Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

what if...

Expand Messages
  • nOd <maginoo2k@yahoo.com>
    hey guys, What if we are the believers? What if we believe in God, miracles, etc? Then atheist wll judge us, calling us fools, crazy etc. I guess having a
    Message 1 of 13 , Feb 17, 2003
      hey guys,

      What if we are the believers? What if we believe in God, miracles,
      etc? Then atheist wll judge us, calling us fools, crazy etc. I guess
      having a stand of your own is not bad. Just like my stand that God
      does not exist. Just like my stand not to believe in miracles. I
      think we should respect other peoples believe for them to respect
      ours. Yes we believe there is no God then lets not anymore waste our
      time spending it by researching about God and its flaws. Because
      attacking the believers in any way would also chain us. Then what we
      will be our differences with them? We will be prisoners of this God
      thing, etc. Why dont we just live our lives in peace? Why dont we
      just have fun, do the things that believers cannot do for the rest of
      thier lives? lets not judge their opinion, thier views for them not
      to judge ours also? Why dont we just show them how good it is to be
      free.

      Nod
    • Captain Trips
      ... Problem is, we *are* prisoners of this god thing, even if we never lift a single voice to oppose it. Because the nature of religion is to infringe on
      Message 2 of 13 , Feb 17, 2003
        --- "nOd <maginoo2k@...>" <maginoo2k@...> wrote:
        > What if we are the believers? What if we believe in God, miracles,
        > etc? Then atheist wll judge us, calling us fools, crazy etc. I guess
        > having a stand of your own is not bad. Just like my stand that God
        > does not exist. Just like my stand not to believe in miracles. I
        > think we should respect other peoples believe for them to respect
        > ours. Yes we believe there is no God then lets not anymore waste our
        > time spending it by researching about God and its flaws. Because
        > attacking the believers in any way would also chain us. Then what we
        > will be our differences with them? We will be prisoners of this God
        > thing, etc. Why dont we just live our lives in peace? Why dont we
        > just have fun, do the things that believers cannot do for the rest of
        > thier lives? lets not judge their opinion, thier views for them not
        > to judge ours also? Why dont we just show them how good it is to be
        > free.

        Problem is, we *are* prisoners of this god thing, even if we never
        lift a single voice to oppose it. Because the nature of religion is to
        infringe on those who do not believe (convert the heathens, share the
        love with your neighbor, witness to complete strangers in the mall,
        that kind of thing). Personally, I can respect people who believe in
        UFOs, the Loch Ness monster, big foot, the Easter bunny, or whatever.
        Got no problem with them. They let me live my life in peace. The
        believers in the god thing.. not so much..

        And as for showing them how good it is to be free, I kinda get the
        impression they don't want to be free. They seem to like having the
        silly rules, the control, the guilt, the threat of eternal punishment
        hanging over their heads. In some bizarro way, they need it..

        =====
        "And so he says, 'Evil is okay in my book, what about yours?' And I go, 'Yeah, baby, yeah yeah!'" - The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight

        - trips -

        __________________________________________________
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
        http://shopping.yahoo.com
      • Lovejoe1
        Don t you think, as a free thinker, conscious and intelligence men we make such empathies in our daily life ??? It would be shame otherwise. I always put
        Message 3 of 13 , Feb 18, 2003
          Don't you think, as a free thinker, conscious and intelligence
          men we make such empathies in our daily life ???
          It would be shame otherwise.
          I always put myself in the place of believers to
          develop understanding and tolerance against them.
          And I always try to avoid attacking them for their holly stuff.

          But
          conflicts arose when we show them how good is to be free...
          Because they are not free and have no tolerance to free people.

          This group for example is talking against religions
          and it's not avoidable that we talk also how bad they are!
          If one believer enters to such area and brings their
          holly shits, then it becomes a conflict on interests.

          Why a believer should enter to a group called
          "deathtoreligion" ?
          Add more reasons to followings:
          - They are curious what atheists thinks and talks
          - They have an intention to change our minds and convert us
          - Defend their holly shit against bunch of heathens
          ...
          It must be obvious that many of those reasons
          create conflict and lead attacks on both side.
          Then they deserve being attacked.

          And we are the minority in this world
          with less rights and depressed and threaten by religous people.

          You may not know but I can give you many examples of crimes
          happen in Muslim countries against atheists.
          Worst one happened in Sivas a northern city of Turkey in 1993.
          There was an Alawi festival and many artists, musicians,
          writers, philosophers were invited there because
          Alawi's support artistry and free thinking unlike Sunni's.
          Most artists, writers, musicians are either atheists
          or Alawi in Muslim countries because
          Sunni (fundemental) Islam does not allow
          for example making a sculpture or portrait of humans,
          does not allow something written against any holly stuff,
          does not allow many types of musics and lyrics,
          bale, theatre etc...
          And some atheist & Alawi artists talked against some
          fundemental Islamic rules in public speeches of the festival.
          And Sunni Muslims as majority became nerd,
          run after them until their hotel,
          and they burned the hotel while people were hiding inside.
          Police force could not help because too many Muslims were
          shouting, stonning, firing. Result:
          37 people including important writers, thinkers, musicians
          of Turkey has died in the burned down hotel.

