226 replies to this topic

[Hal 9000]

pobozni su se bas razlajali na ovom forumu, potrebno im je zacepti usta - za sada argumentima



God is a man-made creation

Men invented the idea of gods to explain what they could not explain any other way.
Now the need for gods has gone, man cannot explain everything but science has come up with enough answers that seem to sketch out much of the important features in our Universe, there seems no place for God to be hiding.

Next to my computer is a map of the world. It has most of the continents placed in roughly the right place. The shape of South America is clearly discernible. North America is a mess. It has Virginia marked but little else has its current name. Much of the detail is obvious guesswork. It is interesting to note that the map maker guessed right in putting a southern continent covering the pole but showing the North Pole with no land. He got the size of the southern continent a bit wrong though, Antarctica is not bigger than Asia or joined to the northern tip of Australia or Tierra del Fuego. I see this map as a reasonable metaphor for mankind's current knowledge of the Universe, we know a lot, we have made some good guesses about the rest. Time will prove many guesses wrong. But we know enough to do the equivalent of sailing from Europe to Japan without expecting to find dragons in our way.


Good stories never die. God continues to have a hold on us because it is a good story. The idea of God has been with us for thousands of years. Good stories get re-told. The story of God is a meme, an idea that has what it takes to get itself replicated. It has a hold on us because it is a meme complex, a series of ideas that get bundled together and get passed on together.

Nobody hears about God in isolation, suddenly coming across the idea for the first time in a theology lecture at the age of 18. The idea of God is so prevalent in our society that we never really learn it in the way we learn a foreign language, we learn it in the way we learn our own language. We learn it before we have become critical thinkers, it pollutes all our thoughts the way PCBs pollute our mother's milk. Before we know for ourselves if God exists or not we know where he lives, what he does to little boys and girls that are naughty and that he made all the flowers and the the birds and if we are bad he will tell Santa Claus not to come to give us any presents. We learn all the baggage that comes along with the central idea before we are capable of analysing the central concept. Before we are capable of knowing what a religious experience is we know that the Bible is always right. We have leaned lots of Bible stories and we have been armed with the religious inoculation against atheism and other religions.

Here is a short list of ideas that were well established in my head before I was old enough to decide I didn't believe a word of it:-


"Don't tempt me satan." An excellent all purpose inoculation against reasoned argument from any quarter. The smart thing is that the more intelligent the challenge to Christian orthodoxy the more obviously diabolical the source is shown to be. The fact that an argument for atheism appears to be reasonable proves it must come from the horned deceiver himself. If this piece does not convince you from your God fearing ways it is because I am only one of the master's lesser imps, the fallen angel himself is busy writing television sit-com scripts and rock lyrics. (Note, that was IRONY)

Unbelievers go to Hell. This is a classic memetic strategy, it gives reward to those that pass on the meme. If you know that your actions will save a soul from torment it is your duty to act. If catching that soul before they are old enough to resist indoctrination improves the chances that the soul will be saved then not to indoctrinate would surely be a sin. If frightening children saves their soul then it is your duty to do it. Accepting that logic is only a small step from accepting the need to marry your niece when she is thirteen to keep her in the bosom of the true faith, or of killing your whole family to save their souls from the satanic messages on MTV.

Suffer little children to come unto me. This means allowing children to learn the wonderful works of Jesus. No parent is going to be convinced by a conspiratorial idea to tell their children to believe something early while there is a chance the child will accept it without thinking. That is a poor reward for passing on the message. But Jesus is quoted as saying himself that children must be allowed to learn the message early, for their own good. Tied up with this is the thoroughly evil idea that the souls of unbaptized dead children will be denied a place in heaven.

The Bible is the word of God. This is another key belief in the interlocking series of ideas that help perpetuate religion. The Bible is the revealed word of God, revealed to the writers of the Bible, which contains the revealed word of God. Remember, you learned this before you learned that tautology was a weak form of argument, and you learned it from the experts in the Bible, which is the revealed word of God, they must know what they are talking about. They are men of God. They know the Bible. The Bible is the Gospel Truth after all. If you believe that the Bible contains the word of God then you can prove your point, look! There it is, in the Bible! I can give you chapter and verse, what more proof do you need?

