomF]

Sam, you've had people answer your questions. Disagreeing with their answers is quite distinct from claiming their responses don't exist.

[pefjr]

The Catholic Church is not and never has been Fundamentalist. Sam F

Sam, I realize you love the Catholic Church, and don't consider it Fundamentalist. Many would agree with you and many would not( you know that I do not), but re think your statement, for I don't think very many would say that the Catholic Church has Never been Fundamentalist. Maybe this would be a good drift from the Broken Record sermon, I can even re name the thread, .... "The Fundamentalism of the Catholic Church or lack there of."

[Peerie Maa]

Sam, I realize you love the Catholic Church, and don't consider it Fundamentalist. Many would agree with you and many would not( you know that I do not), but re think your statement, for I don't think very many would say that the Catholic Church has Never been Fundamentalist. Maybe this would be a good drift from the Broken Record sermon, I can even re name the thread, .... "The Fundamentalism of the Catholic Church or lack there of."

Just as with any population within any organisation, there is a spectrum of interpretation and behaviour. As with many converts (think reformed smokers ) SamF is more intense verging towards fundy in his approach to his new Faith.
Either that or Sam makes it up as he goes along for the sake of a good argument.