          So it's not easy to be an atheist, a live atheist...
          Living in peace is a dream...
          Especially if you think about the coming war against Iraq
          and possible terorist counterattacks as a consequence...

          Cem




          --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "nOd <maginoo2k@y...>"
          <maginoo2k@y...> wrote:
          > hey guys,
          >
          > What if we are the believers? What if we believe in God, miracles,
          > etc? Then atheist wll judge us, calling us fools, crazy etc. I
          guess
          > having a stand of your own is not bad. Just like my stand that God
          > does not exist. Just like my stand not to believe in miracles. I
          > think we should respect other peoples believe for them to respect
          > ours. Yes we believe there is no God then lets not anymore waste
          our
          > time spending it by researching about God and its flaws. Because
          > attacking the believers in any way would also chain us. Then what
          we
          > will be our differences with them? We will be prisoners of this God
          > thing, etc. Why dont we just live our lives in peace? Why dont we
          > just have fun, do the things that believers cannot do for the rest
          of
          > thier lives? lets not judge their opinion, thier views for them not
          > to judge ours also? Why dont we just show them how good it is to be
          > free.
          >
          > Nod
        • nOd <maginoo2k@yahoo.com>
          cem, I guess your right but dont you think the more we attack them the more they fight back, then we fight back then they fight back then so on and so forth.
          Message 4 of 13 , Feb 18, 2003
            cem,

            I guess your right but dont you think the more we attack them the
            more they fight back, then we fight back then they fight back then so
            on and so forth. Your right but its just my ideal for "them" and
            for "us" to both live in peace.
            Thanks for sharing your views.

            Nod
          • proleus
            ... guess ... our ... we ... of ... Every athiest starts out hostile towards religion, it is a natural thing. It is simply not possible to wake up, realize you
            Message 5 of 13 , Feb 18, 2003
              --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "nOd <maginoo2k@y...>"
              <maginoo2k@y...> wrote:
              > hey guys,
              >
              > What if we are the believers? What if we believe in God, miracles,
              > etc? Then atheist wll judge us, calling us fools, crazy etc. I
              guess
              > having a stand of your own is not bad. Just like my stand that God
              > does not exist. Just like my stand not to believe in miracles. I
              > think we should respect other peoples believe for them to respect
              > ours. Yes we believe there is no God then lets not anymore waste
              our
              > time spending it by researching about God and its flaws. Because
              > attacking the believers in any way would also chain us. Then what
              we
              > will be our differences with them? We will be prisoners of this God
              > thing, etc. Why dont we just live our lives in peace? Why dont we
              > just have fun, do the things that believers cannot do for the rest
              of
              > thier lives? lets not judge their opinion, thier views for them not
              > to judge ours also? Why dont we just show them how good it is to be
              > free.
              >
              > Nod

              Every athiest starts out hostile towards religion, it is a natural
              thing. It is simply not possible to wake up, realize you have been
              lied to your entire life and feel happy about it. Your first instinct
              is to show people what you have discovered but you find they do not
              want to listen, this is what starts your arguments. As time goes by
              you argue less and less with them. I stopped debating them a few
              years ago simply because it got borring. I do however, pick on them
              every now and then but only for fun. It won't really do any good to
              ask them to stop arguing as they have to get bored with it, they will
              not give up a fight they think they can win because someone asks them
              to. Just give them time, everyone gets bored with it.
            • nOd <maginoo2k@yahoo.com>
              Proleus, hi, I guess you re right. have a nice day. Nod
              Message 6 of 13 , Feb 19, 2003
                Proleus,

                hi,
                I guess you're right.
                have a nice day.

                Nod
              • Lovejoe1
                No, it s not like what you see... We are not attacking. We are defending... Cem ... so
                Message 7 of 13 , Feb 21, 2003
                  No, it's not like what you see...
                  We are not attacking.
                  We are defending...

                  Cem


                  --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "nOd <maginoo2k@y...>"
                  <maginoo2k@y...> wrote:
                  >
                  > cem,
                  >
                  > I guess your right but dont you think the more we attack them the
                  > more they fight back, then we fight back then they fight back then
                  so
                  > on and so forth. Your right but its just my ideal for "them" and
                  > for "us" to both live in peace.
                  > Thanks for sharing your views.
                  >
                  > Nod
                • Bruce Allen
                  Here we go with the newspeak. Cem implies that since it was not the initial attack it is not an attack - He hit me first so I am justified in hitting back .
                  Message 8 of 13 , Feb 21, 2003
                    Here we go with the newspeak. Cem implies that since it was not the initial attack it is not an attack -"He hit me first so I am 'justified' in hitting back". It's still hitting and that does constitute an attack. - Bruce
                    .com> wrote:No, it's not like what you see...
                    We are not attacking.
                    We are defending...

