By Inherit The Wind, February 18: “I do not have faith there is God. I do not have faith there is no God.  I do not have faith...

The Marxists are old hat (I mean black shirts, uhh) and Atheism is hardly a faith as it is a form of desire for non-existence as a means of relieving oneself of the human condition or its true origins.

Of course, it is not possible as there is a god whether you call IT a g-o-d or not. There was once a radio program on which it was not permitted to mention the ‘G’ word. But that is as unnecessary anyway now as it was then anyway.

There is a creator of the Universe. The scientists accept that with their ‘big bang theories’. Obviously, that is not a human creator and therein lies the dilemma for most people. Being able to think outside of our human existence is not really possible.

What is more, we are the mere product of some form of supposed evolution on this Earth which is, in itself, a microscopic speck in the Universe. To say that we motes who/which crawl on Its back have any decisive opinion is thus ludicrous - and always was.

So, I do agree that is is not wise to be either an aethiest or a Marxist. Neither lead anywhere beneficial and are superseded or irrelevant constructs anyway. Reality is the great Truth and Truth is the great religion.

I hope you are feeling better in the last few days, Inherit The Wind. LOL

There is an incerdible amount of semantics going on here.  Let’s look at some basics.

“Atheism.” Literally, a-theism, or non-belief in “theism,” which is “the belief in the existence of a god or gods.”

“Religion.” Primary definition: “The service and worship of God or the supernatural.”

Thus, atheism is NOT a “religion,” but rather the ABSENCE of religion.

Indeed, even the tertiary definition of “religion” - “a cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith” - would not give rise to “atheism” being a “religion,” since atheism is not a “cause” or a “principle” or a “system” of beliefs.

In this regard, psychology/psychoanalysis is only a “religion” in the broadest sense of the tertiary definition of “religion,” if we accept psychology as a “system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.”

Peace.

A person who believes in delusions is considered to be insane.  A person who does not believe in same delusions of the deluded individual, cannot be declared insane except by the deluded one.  Many people who believe in a delusion and call themselves religions, does not make the fact any less deluded.  Atheists do not believe in the delusions of the religious, Tony Witcher so why when you say atheism is the same as religion, is your argument any different than an insane person? 

In your case, calling someone a close-minded bigot for not agreeing with a deluded sense of self rightness is stretching it.  You should know of all the delusions out their Buddhism seems to have the most enlightenment.  Unlike you who speak for Buddhists, I speak from not knowing myself ignorance with mild amusement.

Must agree with you though, it does appear some atheists do use their non beliefs like religion, I part company with them, when they get their tax exemptions.

Another sober piece by a super intellectual and a fine first-rate humanist!

Certainly, “three stooges of the Christian right,” “frauds,"con artists,"ignorant," “scum,” “racist,” and “deadly” are all appropriate words to describe the three individuals mentioned in Chris Hedges’ article. However, when he describes them as “three jokers,” I beg to disagree. Far from being jokers, those three, along with the movement they represent, are not to be taken lightly or dismissed as “jokers;” they are part of a big, well-financed and highly connected dangerous movement of home-grown would-be international terrorists, whose aim is to hasten and bring about the fictitious Biblical battle of Armageddon.

In a recent international interfaith dialogue, I had the honor of sharing a panel with a very fine British Christian scholar by the name of Stephen Sizer. He recently published a book entitled, “Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon.” A very well-documented history about this dangerous movement and their unholy work to marry their religious chauvinism and fanaticism to politics. If you need to know the enemy from within, then this book is a must read.

Re By WriterOnTheStorm, February 14 at 2:07 pm #
(45 comments total)

“With equal respect, your ‘logic’ contains the same flaws of most conservative arguments in this debate. Claiming that criticism of intolerance is itself intolerant is dishonest. And I think you know this. It’s like calling an executioner a murderer. It’s the same shabby rhetorical trick calling atheism a religion.  A cheap play on words that will convince few except the most disingenuous among us.”
----------------------------------------------------
I’m having trouble with your logic. I agree with the first thing you said. Tolerance is absolutely necessary for a democracy to work. Intolerance is the enemy of democracy. The intolerant deserve not to be tolerated in a democracy. It is their just desert.

On the other hand, you call saying atheism is a religion “the same shabby rhetorical trick”. I may be among the “most disingenuous among us” that you speak of, but I find this way of looking at theology very useful sometimes. If one’s religion is defined as one’s belief system, then atheism is a religion. Like all religions, it is liable to intolerance of other religions, and some atheists are among the most intolerant people I know.

Thus atheism is a belief system and people who have such a belief system act very much like adherents of other beliefs systems that we do call religions, such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. So why not call atheism a kind of religion? 

