Samhain

case:

As I said before, the statement works for both theist and atheist on the subject. When concerned with a subject as far as the meaning of life and existence of life after death, I seriously doubt that most theists wish to be wrong in such an assumption. There seems to have been a large movement launched by many* theists (from my experience, mostly xtian) in which they try to convert those of other theistic or non-theistic beliefs in order to try and save them from eternal damnation. The major problem I see with many xtian sects today is that they seem to have trouble viewing anyone with different beliefs as moral. A person who does not believe in their god ultimately burns in hell for their disbelief, and if someone burns in hell, they could not possibly lived a moral life under their god's commandments. Thus we see many xtians trying to convert others in order to try and make the world a better place, I guess. When regarding something with such strong emotional ties as theism (since it is hard to say that they can be considered as logical ties), a person will make up many excuses so that they will not be percieved as "wrong". Of course, they want to be right in their assumptions, and in "knowing" that they are right, they also do not want anyone else to suffer the pains of eternal damnation. And anyone who thus refuses to see their point of view must be a godless heathen, satan worshipper since it is perfectly obvious that heaven is better than hell. I will once again say most* for this of course does not apply to some, there are always exceptions, but I just find that it is quite hard for a theist to be tolerant when another person wants to live their life for themselves instead of living their life for god, which, for them, is the most rational choice, by far. Also, it is hard for atheists to put up with this kind of preaching when pushed to the point in which they feel they must defend their beliefs. Also, since many atheists hold that their non-belief is rooted within logic, reason, and factual science, they tend to regard theists as, in some fashion, brainwashed, and they feel like the only people who have exited Plato's "cave" and are the only one's who have seen the light of day and actually understand the world. Once again, I will say most*.

I never said that, what I have alluded to is that both of us, atheists and theists, can be found guilty of this on more accounts than not. I don't hold that theists are "more guilty" or that atheists are in some way justified, I only hold that the harmonic co-existence has been largely absent in humanity thus far.

So do I. Also, I am probably also guilty of this myself on some accounts, so yes, I agree.

My intentions were not to lump them together in order to apply a sure-fire solution by simplifying the matter. I do not think this issue is a simple one, actually, I believe it is a very complicated one. There are many problems which both atheist & theist must learn to accept about the other before the harmony you speak of could be established, I only express that the largest of them is a basic difference in existence belief, also, both are rooted within different areas of the human psychi, and therefore make it nearly impossible for the two to "understand" each other, let alone co-exist in harmony. I'm sure there is a way, but it's going to be a long time before anyone can find that medium.

Yes, I agree. Social pressures to conform to a certain lifestyle are extremely harsh if one wishes to maintain their credibility with their peers. I think it's hard for anyone to cope with the label of "social deviant."

Gurdur:

I'd suggest that you re-read case's point, the title of the thread and the OP. I don't think we were discussing origins, what we were dicussing was whether or not brainwashing of our children attributed to the influx of theists in the world today. As you will notice with case's follow-up post, and my agreement, the socialization process does not end at any age, but instead we are constantly bombarded with social pressures trying to force us to conform to a certain lifestyle. The origins or the beginnings of religions are a completely seperate topic. Maybe you'd like to start a seperate thread?

Meaningless? I very much doubt that. I think that a harmonic co-existence means more than only just not ripping each other to shreds whenever the chance arises. If you wish to discuss a harmonic existence, I'd definately hold that we'd both have to generally accept one another, and hold no judgements against another for their theistic or non-theistic beliefs. Until we both can fully accept one another without passing any kind of judgements because of their beliefs, whatsoever, I think a harmonic existence has failed to be achieved. And that means all of us, not just the simple majority of each group.

I very much doubt that this forum would be around if there were were no or minimal prejudgements against atheists or agnostics. Convictions are strong for both atheists and theists, and I very much doubt that we fully "accept" one another in every way, shape and form. This forum is a prime example of the problems which arise from the difference of those theistic or non-theistic convictions.

Actually, only just a frustration at the possibility to truly "understand" one another. Both atheist and theistic belief or non-belief stem from different ways of thinking, it's not the same way of thinking with just different beliefs. We aren't even playing the same game, let alone allowing ourselves to be in the same ballpark. I think that co-existence would be both of us coming to terms with the idea that both of our rationales are correct in their own way, which is an extreme chore in itself to come to such a point.

