case

I'll second that. I think I mentioned earlier that my definition of "peacefully coexist" would at least have to include not killing each other. Let me not be the one to start. I think there's enough jihad in the world, I certainly don't need to contribute an un-jihad.

NOGO, I think you hit pay dirt. I don't agree with you that atheists/agnostics/rationalists are the dominate group (when I don't see "In God We Trust" on my duckets anymore I'll give it more thought), but I do think that there is a fundamental difference between theist goals and non-theist goals, all of devnet's remarks aside. I can't imagine a non-theist who would try to force someone to try to conform to their views, and certainly not by force. I think most of us are happy to live and let live.

Theists, on the other hand, seem to want to conform everyone, for better or worse, to the point of influcing politics to a signifigant degree. I think most theists would not object to criminalizing abortion. We seem to strive for very different goals.

Yes, this is a problem...

emotional

</strong>

Ha! You know what that reminds me of? A joke about a conversation between two believers:

Avoiding an anti-Jihad is not an option for me. I would like to, but it takes the other half to have it, and as it happens, the other half (the theists) don't want that. In other words, the reason for atheists to wage counter-Jihad is as a preventive cure against inevitable Jihad from the theists.

The minute my local theists will let me do on the Sabbath whatever I like and eat as I please, instead of saying, "THOU SHALT NOT...! Please respect! You're hurting our feelings!", then I'll stop countering with a "THOU SHALT NOT do this religious practice!" (et cetera inverted, "it hurts my feelings" and all that).

Trouble with secularists, they're too soft. Any encroachment of theistic decree upon secular life should be countered with an intentional, corrective encroachment of secularism upon theistic life. For example, if Orthodox Jews demand that you shall not drive in their neighbourhoods on Saturday, then it is incumbent to say, "agreed, on condition that you permit women to testify in rabbinic courts" (women are not allowed to bear testimonial in Orthodox Judaism). And if they don't agree, then give 'em a nice kick on the derriere and keep driving in their neighbourhoods on Saturday. Verstanden? Quid pro quo, no turning the other cheek. Even Christians don't turn the other cheek.

(edited for small fix)

[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: devnet ]</p>

NOGO

Then which in your opinion is the dominant group. "In God we Trust" is vestigial in nature. The problem is that many who don't actual practice religion anymore are still opposed to elliminating God from society. Guilt feelings? I don't know why.

Pope Puis 12 (? not sure which) declared free thinking an evil. Pope John-Paul II declared that a fundamental human right was the freedon to believe whatever one wants according to his or her conscience. I don't normally give two hoots about what popes think. But think of how far they have come, and how far society has come on this issue.

When I say domninant group I mean the group which has changed the Pope's mind on such a fundamental human right.

I am not at war against religion. I recognize that some people simply need it. However there are the fanatics and those who want to go beyond just believing according to one's conscience.

We need to watch them closely.

The Other Michael

Yeah, free to believe as long as they don't mind going to hell if they believe the wrong thing.

I'd expect the Church to have just as many spinmeisters and propaganda hacks as any other big authoritarian organization who wants to put a good face on their activities.

cheers,
Michael

NOGO

I agree however there is an element here that I should have stated. Pope John-Paul II is Polish. He was under another authoritarian government which prohibited religion in all its forms. He therefore learned the value of freedom, freedom to think.

I realize that his organization has a long history of doing exactly what the communists did and that is to force everybody to accept the official line and quiet all dissidence.

I am not defending the Catholic church. I am saying that their eyes were opened however slightly.

Radcliffe Emerson

I attend a Universalist/Unitarian place from time to time, precisely because atheists, agnostics, people with pagan beliefs, people with Jewish and Christian beliefs, and people who study Buddhism, Sikhism and Islam all coexist together at one place, and it's pretty cool.
So in small numbers anyway it's possible to coexist.

The Other Michael

Hi NOGO,

Then why doesn't he show that by thinking? He certainly seems to fall on the "conservative" side of the Catholic faith (from what I've seen of his actions) and doesn't seem to be doing much to drag the Church into at least the middle 20th century.

Perhaps by growing up under an authoritarian government he saw the benefits of their methods when applied to an authoritarian church.

I keep waiting for the moderate/liberal Catholics to split off and elect their own Pope.

cheers,
Michael

Baalthazaq

What seems strange to me is that you're differentiating between theists and atheists.

Devnet is off on a slightly stronger note, but for the most part you're overgeneralizing, and turned it into: Can the non-theists cope with the theists.

I don't think I have many close Muslim friends. My main group of friends consisted of a Christian(From Germany), a semi-satanist/atheist(From Palestine), a guy who made up his own religion but insisted he was Catholic because he was Italian (From Italy), and an outright atheist(from Belgium).

We have been friends for 5 years without a single argument or falling out with regard to theism/atheism, despite numerous debates on the topic.

The main reason for this not being that we respect freedom of speech and just put up with it, but quite simply because we understand that each of us are not solely defined by our religious beliefs.

We are judged by what kind of people we are, and this is irrespective of whether we are thiests or not, not in spite of it.

Samhain

Baalthazaq:

I think the main point of this thread was not focused on individual or micro-social engagements. It has more to do with macro-social engagements and prejudgements. Of course, I, personally, have quite a few theistic friends, and we all respect one anothers beliefs or non-beliefs, it's just not an issue with us. What we're more concerned with is whether or not theists and atheists can ever be able to cope with each other on a grand scale, holding no prejudices towards one another any longer. Ideally, we'd all desire to live in a world in which we both can express our own beliefs or non-beliefs, individually, without fear of any kind of prejudices or persecution from opposing parties.

sighhswolf

Ah yes, but you must remember that speaking from a fundamentalist protestant viewpoint the Catholic church is the "Whore" and the "Pope" is the "antichrist".
So the enlightenment and modification of some of the earlier concepts of the Catholic church (such as the "new" concept of evil not being tangible and/or personified, but part of the genetic makeup of all humans) is thought to be a satanic manifestation to delude the power of god.
Wolf