Tolerance is to live and let live, believe whatever we believe, and allow others to believe whatever they believe.

Buddha tells us that whatever we believe, it is only a modification of our essence of mind. Meditation on this fact may enlighten the mind past the limitations of belief.

Maani,

From your reply to Cyrena:

“Religious extremism in the form of violence is relatively new to Islam. It’s formed the foundation of Christianity, and those are just the facts.”

No, that is not the fact.  The “foundation” of Christianity existed peacefully for almost 300 years before it was co-opted by Constantine at the Council of Nicea.”

The primitive christianity was less less idyllic than your description.  The Pauline doctrines were being discussed and taken seriously throughout christendom.  Specificaly I refer to the misogyny which carried over from the OT.

I agree with your assessment that christianity began settling around a core dogma circa 300 CE.  Interestingly enough after Constantine recognized christians as having a legitimate cultus they provided him with extra military fodder.  Constantine remained of follower of Sol Invictus until his death bed.

The christians and other cultus had been content to worship virtually side by side until 300 CE.  Having been recognized by the state, given the support of the state they used their new found powers to destroy libraries, temples and books moving the European peoples into the dark ages.  That which was not doctrinaire to their cultus was not tolerated.  We have seen this patten repeated when ever members of the abramic traditions gain power.  Look a Colonial history of these United States.  Theocracy abounded with the usual dismal results.  How about those witch hunts in Germany, and the Spanish Inquisition?

As a matter of personal thoughts:  I find all these cultus based in the stone age and before.  There seems to be a growing amount of evidence that our morality is shared throughout all primates to a great extent.  This is probably a matter of the shared DNA.

I am wondering why we are having this discussion of who and what makes one a christian.  We live in a secular democratic republic.  This was settled in the mid 18th century by people who very aware of the excesses of the preceding centuries.  The were individuals who were living in and products of the Age of Reason/Enlightenment and wished to insure that this country never fall into the hands of kings or theocrats.

This particular cartoon proves beyond a doubt that Jews are fearless and wantonly explicit in their hatred of our European-American heritage and our people and they are not scared in the least to say it openly because there will NEVER be consequences for them. Of course if this cartoon taught someone how to cook a Jew, careers would end, death threats would commence and fines or imprisonment would follow. Jews are the most hateful people on the face of the earth.

The magazine was not bought at a Zionist meeting or AIPAC meeting, no, far more insidiously it’s sold openly on the shelves of Barnes and Noble.

A pdf of the cartoon has been uploaded here, check it out, be outraged, these Jews have some serious explaining to do as to what makes this “funny.”

More trash passing off as Jewish entertainment can be seen at Heeb Magazines website.

How to contact Barnes and Noble and get this garbage off of store shelves? Contact customer support and share a piece of your mind.

http://newsfromthewest.blogspot.com/2008/02/jewish-mag azine-shows-how-to-cook.html

Think CNN’s Wolf Blitzer will cover this story?  Or maybe FOX’s Britt Hume will give it some air time.

Don’t hold your breath for this atrocious cartoon to ever see the light of day in the Zionist owned MSM.  In that Never-Never Land of disinformation and propaganda, news anchors get a pat on the back and pay raises anytime they slander, malign or distort anything Muslim/Arabic.

But woe to the fool who dare question anything about Israel/Zionism, for their reward is to be fired, threatened with violence, possibly even tossed in prison, all for asking honest questions about the descendants of the Khazars.

Here’s a link to the original story in Heeb Magazine

http://www.heebmagazine.com/articles/view/125

By cyrena, February 13: “Maani writes: It was only AFTER that that Christianity was “spread by the sword” and came to be “used” for violent purposes via the Crusades, etc.”...”

Isn’t following the Golden Rule all you need to be a Christian?

Well, I’ll graciously accept that Barack Obama should offer a correction about his inappropriate assertation of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount being adversarial to the wellbeing of the US Department of Defense. 

And he shouldn’t have been so careless with his language in referring to the Civil War as “the crucible of the sword” as if shedding the blood of a million white men to free a few black slaves was desirable or even commendable.

I don’t know what you and your friends of The Ring care to imagine, my response was actually that Christianity should not be equated with the cult like Islam in that BO “doesn’t oppose all wars”.

Frankly, I find some of your statements to be offensive but Christianity is not the Catholic Church or the current Neocon pope. Nor is Islam any less of a religion of peace in actual fact.

In reality, the great warmonger is the USA. The rest like Rome and the states of France and Britain are merely hangers-on seeking to vicariously relive their own past ‘glorious’ iniquites.