On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 07:13:06 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 12/24/2013 6:29 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/23/13, 10:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/23/2013 8:35 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 17:48:25 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

I detect some sort of slam in your comment about Jews. Perhaps you'd
care to expand on the phrase "...the difference is pretty much
semantic," since I am not sure what you mean. Do you know what you
mean?

Not meant as a slam, simply an observation. Most
agnostic/atheist/nihalist type folks I know have come from a mixed
Jewish/Catholic background.
Bill Maher is a classic case in the celebrity world.

The difference between atheists and agnostics is mostly semantics.
An agnostic is just an atheist who is not willing to commit.
You have committed, you ridicule anyone who believes in any kind if
deity or any religious belief so you are not agnostic.



Harry strikes me more as being "irreligious". Being irreligious can
include being agnostic, but it may also include having a degree of
hostility towards religious beliefs as he has often demonstrated in this
newsgroup. To me that's a little arrogant, since he calls himself an
"agnostic" which simply means he doesn't know.

Religion really has it's roots going back to primitive man. Early
humans were individually no match for wild animals or the vigor's of
climate and weather. They found that by banding together in tribes the
chances of survival increased. Over time each tribe developed
traditions or ways of living. The traditions took on a spiritual
nature in time and conflicts with other tribes with different beliefs
and ways developed.

In many ways, things haven't changed much.

We like to think we live in a world where we can choose our level of
autonomy. TV, computers, cars, supermarkets and money give us the
illusion of being capable of complete self-sufficient without much
support or help from our fellow man. That is, until some natural
disaster wipes out all the comfortable cushions or a modern foreign
"tribe" comes along and attempts to wipe you out. Then, like our
primitive ancestors, we will band together again with a common cause and
common "beliefs".

Until then, it's just too convenient, easy and safe to bitch, complain
and criticize those who happen to *have* faith in something.


I don't confuse belief/non-belief in god with religion. There may or may
not be a god. If there is a god, the entity certainly is not a creation
of man, which is all that religion is, which is sort of what you said in
your second paragraph.


I don't know how or exactly when the awareness of a supreme being,
"god", gods or spiritual beliefs evolved in the human mind but according
to researchers and scientists it happened eons ago when humans grouped
as tribes. Perhaps it was "invented" to address questions of the
unknown. Perhaps some form of external influence (extraterrestrial)
delivered the message, a theory that I happen to be very open to in a
curious sort of way. But one concept that I can understand and
differentiate is that of faith versus proof. I don't condemn people for
having faith. Faith is a personal thing to everyone and can't be
logically explained, repudiated or attacked.


Wrong. Harry attacks it with almost every post.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

In article , says...

On 12/24/13, 8:28 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/24/2013 8:03 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/24/13, 7:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/24/2013 7:40 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/24/13, 7:13 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/24/2013 6:29 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/23/13, 10:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/23/2013 8:35 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 17:48:25 -0500, "F.O.A.D."
wrote:

I detect some sort of slam in your comment about Jews. Perhaps
you'd
care to expand on the phrase "...the difference is pretty much
semantic," since I am not sure what you mean. Do you know what you
mean?

Not meant as a slam, simply an observation. Most
agnostic/atheist/nihalist type folks I know have come from a mixed
Jewish/Catholic background.
Bill Maher is a classic case in the celebrity world.

The difference between atheists and agnostics is mostly semantics.
An agnostic is just an atheist who is not willing to commit.
You have committed, you ridicule anyone who believes in any kind if
deity or any religious belief so you are not agnostic.



Harry strikes me more as being "irreligious". Being irreligious
can
include being agnostic, but it may also include having a degree of
hostility towards religious beliefs as he has often demonstrated in
this
newsgroup. To me that's a little arrogant, since he calls
himself an
"agnostic" which simply means he doesn't know.

Religion really has it's roots going back to primitive man. Early
humans were individually no match for wild animals or the vigor's of
climate and weather. They found that by banding together in tribes
the
chances of survival increased. Over time each tribe developed
traditions or ways of living. The traditions took on a spiritual
nature in time and conflicts with other tribes with different
beliefs
and ways developed.

In many ways, things haven't changed much.

We like to think we live in a world where we can choose our level of
autonomy. TV, computers, cars, supermarkets and money give us the
illusion of being capable of complete self-sufficient without much
support or help from our fellow man. That is, until some natural
disaster wipes out all the comfortable cushions or a modern foreign
"tribe" comes along and attempts to wipe you out. Then, like our
primitive ancestors, we will band together again with a common cause
and
common "beliefs".

Until then, it's just too convenient, easy and safe to bitch,
complain
and criticize those who happen to *have* faith in something.


I don't confuse belief/non-belief in god with religion. There may or
may
not be a god. If there is a god, the entity certainly is not a
creation
of man, which is all that religion is, which is sort of what you
said in
your second paragraph.


