Since theists are actively try to meddle in my life I am not willing to adopt a live and let live attitude.  The respect that has been given to religion allows the ignorant and irrational to have a large amount of power in the world.  It would be irresponsible for me not to stand up and say that they are living an irrational life based on ignorance. 

I don't think I am going to get a misogynist to respect women by demanding equal access to society.  However, making such demands as a woman is important and does end up having real world results that better my life.  Similarly, I do not think I am going to "deconvert" any theist.  However, it is important not to allow their delusion to remain unchallenged.

 I agree with the emailer, mainly because I believe I get his point.

"Believe in God? We can fix that."

Well, I think this is perhaps an example of the emailer's concern or depising the practice of ("not atheist&quot this web page. Truly, isn't it that atheists hate the fact that believers (mainly Christians) try to force some sort of belief into general society. Though, you have admit that they do this while following the rule that is entiled to everyone of us. Constitutional rights!! I understand that Christians may come out saying "not believe in god? we can fix that"? However, those kind of statements are what atheists despise.

Regarding to forcing religious belief...

I have NOT seen any case "recently or in my life time" where Christians acted illegally to force someone to believe in god. i.e, You can say that opposing to put a curriculum of the theory of revolution in public school is an act of oppression by Christians, yet you cannot call it an illegal act since they have the majority power, which means they can influence more than perhaps atheists can. Now, you can obviously challange a specific public school and take it all the way to the Supreme Court. This is the system and I have not seen any avocates who are going forward with this. However, in Christians' perspective, public school is a sham. Some argue that not teaching bible in school is a problem. Even this is so, do you see public school actively teaching bible? No!! Well, partially yes, they do have elective courses in some schools, yet it is justified when majority of the school district says yes. Perhaps creating a bible class is wrong, but it is after all an elective. I do not think someone will say anything if public schools offer an elective course in the theory of revolution. Well, Christians may jump up and down, but it would be probable that the elective will stay on. By the way, how many people actually read the Origin of Species? It is not an easy book to teach (it is easy to read, however), especially if you are trying to bring in facts. Other things such as stem cell research, may perhaps be a problem in our society, yet no one broke the law!! Obviously, we can take the nature of research to the Supreme Court. And yes, they may say yes to the research!! How about abortion? that is obviously a set back for Christians!!

I understand that many of the social issues are linked to Christianity, however, you have to understand that Atheists nowdays are not fighting against the existence of god, but the practice of god. Atheists are more concern of social settings than the existence of god. Putting aside the bible, other religious scriptures, and science, how many times have I seen a true discussion regarding to creationism? None!! All I hear is bitching about how people are deluded!! Do I want to have a discussion about god? Not really, why? Since nothing smart will come out from that conversation.

ie,

"Not because they preach their beliefs.  If we didn't have people preaching their beliefs we'd never advance as a civilization.  Take for example teachers, bosses, and Socrates."

How did you come to a conclusion that the growth (or advance) of our civilization link strictly to "preaching beliefs"?

Secondly,

"preaching" is not what we want from teachers, right? After all, many teachers are religious. Boss?, well you may be right about that one. However, Socrates? Did he preach? Plato may have, but Socrates did not!! He questioned!!

"The argument you use is an argument inserted into the discussion by theists trying to con atheists in to not discussing religion, you bought it.  This fuels me even more to stand up to them, they are cons.  Don't let yourself get swindled by their propaganda especially if you were smart enough to reject their god."

How do you know whether the emailer have ever been swindled by the propaganda? To you, perhaps there is an obviousness, but I don't. Please explain. By the way, what are some theists' propagandas?

I'm having a little trouble making sense of this... Are you basically saying that active, fanatical stupidity is okay, because it's not illegal ?"

Well, there is a problem with your question that I am having trouble here. First, how do you come to a conclusion that Christians should be described as "active, fanatical stupidity"? (I am assuming that you are talking about Christians.) Secondly, are you saying that these, overwhelming number of Christians, should be described as "active, fanatical stupidity"? Finally, are you concluding that even when it is within supreme law (constitutional law), we should not allow the simple, yet crucial rights to be handed to those who you describe to be "active, fanatical stupidity"?