                    Cem


                    --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "nOd "
                    wrote:
                    >
                    > cem,
                    >
                    > I guess your right but dont you think the more we attack them the
                    > more they fight back, then we fight back then they fight back then
                    so
                    > on and so forth. Your right but its just my ideal for "them" and
                    > for "us" to both live in peace.
                    > Thanks for sharing your views.
                    >
                    > Nod


                    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    deathtoreligion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




                    ---------------------------------
                    Do you Yahoo!?
                    Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Lovejoe1
                    Nod and/or Bruce: Do you want us to stop talking against religions here??? Do you want me to stop answering back to those religious nerds here ??? What is your
                    Message 9 of 13 , Feb 24, 2003
                      Nod and/or Bruce:
                      Do you want us to stop talking against religions here???
                      Do you want me to stop answering back to those religious nerds
                      here ???
                      What is your point ??
                      Whatever I say in this very group will and shall hurt
                      any believer and can be accepted as an attack,
                      so shall I be quiet not to hurt them
                      or not to constitute their attacks?

                      What we are doing here? Peace talks? Church talks?

                      Defense does not mean somebody starts to hit you and
                      you answer back by hitting them etc..

                      If one enters your home and tries to tie you with a rope,
                      what would you do ?
                      Wait to be wrapped?
                      Most logical answer is; you would try to defense yourself.
                      This is what happens here.

                      Another example, somebody throws a stone to you while
                      you walk in his garden, what would you do?
                      Throw the stone back and fight ?
                      Can you call it defense?
                      You can call it; he hit me first, I hit him back stuff.
                      The logical answer is: You should leave his private garden!
                      This is certainly not the case here...
                      This is a public area specialized in talks against religions!

                      And it's not the case even in Earth.
                      Because Earth is not the garden of believers !
                      I can talk against god and religions.
                      You can talk against Bush or Saddam or whoever.
                      It's not their garden too.

                      Cem



                      --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Allen <ab72756@y...>
                      wrote:
                      >
                      > Here we go with the newspeak. Cem implies that since it was not the
                      initial attack it is not an attack -"He hit me first so I
                      am 'justified' in hitting back". It's still hitting and that does
                      constitute an attack. - Bruce
                      > .com> wrote:No, it's not like what you see...
                      > We are not attacking.
                      > We are defending...
                      >
                      > Cem
                      >
                      >
                      > --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "nOd "
                      > wrote:
                      > >
                      > > cem,
                      > >
                      > > I guess your right but dont you think the more we attack them the
                      > > more they fight back, then we fight back then they fight back
                      then
                      > so
                      > > on and so forth. Your right but its just my ideal for "them" and
                      > > for "us" to both live in peace.
                      > > Thanks for sharing your views.
                      > >
                      > > Nod
                      >
                      >
                      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      > deathtoreligion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > ---------------------------------
                      > Do you Yahoo!?
                      > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Bruce Allen
                      I do not want anyone to stop talking against or for anything. Debate is good, and from my point of view, religions and/or any kind of religious thinking is not
                      Message 10 of 13 , Feb 26, 2003
                        I do not want anyone to stop talking against or for anything. Debate is good, and from my point of view, religions and/or any kind of religious thinking is not good. However, using tactics such as redefining words so that meanings and therefore thoughts become confused, doesn�t help. The media and governments have learned these tricks, which have bean perfected by religious zealots over time, and they are very much at the heart of most controversy today. "Newspeak" used for good intentions can lead to negative results just as if the negative were intended.

                        Defense means to �defend� and is the opposite of offense or offend. Protection does not require retaliation. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. To be seen as non-threatening does not mean that you need to be seen as weak. Posturing with threat of violence is an act of weakness or perceived weakness, even when it is an act of defiance. They both arise from fear. Knowledge is the cure for fear. Knowledge of the motivations of those you perceive as a threat can come only from them and never from another source which will have their own fears and motivations. Communication is the only way. Communication requires use of language which means we must agree on definitions of words. When the words are used wrong, there is misunderstanding, which can lead to mistrust. For example, saying that an attack is not an attack if it is as defense. It MIGHT be justified, but it is still an attack.

                        Bruce

                        Lovejoe1 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:Nod and/or Bruce:
                        Do you want us to stop talking against religions here???
                        Do you want me to stop answering back to those religious nerds
                        here ???
                        What is your point ??
                        Whatever I say in this very group will and shall hurt
                        any believer and can be accepted as an attack,
                        so shall I be quiet not to hurt them
                        or not to constitute their attacks?