Faith is a virtue. Belief without proof is a virtue for the religious. To the scientist belief without evidence is gross professional misconduct. By turning a weakness into a strength the idea of faith squares the circle and smoothes down all the rough edges of any religion. Lenin tried to rid Russia of belief in God, but he kept blind faith in the motherland and the party instead.

Note, all those ideas were firmly in place in my head before I was old enough to use my own brain for myself. That is why Christianity, and similar well structured religions, have so much power over their believers. Before you confront the central point of whether or not you believe in God you have such a wealth of ammunition to prove to yourself that God must exist you don't really need to believe in any positive way at all.

Once you break that circle of self proof the Bible becomes just another book, written by many different people over a long time. For some reason it is no longer legitimate to add to the Bible, but obviously in biblical times, it was. Whoever gave legitimacy to the writers of the Bible is obviously no longer around. Christians say it is God who gives the Bible legitimacy... But that is a cheap debating point unworthy of me.

Religion and Morality


Religion and morality go together like boiled beef and carrots. You often find them together but it is perfectly possible to have one without the other.

Many people have swallowed the idea that morality started with religion to such an extent that they cannot separate the two. I myself was under the impression that religion had a significant causative link to morality until quite recently when I came to see the truth.

Man is a primate. All primates have innate morality. A moral sense is vitally important to the efficient running of any society or group. There are no amoral primate groups anywhere. The Mafia have morals, baboons have codes. There are differences between the various groups and their codes of morality but all primate groups have some morals and standards of behaviour. Religion is also very common but it is not universal and it did not cause the codes or the instinct to observe them. These are facts that need to be clearly stated. Morality does not require religion.

In Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union millions of people were brought up during the middle decades of the twentieth century in a state that was thoroughly atheist and many of the households and communities within those states were also atheist. There was no collapse of morality. You were not more likely to be robbed, raped, murdered or cheated in Leningrad than you were in Manchester. Why? Why did people freed from the fear of divine retribution not suddenly start behaving like amoral animals? Because we are animals. We are political animals, animals that need to live within societies and feel respected by them.

Religion is not the bulwark of morality any more than the cockerel crowing if the cause of the dawn or the virgin sacrifices are the cause of the volcano keeping quiet. This trick has been perpetrated on people for centuries and people continue to fall for it. It is very reminiscent of the great Santa Claus conspiracy. The surest way to lose a job on television is to state clearly that there is no such person as Santa Claus. No adult believes in Santa Claus, but most are part of the conspiracy. We mustn't let children know that there is no Santa Claus because ... er, well, because. And we mustn't let the people, especially the poor, know there is no God because, well, because. We wouldn't want to face those consequences would we?

What is there to be afraid of in the truth that God is just as much an imaginary being as the bogeyman, the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy? None whatsoever. Morality in our species does not rest upon fear of God. We act morally because to do so makes us feel good about ourselves and makes us better friends and allies. Being good and moral is the right thing to do for your own selfish self interest. The best thing we can do as a society to make morality more widespread and more potent is to strip away all aspects of religion from it. Being good is the right thing to do because it simply is the right thing. We as a species have an innate sense of morality just as we have an innate ability to learn language. We need it. We are political animals. We have an innate sense of what is or is not fair. We need respect and the esteem of our neighbours, friends and colleagues. This makes us behave morally.

Our morality breaks down with anonymity. It is no surprise that the biggest cities in the world have the most selfish drivers. If you drive in a small town in Kansas you see people being polite and well mannered not because they fear the wrath of God but simply because in small communities people expect to interact again with you at another time. In contrast in New York, Hong Kong or Rome the rule of the road is to curse and never trust the other driver.