Still, I have more problem with your question...

So, "active, fanatical stupidity" is not okay? can you define "okay" in this situation? If it is not okay as you said, then what should we do about them? Should you go and enlighten them so that their fanatical stupidity goes away? 

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

"Oh dear...
Listen, I know you're probably just a one-time poster, so I could be wasting my time, but what you just said there is simply not true.
I don't know exactly how many creationism threads there are here, but it's a lot (Ali's "is evolution rational ?" is the most recent one , I believe). 
In those threads you will find several very patient people, explaining the same facts over and over again. Only when these facts are ignored, over and over again, are they liable to get a little bitchy."

"is evolution rational"? Wow, see that is the problem that I have problem with. The example you gave me here is a problem to me since, people like you (with utmost respect) think very small!! If I want to discuss about god, then I only want to discuss about god, not necessarily Christian god or muslim god or whatever the religion may be. You can feed me all the crap in the world about how you can prove with certainty that the big bang theory works and how we are created, yet you will never be able to convince me or entire world 100%. Well, not even all the science department professors will believe that the theory is 100%, I can actually back that as I had discussed this with a few professors.

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

For the theists' propagandas.... I still do not know... please enlighten me.

 Well, I really don't understand the meaning of your first question. Are you saying that broadcast company such as FCC TV should be more opened to atheistic understanding? If so, why? Though, from what base from my post are you bringing this idea? Personally, I haven't seen any FCC TV programs. To include a detail, Christians are not at all happy about public TV programs. Probably everything that we see on TV nowdays are somewhat taboo to evangelical Christians. However, can they do anything about it? Maybe, but it is within the guide of the law. I would like to think our system has not failed. However, if there is a problem, we can always challenge!! It is, after all, democratic society!!

When it comes to politicians, once again, it is a democratic society!! 

Two ways to look at politicians,

1. Politicians are human beings as you and I. They certainly are entitiled to their own beliefs. Your proposing of the number of atheist politicians have to be more convincing than just giving an idea that there is too few or none.

2. It is all about VOTES. Yes, perhaps there is no atheist politician, yet can you blame someone for that? You can blame Christians, yet they are entitiled to use their vote within their own discretion. You can use your vote with your own discretion. Should atheists' votes have more power over Christians? Obviously, that would solve your dilemma. However, is there a justice in that?

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

As far as the, "believe in god ...." slogan, I'd prefer as a world wide message, "believe in god of abraham B.S.  ...., we are here to fix that", but hey, it works. RRS is great and generates the attention so needed. Lot's of ways to skin a cat ....

So..,

are you more concern about the existence of "Christian" god? How about muslims and hindus? What do you say about their beliefs? Again, I simply do not care about about Christian god or muslim or whatever when it comes to god. Yes, I can certainly talk about it to understand each religion, but trying to disprove them is not an ideological action.

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

"In much of the world, god doesn't mean a deity or separate something, as here in the west."

Please explain this. I had lived in Asia and Mexico, and from the experiences I can tell you that god is god!! Before that, I have to question about your statement of "god doesn't mean a deity". What does it mean then?

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

"I'm an atheist zen buddha and even jesus fan of sorts. I AM GOD, as all is ONE, as says the science of thermodynamics."

You gooootta explain this to me!! zen buddha, while atheist and fan of Jesus? Explain your understanding of this. I have interest in this since I do not know much about zen... I would appreciated if you provide good explaination.

You could probably say the same for Muslims.  That shouldn't infer that "legal" actions taken by either entity do not lead to coercion, or violence or harm.