I guess it depends on what you count as "real" problems. For you "real" problems would be when we start slaughtering each other because of our differences in our beliefs or non-beliefs. I hold that someone else trying to tell me how I should live my life is a problem, and I think there are others who hold this view as well. No, we do not resort to violence, but I think that trying to conform one another to a different way of thinking is a problem if the other does not care to conform to that belief. We should try to make others receptive of our point of view, but I don't think either of us should be trying to recruit new members. If others and ourselves can ultimately cope with our dissent, then perhaps we could live in harmony, but as I said before, I know what I chose to believe in or not-believe in, and someone trying to change my way of thinking that dramatically will not be viewed with complete kindness and understanding.

[ April 21, 2002: Message edited by: Samhain ]</p>

Indifference

It is happening. How many non-believers (of any religion) were there two thousand years ago? Now how many are there? The shift is underway.

Like I said, as the balance turns in favor of atheists, this will change as well. If the majority of people are atheist, then Christianity has less power. Until eventually it has none.

I agree. But whether he really IS Christian or not doesn't matter. A leader will say what pleases the crowd. An atheist nation will have an atheist president proclaiming an atheist nation.

</strong>

I have taken a good look at politics. Majority does rule. Most officials are elected. The ones that aren't are appointed by ELECTED officials. And you seem to be aluding to the often talked about, NON-existent conspiracy against Clinton. I won't even get into that as it is not relavent.

That's right. We live in a capitalist society. But where does the money come from? Voters. The Government has less power than you think. That is the whole idea behind a democracy.

No argument here.

Wrong. I has survived because people believe without question. It has become rich BECAUSE people believe.

I agree. This is not relavent to the argument though.

Word

Now let's be fair, i don't think Christians have anything to do with this.

Not enough atheists. But this does not help your point. If the majority of voters were atheists, then we would have fewer problems. The voters would vote for atheist points of view and the polititians would proclaim the atheistic points of view whether they were or not.

Supreme judges are appointed by the president. The president is elected by the voters. Therefore the voters appoint the judges. The supreme judges cannot ON A WHIM appoint a president. There has to be a beyond significant reason. And regardless, an atheist president, elected by an atheist population will appoint atheist judges.

All in all, thanks for the give and take. I think our main disagreements are not religious, but rather political. I'm guessing you are socialist, am I right? But that is simply a matter of oppinion. Economically, capitalism has been basically proven to generate the most production. But is that the most IMPORTANT? On the other hand, socialism keeps the citizen in mind more so than capitalism, but at the expence of production. Production raises the standard of living which reduces poverty. So which system is better? That is a matter of opinion. I won't argue politics with you because there is no right answer.

[ April 21, 2002: Message edited by: Indifference ]</p>

Samhain

Actually, the president is elected by the electoral college.

Indifference

But the electoral college vote for who the people of the state vote for. If a member of the electoral college is ever unreasonable with their selection they can be overturned. I'm also pretty sure that it is illegal for anyone to loby to them for their vote.

[ April 21, 2002: Message edited by: Indifference ]</p>

Samhain

Point granted, just pointing out that the popular vote doesn't make the whole decision, or else Gore would be in office now

Indifference

Actually, now that you mention it, i'm not an expert on the EC. But i do remember being told why they do it that way and it made a lot of sense at the time. I'm gonna have to look that up somewhere.

Samhain

Originally, I believe it was put into place as a safe-fail in case the people elected a Hitler or something. The electoral college would then be able to override the popular vote in order to protect the well being of it's citizens and of the government. At the time the founders didn't feel the average man was educated or responsible enough to make such a decision.

case

Samhain,

You bring up some interesting points. I too am guitly of being a little too militant from time to time. I am not a patient person by nature, so I have to work sometimes when dealing with others who do not share my views.

I think the topic of whether or not theists and non-theists can peacefully live together is best left for another thread. As does the origin of religion. As you said, it isn't a simple issue. But they are very different issues. I'll start up a new thread on the first. Give me a few years for the second...