I don't know how or exactly when the awareness of a supreme being,
"god", gods or spiritual beliefs evolved in the human mind but
according
to researchers and scientists it happened eons ago when humans grouped
as tribes. Perhaps it was "invented" to address questions of the
unknown. Perhaps some form of external influence (extraterrestrial)
delivered the message, a theory that I happen to be very open to in a
curious sort of way. But one concept that I can understand and
differentiate is that of faith versus proof. I don't condemn people
for
having faith. Faith is a personal thing to everyone and can't be
logically explained, repudiated or attacked.



It seems obvious to me that early man developed a belief in god(s) and
religion in an attempt to explain and understand some of what he didn't
know or could not understand. Look at all the gods of the ancient
Egyptians, especially "Ra," the all-powerful sun god, who was given
credit for light, for growth of crops, for warming the earth. When you
don't know why something is happening, it is comforting, I suppose, to
give credit or blame to an object or idea representing a god. In later
beliefs, the concept of god and a better world awaiting after death was
used to pacify the poor about their miserable plight and to prevent
insurrection. Probably still is used that way. Look at all the hatred
spread in the name of religion.

Is there a god? I don't know and neither does anyone else. I've not
seen
any evidence one way or the other. Nothing in "religion" convinces
me...in fact, just the opposite. If there is a god, why would that
entity tolerate religion?


I think you are still confusing "faith". A particular religion is just
a conduit for faith.



I know plenty of people who have faith there is a god and who avoid
"religion" like the plague.


True. Like me. But there are also millions who find the conduit of
religion to be helpful in the demonstration of their faith. I find
nothing wrong with that and would never try to change their minds.



I don't have a problem with "the religious" so long as they don't try to
shovel their beliefs in my path or impose them via governmental fiat.

Herein lies your biggest problem Harry, you do not practice what you preach. You attempt to
shovel your belief system into others paths all of the time. Nobody is telling you that your
belief system is wrong, get over it.

On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 08:19:41 -0500, Hank© wrote:

On 12/24/2013 8:08 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/24/13, 8:05 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 06:32:57 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

I've not read the "atheist handbook." Which edition do you recommend?

--

I am not an aficionado.
It is the real religion of hate



Really? Are there tribes of atheists running amok in the middle east,
tossing bombs at buses full of school children, or are the atheists too
busy flying drones into wedding parties? Oh, I know...it's the atheists
shooting abortion doctors.



The problem is that you athiests are too disorganized. You need to get
together and draw up some guidelines and core values. Perhaps you could
even have designated places where you can gather to teach and learn
about atheism.

Well, it's not like Steve Martin hasn't tried to jump start them!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wogta8alHiU

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 08:32:21 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 12/24/13, 8:28 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/24/2013 8:03 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/24/13, 7:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/24/2013 7:40 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/24/13, 7:13 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/24/2013 6:29 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/23/13, 10:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/23/2013 8:35 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 17:48:25 -0500, "F.O.A.D."
wrote:

I detect some sort of slam in your comment about Jews. Perhaps
you'd
care to expand on the phrase "...the difference is pretty much
semantic," since I am not sure what you mean. Do you know what you
mean?

Not meant as a slam, simply an observation. Most
agnostic/atheist/nihalist type folks I know have come from a mixed
Jewish/Catholic background.
Bill Maher is a classic case in the celebrity world.

The difference between atheists and agnostics is mostly semantics.
An agnostic is just an atheist who is not willing to commit.
You have committed, you ridicule anyone who believes in any kind if
deity or any religious belief so you are not agnostic.



Harry strikes me more as being "irreligious". Being irreligious
can
include being agnostic, but it may also include having a degree of
hostility towards religious beliefs as he has often demonstrated in
this
newsgroup. To me that's a little arrogant, since he calls
himself an
"agnostic" which simply means he doesn't know.

Religion really has it's roots going back to primitive man. Early
humans were individually no match for wild animals or the vigor's of
climate and weather. They found that by banding together in tribes
the
chances of survival increased. Over time each tribe developed
traditions or ways of living. The traditions took on a spiritual
nature in time and conflicts with other tribes with different
beliefs
and ways developed.

In many ways, things haven't changed much.

We like to think we live in a world where we can choose our level of
autonomy. TV, computers, cars, supermarkets and money give us the
illusion of being capable of complete self-sufficient without much
support or help from our fellow man. That is, until some natural
disaster wipes out all the comfortable cushions or a modern foreign
"tribe" comes along and attempts to wipe you out. Then, like our
primitive ancestors, we will band together again with a common cause
and
common "beliefs".

Until then, it's just too convenient, easy and safe to bitch,
complain
and criticize those who happen to *have* faith in something.