Well, within our standards, muslims would be a different case for many countries. Look what we have achieved after 9/11. Iraq, for instance, is much more religiously pressured nation than it was before. What is so legal about forcing everyone to practice every cultural law created by a specific religion? Obviously, we don't see that in our country. When it comes to coercion, I haven't seen anything like it here. Have anyone been coerced by religious people? Well, you can certainly argue that definition of coercion that you are discussing is much more thin. However, as I have said before, have anyone broken the law? Not just law, but constitutional law? Violence and harm would be done by extremists. However, since crusaders age, I don't believe there has ever been a true crusade. Of course, muslim would be a different case. I must ask one question regarding to this... "violence or harm"... can you explain a little more about them?

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

Representatives of both religion and politics have recognized the value in forming a symbiotic relationship since humans began recording history.  It's a relationship, Radin called, a form of "gangsterism".  Each make appeals to a different but still important aspect of our human nature, often the same aspects that are most vulnerable to manipulation.  It is this alliance that makes breaking the law, unnecessary.

A very good theory!! Yes, it is so in a way. As you have mentioned, what you call "gangsterism" is a nature. However, there is a supreme law that protects us, constitutional rights!!

Several things I have to explore regarding to this theory...

1. is it a system of belief that is being incorporated by each American? Or is it god that is most important? Meaning.., believing in god makes a person relate better to those who have same belief. 

2. I need more information on "vulnerability" as how it comes into the theory. I also would like to know how manipulation is cared out.

3. If the conclusion is that legality no longer is the issue, but the inner core problem of our nature is, then I must ask how the alliance would be a problematic and how it can or should be fixed? It can also be linked to the second question, yet I would like to know more about the nature of illegal acts that perhaps can be seen as legal.

4. Finally, if alliance makes breaking the law unnecessary yet creates malicious attacks, then explain how this alliance affect our society in malicious ways? 

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

The Chief formed his alliance with the Shaman, the King with the Priest and now the President with the Evangelist and so on.

good example, yet I need to know the fact on this issue. If your conlusion is that president has an "alliance" with Evangelist, then I would like to know how you can prove that. Well, perhaps your argument is that there is no way to know, yet I would argue that it is legal as to what president might do or not do within his own discretion. Of course, his actions are based on what people want (I hope) and for the country. However, as I had said before, votes matter!! That votes are also a tool in democratic society!! Again, you and I have the same right as 20% evangelical voters  (PBS news reported recently). However, they certainly cannot force things on you or me that would be against constitutional rights. If they do or they are doing, you and I have rights to challenge that!!

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

Many forms of coercion wield their power as (or more) successfully within the laws of culture and government as they would without.

please explain...

cjrlhwanj wrote:

I have no idea what this sentence means or what you meant by it, and I end up repeating this for much of what you post.  Is English your second language ?

Do tell.

Do you need the defintion of coercion provided for you ?

Is the promise of eternal life & happiness in exchange for obedience juxtaposed against the promise of eternal torture, damnation and death (you're supposed to ignore the contradiction) for disobedience, difficult for you to grasp as an example of coercion ?  

Could you provide a better example of coercion ?

It would appear that you are so unfamiliar w/ the concept of coercion, that you actually believe it does not exist unless it resorts to "physical" means.

And that makes me wonder why anyone would even bother offering a reply to you.

 Matter of fact, this is my third language. It's funny though. I am having very hard time understanding most of the posts here or on this forum in general. Like you, I have to read countless times to grasp the point. Maybe it's me. However, I do enjoy reading and I don't seem to have trouble reading fictions, philosophy, economics, or scientific studies.

Anyhow, if you read the entire paragraph, you should understand what I meant by it. This simply means that we have a different standard when it comes to religious tolerance. If you need me to explain more, please email me at [email protected]... I think I am getting too tired of checking back to the web site. Hopefully you or others won't spam me.