                        What we are doing here? Peace talks? Church talks?

                        Defense does not mean somebody starts to hit you and
                        you answer back by hitting them etc..

                        If one enters your home and tries to tie you with a rope,
                        what would you do ?
                        Wait to be wrapped?
                        Most logical answer is; you would try to defense yourself.
                        This is what happens here.

                        Another example, somebody throws a stone to you while
                        you walk in his garden, what would you do?
                        Throw the stone back and fight ?
                        Can you call it defense?
                        You can call it; he hit me first, I hit him back stuff.
                        The logical answer is: You should leave his private garden!
                        This is certainly not the case here...
                        This is a public area specialized in talks against religions!

                        And it's not the case even in Earth.
                        Because Earth is not the garden of believers !
                        I can talk against god and religions.
                        You can talk against Bush or Saddam or whoever.
                        It's not their garden too.

                        Cem



                        --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Allen
                        wrote:
                        >
                        > Here we go with the newspeak. Cem implies that since it was not the
                        initial attack it is not an attack -"He hit me first so I
                        am 'justified' in hitting back". It's still hitting and that does
                        constitute an attack. - Bruce
                        > .com> wrote:No, it's not like what you see...
                        > We are not attacking.
                        > We are defending...
                        >
                        > Cem
                        >
                        >
                        > --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "nOd "
                        > wrote:
                        > >
                        > > cem,
                        > >
                        > > I guess your right but dont you think the more we attack them the
                        > > more they fight back, then we fight back then they fight back
                        then
                        > so
                        > > on and so forth. Your right but its just my ideal for "them" and
                        > > for "us" to both live in peace.
                        > > Thanks for sharing your views.
                        > >
                        > > Nod
                        >
                        >
                        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        > deathtoreligion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > ---------------------------------
                        > Do you Yahoo!?
                        > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


                        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        deathtoreligion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




                        ---------------------------------
                        Do you Yahoo!?
                        Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Ricky Barnes
                        ... Not to judge would be a shutting down of the mind, a shutting off of the senses, a shutting down of reason. This is exactly what faith is. If you decline
                        Message 11 of 13 , Mar 12, 2003
                          --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "nOd <maginoo2k@y...>"
                          <maginoo2k@y...> wrote:

                          > thier lives? lets not judge their opinion, thier views for them
                          > not to judge ours also? Why dont we just show them how good it is
                          > to be free.
                          >
                          > Nod


                          Not to judge would be a shutting down of the mind, a shutting off of
                          the senses, a shutting down of reason. This is exactly what faith
                          is. If you decline the use of faith as a source of knowledge, and
                          decline the belief in an unprovable "supernatural", then you accept
                          the premise that existence exists, that man exists, and you accept
                          the legitimacy of man's senses and his ability to reason. If you do
                          this you have the choice to either acknowledge your mind and judge
                          that which is irrational or shut down your mind and accept any
                          fantasy as legitimate. One has to judge to live. A decision to not
                          judge is a decision to shut down the mind and negate the legitimacy
                          of one's life. A decision to not judge is a decision to die.

                          It is right to judge those who cling to the use of faith as
                          knowledge and the belief in a "supernatural". It is right to judge
                          and reject the irrational. A failure to do so is in itself an
                          irrational act. Failure to judge makes one as bad as the believer
                          in faith and the "supernatural."
                        • eifion
                          ... There is a third choice. You can accept your mind and your senses and judge the irrational, but also acknowledge the possibility that the conlcusions drawn
                          Message 12 of 13 , Mar 12, 2003
                            > If you do
                            > this you have the choice to either acknowledge your mind and judge
                            > that which is irrational or shut down your mind and accept any
                            > fantasy as legitimate.

                            There is a third choice. You can accept your mind and your senses and
                            judge the irrational, but also acknowledge the possibility that the
                            conlcusions drawn by your mind are entirely wrong.
                          • bestonnet_00
                            ... A good comprimise between the science as dogma and pre-modernist[1] positions. Sadly those two are the ones that are most often taught at schools and
                            Message 13 of 13 , Mar 12, 2003
                              --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, eifion <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                              > There is a third choice. You can accept your mind and your senses and
                              > judge the irrational, but also acknowledge the possibility that the
                              > conlcusions drawn by your mind are entirely wrong.

                              A good comprimise between the "science as dogma" and pre-modernist[1] positions. Sadly those two are the ones that are most often taught at schools and universities (humanities faculties mostly).

                              I will however state that I don't think the poster you replied to was argueing from either of those positions but was probably in fact using what you've described (which does sound very similar to how science operates).

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

                              [1] Most pre-modernists call themselves post-modernists as they have a delusion of figuring their belief system that everything is a social construct out recently when it in fact pre-dates the 'modernist' scientific method by a couple of kiloyears.
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.