I don't confuse belief/non-belief in god with religion. There may or
may
not be a god. If there is a god, the entity certainly is not a
creation
of man, which is all that religion is, which is sort of what you
said in
your second paragraph.


I don't know how or exactly when the awareness of a supreme being,
"god", gods or spiritual beliefs evolved in the human mind but
according
to researchers and scientists it happened eons ago when humans grouped
as tribes. Perhaps it was "invented" to address questions of the
unknown. Perhaps some form of external influence (extraterrestrial)
delivered the message, a theory that I happen to be very open to in a
curious sort of way. But one concept that I can understand and
differentiate is that of faith versus proof. I don't condemn people
for
having faith. Faith is a personal thing to everyone and can't be
logically explained, repudiated or attacked.



It seems obvious to me that early man developed a belief in god(s) and
religion in an attempt to explain and understand some of what he didn't
know or could not understand. Look at all the gods of the ancient
Egyptians, especially "Ra," the all-powerful sun god, who was given
credit for light, for growth of crops, for warming the earth. When you
don't know why something is happening, it is comforting, I suppose, to
give credit or blame to an object or idea representing a god. In later
beliefs, the concept of god and a better world awaiting after death was
used to pacify the poor about their miserable plight and to prevent
insurrection. Probably still is used that way. Look at all the hatred
spread in the name of religion.

Is there a god? I don't know and neither does anyone else. I've not
seen
any evidence one way or the other. Nothing in "religion" convinces
me...in fact, just the opposite. If there is a god, why would that
entity tolerate religion?


I think you are still confusing "faith". A particular religion is just
a conduit for faith.



I know plenty of people who have faith there is a god and who avoid
"religion" like the plague.


True. Like me. But there are also millions who find the conduit of
religion to be helpful in the demonstration of their faith. I find
nothing wrong with that and would never try to change their minds.



I don't have a problem with "the religious" so long as they don't try to
shovel their beliefs in my path or impose them via governmental fiat.

....like the Glibitzers (GLBTZ) do?

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

On 12/24/13, 11:22 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 08:08:36 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 12/24/13, 8:05 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 06:32:57 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

I've not read the "atheist handbook." Which edition do you recommend?

--

I am not an aficionado.
It is the real religion of hate



Really? Are there tribes of atheists running amok in the middle east,
tossing bombs at buses full of school children, or are the atheists too
busy flying drones into wedding parties? Oh, I know...it's the atheists
shooting abortion doctors.

You don't have to be violent to hate.
People who take that much joy in ridiculing another's beliefs is
hateful.


Well, in that case all the christians who ridicule atheists, muslims,
jews, gays, hindus, whatever, are hateful. That would include your
buddies here in rec.boats. Yet another reason to find a cure for religion.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

On 12/24/13, 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 11:55:11 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 12/24/13, 11:22 AM, wrote:

You don't have to be violent to hate.
People who take that much joy in ridiculing another's beliefs is
hateful.


Well, in that case all the christians who ridicule atheists, muslims,
jews, gays, hindus, whatever, are hateful. That would include your
buddies here in rec.boats. Yet another reason to find a cure for religion.

That just reinforces my assertion that atheists are evangelicals of
the belief in nothing.



As I stated earlier, I know only one atheist, and he isn't pushing any
legislative action to force his non-beliefs on anyone, unlike the
christians, who try to use the legislature to force their believes on
everyone.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

On 12/24/13, 12:31 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 12:11:46 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 12/24/13, 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 11:55:11 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 12/24/13, 11:22 AM, wrote:

You don't have to be violent to hate.
People who take that much joy in ridiculing another's beliefs is
hateful.


Well, in that case all the christians who ridicule atheists, muslims,
jews, gays, hindus, whatever, are hateful. That would include your
buddies here in rec.boats. Yet another reason to find a cure for religion.

That just reinforces my assertion that atheists are evangelicals of
the belief in nothing.



As I stated earlier, I know only one atheist, and he isn't pushing any
legislative action to force his non-beliefs on anyone, unlike the
christians, who try to use the legislature to force their believes on
everyone.

It is a rare atheist who is not walking around town looking for
something to be offended about at this time of year.



You must know one hell of a lot of atheists to make a comment like that.
I only know one atheist. The last time I was in "mixed company" during
the Christmas holiday season, I was the lone agnostic lined up against a
phalanx of southern christian protestant conservatives at a house party,
who were getting off on a pretty snarly verbal attack on a catholic they
all knew but I didn't. They were attacking his religion and the "fact"
that he wasn't a *real* christian. I thought that was pretty disgusting,
and I got up and left the room, saying "Jesus, the Jew, would be so
proud of how well you are following his teachings."

Gosh, I never got invited back to another of those house parties. My
heart was unbroken.