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

Ok, about occurrences after 9/11

Afghanistan perhaps changed to be a better place than before, but we have to look at Iraq (and Afghanistan as well) and general muslim community in the middle east. Since the departure of Saddam, Iraq is shifting to be more like Iran or other similar countries. I am not even talking about aggression against Americans or West in general. Their political system is being heavily influenced by religious groups. Groups that you might consider as extremists. A simple fact I had learned from a class is that Saddam never liked terrorists or these religious groups that I am talking about. He always felt threaten of terrorist or these religious groups. But, he negotiated without having a good alliance. The country has shift from dictatorship to a religious fanatic nation. Well, I guess it hasn't quite changed to be that. However, the change is coming. Many muslim people do see America as a threat. That threat may not be a military threat, but religious one. Anyway, if you need me to explain it more, I guess I can try. Just email me.

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

About coercion....

Yes, please define coercion. Word "terrorism" has many meanings or definitions. Using terrorism as an example could be a bad idea, but I think it has somewhat of relationship when it comes to the use of the word. I would imagine there are more definition or unique definition that you may propose.

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

"Is the promise of eternal life & happiness in exchange for obedience juxtaposed against the promise of eternal torture, damnation and death (you're supposed to ignore the contradiction) for disobedience, difficult for you to grasp as an example of coercion ?  "

Yes, and it is somewhat difficult for me to understand what you are saying here. You are counting out the individual rights, and perhaps you are believing that people do not have the capability to think for themselves. Obviously, you do not believe in eternal life or damnation. Could others agree with you on those two things, yet are they forced to believe in Christian god? Once again, I must need a specific definition of coercion that you are discussing here.

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

"Could you provide a better example of coercion ?"

Well, my definition is simple. It is a use of intimidation or unethical use of power to force others to agree or comply. Do I have an example? I really don't know. I don't think I have seen a coercion in my life. I can, however, tell you what I saw from a TV show. An episode from one of my fav. show "raising the bar" can be an example. A NYPD wants to solve a murder case and he is incline to believe that a woman had seen the suspect. So, he uses his authority unethically by arresting the witness for bogus charges and threatens her to comply or she would lose her two kids and will face jail time. That, I would say, is a clear coercion.

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

"It would appear that you are so unfamiliar w/ the concept of coercion, that you actually believe it does not exist unless it resorts to "physical" means."

So, my example is a 'physical' mean? I would love to know more about it if you can enlighten me. If there is more to it, especially from what you are proposing, I would love to know more about it.

Please send an email if it is not much of trouble. I should make an account here, but I will probably stop posting after this week. This is like a full time job!!

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

By the way, you haven't necessarily answered my questions from my previous post. I would love it if you do. If I need to clarify something let me know. You can email me.

LOL, cjrlhwanj, I'm disappointed by your questions but glad that you may be seriously searching for peace of mind. Disappointed that you are not more aware the many philosophies and their relationship to religions, and why even religion itself. 

To fairly answer your questions would be time consuming. Keep reading RRS. I post a lot of links, along with my brazen rants, at RRS and you can "Track" them by clicking on my name. Look for religion , god type posts. As much as I goof around with words and shout, I am serious about peoples god concepts, and the very use linguistically of the word g-o-d.

  Google is G-O-D, seriously ask and receive !

For many of the world, to say the word "god", doesn't mean a "supernatural deity"

Here a few mostly recent links I found thinking about you,

Google Zen Buddhism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen

 ... it de-emphasizes both theoretical knowledge and the study of religious texts in favor of direct, experiential realization ...

http://www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us/History/Japan/02/miklos/miklos.htm
Zen Buddhism: Its Roots and Beliefs - Andrew Miklos

Zen has a deep past, due to the fact that it was developed from Buddhism and transformed into a mixture of Taoism, Confucianism, Indian spiritualism, and Buddhism
    The ancient religion of the samurai is not in fact a true religion by definition, as the practitioner of Zen does not worship any god, but, in essence, worships the body’s complexity, especially the complexity of the mind ....... anyone who embraces the belief of the belief of no faith has a good chance of achieving Enlightenment.
 