--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

On 12/24/2013 12:41 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/24/13, 12:31 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 12:11:46 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 12/24/13, 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 11:55:11 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 12/24/13, 11:22 AM, wrote:

You don't have to be violent to hate.
People who take that much joy in ridiculing another's beliefs is
hateful.


Well, in that case all the christians who ridicule atheists, muslims,
jews, gays, hindus, whatever, are hateful. That would include your
buddies here in rec.boats. Yet another reason to find a cure for
religion.

That just reinforces my assertion that atheists are evangelicals of
the belief in nothing.



As I stated earlier, I know only one atheist, and he isn't pushing any
legislative action to force his non-beliefs on anyone, unlike the
christians, who try to use the legislature to force their believes on
everyone.

It is a rare atheist who is not walking around town looking for
something to be offended about at this time of year.



You must know one hell of a lot of atheists to make a comment like that.
I only know one atheist. The last time I was in "mixed company" during
the Christmas holiday season, I was the lone agnostic lined up against a
phalanx of southern christian protestant conservatives at a house party,
who were getting off on a pretty snarly verbal attack on a catholic they
all knew but I didn't. They were attacking his religion and the "fact"
that he wasn't a *real* christian. I thought that was pretty disgusting,
and I got up and left the room, saying "Jesus, the Jew, would be so
proud of how well you are following his teachings."

Gosh, I never got invited back to another of those house parties. My
heart was unbroken.



Must suck to be shunned by your wife's relatives.

--
Americans deserve better.

On 12/24/2013 12:41 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/24/13, 12:31 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 12:11:46 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 12/24/13, 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 11:55:11 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 12/24/13, 11:22 AM, wrote:

You don't have to be violent to hate.
People who take that much joy in ridiculing another's beliefs is
hateful.


Well, in that case all the christians who ridicule atheists, muslims,
jews, gays, hindus, whatever, are hateful. That would include your
buddies here in rec.boats. Yet another reason to find a cure for
religion.

That just reinforces my assertion that atheists are evangelicals of
the belief in nothing.



As I stated earlier, I know only one atheist, and he isn't pushing any
legislative action to force his non-beliefs on anyone, unlike the
christians, who try to use the legislature to force their believes on
everyone.

It is a rare atheist who is not walking around town looking for
something to be offended about at this time of year.



You must know one hell of a lot of atheists to make a comment like that.
I only know one atheist. The last time I was in "mixed company" during
the Christmas holiday season, I was the lone agnostic lined up against a
phalanx of southern christian protestant conservatives at a house party,
who were getting off on a pretty snarly verbal attack on a catholic they
all knew but I didn't. They were attacking his religion and the "fact"
that he wasn't a *real* christian. I thought that was pretty disgusting,
and I got up and left the room, saying "Jesus, the Jew, would be so
proud of how well you are following his teachings."

Gosh, I never got invited back to another of those house parties. My
heart was unbroken.




You certainly keep strange company. Never in my life have I encountered
such a situation and I've been in many, many "mixed company" parties
and/or events.

One that I enjoyed very much was the first Seder I ever participated in.
Again, mixed company represented by Jews, Protestants, Catholics and
agnostics. Very interesting and fun. Everyone in attendance were
respectful of the ceremony and participated in it.

Maybe you just hang with the wrong crowd. :-)

On 12/24/13, 1:28 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/24/2013 12:41 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/24/13, 12:31 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 12:11:46 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 12/24/13, 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 11:55:11 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 12/24/13, 11:22 AM, wrote:

You don't have to be violent to hate.
People who take that much joy in ridiculing another's beliefs is
hateful.


Well, in that case all the christians who ridicule atheists, muslims,
jews, gays, hindus, whatever, are hateful. That would include your
buddies here in rec.boats. Yet another reason to find a cure for
religion.

That just reinforces my assertion that atheists are evangelicals of
the belief in nothing.



As I stated earlier, I know only one atheist, and he isn't pushing any
legislative action to force his non-beliefs on anyone, unlike the
christians, who try to use the legislature to force their believes on
everyone.

It is a rare atheist who is not walking around town looking for
something to be offended about at this time of year.



You must know one hell of a lot of atheists to make a comment like that.
I only know one atheist. The last time I was in "mixed company" during
the Christmas holiday season, I was the lone agnostic lined up against a
phalanx of southern christian protestant conservatives at a house party,
who were getting off on a pretty snarly verbal attack on a catholic they
all knew but I didn't. They were attacking his religion and the "fact"
that he wasn't a *real* christian. I thought that was pretty disgusting,
and I got up and left the room, saying "Jesus, the Jew, would be so
proud of how well you are following his teachings."

Gosh, I never got invited back to another of those house parties. My
heart was unbroken.




You certainly keep strange company. Never in my life have I encountered
such a situation and I've been in many, many "mixed company" parties
and/or events.





Try living in NE Florida. They're more plentiful than palmetto bugs.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.