>>>> This is an xlint site to explore,

http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml8941.htm

http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9524.htm

________________________

From a chat line - http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Buddhists-Atheist-t76486.html

Are Buddhists atheist?
Fact is that some are atheists and some are not.
Are Buddhists honest?
Fact is that some are honest and some are not.
Are Buddhists drunk alot?
Fact is that some are drunk alot and some are not.
Are Buddhists sexy?
Fact is that some are sexy and some are not.
Are Buddhists ???.............you get the idea I hope

Buddha Shakyamuni mentioned very little about a God or the existence of a soul ,etc.

But we can safely assume that any notion of a monotheistic-creator God is rejected in Buddhism. The continual cycles of birth and death are (or have been) repeated eternally, without a begining or end.

It would not be inaccurate to say that Buddhists were atheists if pushed. But not in the militant materialist sense . Buddhist work towards their salvation on their own efforts alone. And not in relying upon a superior force outside of themselves.

Yes. Buddhists are are essentually atheists.
"No god, no Brahma can be called
The Maker of this Wheel of Life:
Just empty phenomena roll on
Dependent on conditions all."

____ Visuddhi Magga ____

Essentially Buddhism is concerned with the here and now.

The Buddha said to investigate everything, even if the Buddha said something, you should investigate yourself and decide if it is right.

Buddha did exort his disciples to reject all traditional forms of authority when he told them that they should not accept any claim merely on the basis of appeal to holy scripture or that it was said by a great yogi; rather he says "if you find that it appeals to your sense of discrimination and conscience as being conducive to your benefit and happiness, then accept it and live up to it." This of course is a famous quote. ~~~~~~

http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/beliefs/atheism.htm
As seen in the Basic Points of Buddhism, one doctrine agreed upon by all branches of modern Buddhism is that "this world is not created and ruled by a God."

The Buddha himself rejected metaphysical speculation as a matter of principle, and his teachings focused entirely on the practical ways to end suffering.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/35/story_3562_1.html
If There's No God in Buddhism, Are Buddhists Atheists? [ Agnostic or Atheist and Pantheist = no idol worship ]

Definition of Pantheism -  http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/faq1112.htm#2c.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/wir_cultural_versus_scholarly.html

Cultural Religion Versus Scholarly Religion
By Vexen Crabtree 2005 May 28
     Conclusion
It is frequently difficult to say if a religion is the beliefs of most of its followers or if a religion is what is preached by its scholars. Frequently the formal doctrine of a religion contradicts what the popular beliefs are of most of its adherents. The mean grassroots of a religion is nearly always watered-down, mixed-up, confused and ignorant. It is often pick-and-mixed from multiple sources, cultural traditions and folklore all blended haphazardly with the scholarly portion of the religion. Formal and developed scholarly religion, such as Christian philosophy or Muslim Sufi philosophy, is often complex, more complete, demanding to study and frequently convoluted as the religions' scholars debate its weak spots and difficult spots. The more difficult the area of study of a religion, the more maze-making its scholars will do in attempts to explain away irrationality. The more complex and difficult the intellectual aspect of a religion, the more the lowly masses will fail to comprehend or implement it.

You will need to engage the grassroots religion or the scholarly religion in different circumstances. Frequently you will need to address the cultural beliefs to the religions' followers, who are less intelligent, and address more scholarly and political concerns to the religions' leaders. A "religion" is a contradictory mix of both what the leaders say the religion is, plus what the mass of the actual followers believe. The difference between the intellectual top of a religion is normally quite an opposite to the grassroots bottom of the same religion!
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/buddhism_atheism.html

  Good one >>> http://www.hinduism.co.za/jesus.htm

 "Atheists For Jesus" site -   http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com/

  ~~~  Me, You, buddha, jesus, all life, the dirt, the stars, god, are all the same. Don't let religious dogma and folklore mess your peace up. You are g-o-d and nothing is greater nor separate from you. God has no religion, nor I, all is ONE.

  2 short videos,  

Carl Sagan - "Pale Blue Dot" , 3 min
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M

"Wisdom of the Buddha" , 8 min
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTsb-woP3jI

  ..... P.S. FCC = the promotion of idol worship (religion) , anti democracy , and stupidity ......