The way to keep morality and lose the encumbrances of religion is to promote morality in and of itself. We as a species know what morality is and we recognize moral behaviour when we see it. We are naturally moral because we have developed complex instincts to help us in social situations. These instincts work as long as we allow them instead of burying them in external threats and admonishments. The ten commandments do not help us discover ultimate morality. We all know it when we see it. The way to get people to behave in a moral way is to trust them, to integrate them and to allow them to develop fully as individuals in a caring society. People will only act as amoral criminals if they fall into a criminal subculture, are mentally deficient in morality (rare conditions do exist that cause these problems) or are in a situation in which crime really does pay in a way that can become a life choice.

However you cannot create a moral society with nothing but kindness. We also need something else, something deeply unfashionable but vital to the healthy running of any society; intolerance. We must promote intolerance of criminality and cheating. We as social animals naturally despise the cheat and the thief, but too many liberal bed-wetter types have been telling us that the thief only steals because of what we do to him. This line must be resisted and fought from both ends. We must both minimize the lure of cheating by ensuring that all can live without falling into crime and at the same type promote natural justice in the community. Criminals must be ostracized. But this is not enough. People who use the glamour of crime and immorality vicariously to achieve their legal business ends must also be shunned. Refuse to watch films that glamorize crime and violence. Refuse to buy music produced by violently antisocial people. Walk away from people who talk about such things. If you are introduced to somebody who makes their living from glorifying violence and crime wipe your hand and walk away. They might claim that they are just satisfying a demand, they are right, but we as individuals should see to it that we never add to that demand and do all we can to spurn those that do.

God cannot punish the wrongdoer or the man who sells his products with images of crime and violence but we can. How many crimes have been prevented by the fear of God? Do Christians never commit crime or sin? Do atheists spend all their days stealing from charity collection boxes, murdering strangers and sexually abusing children? There is no link between belief in the supernatural and God and morality. If the only reason a Christian can give for continued belief in his incredible theory is the idea that such a belief is a useful tool to keep the poor from falling into immorality then his religion is morally bankrupt. The only purpose I can see in religion is as a way to catch the attention in order to reinforce the messages of the natural morality that we as a species are already responding to. It cannot be beyond the wit of our species to come up with other ways to spread lessons of morality than this. Surely the poor and the dangerous will be inclined to listen more clearly if we treat them as adults rather than simply threatening them with the bogeyman again?


Why Atheism?


Why should you choose Atheism? Why not be a Christian, or Hindu, or Muslim?

One of the great strengths of Atheism is that lets you take a good, hard look at the workings of the universe and say, "This is so incredible - and yet humans can still understand it."

It lets you take the universe in the palm of your hand, and realise that you — a finite, fallible, weak human being — during your brief span as conscious entity on one tiny speck in a tiny solar system in one tiny, insignificant part of the cosmos, can comprehend at least part of an infinity of possibilities and beauties. Your mind can comprehend the gears and pulleys of the universe in all its wonder and splendour; you're like a cosmic engineer who's finally been given the keys to the boiler room of the totality of existence.

Awesome doesn't even come near that feeling.

OK, but suppose you're jaded? Suppose you're a cynic who's been fed on a daily diet of bland, meaningless pap until your senses have fallen to their knees and died, screaming?

Perhaps that last was a touch melodramatic, but the point remains; what's in it for you if you don't get that sense of cosmic awe?

Why should you choose to disbelieve if you're not so in love with the innate coolness of everything?

Because Atheism lets you be what you were born to be: a rational human being, capable of great joy, capable of making wonderful discoveries about the universe and everything in it. You can be a poet, a scientist, a writer or doctor — anything at all

You have the intellectual freedom to explore the inner workings of the world. As you start learning about the world around you, you'll probably find that you want to learn more and more. Freedom of any kind after a prolonged period of confinement creates a hunger, a desire to utilise that freedom any way you can.

People who have recently left prison frequently find a pleasure in the simplest things that the rest of us take for granted: eating when they want to, reading what they want to, being able to go out and get fresh air when they feel like it, sitting in the garden enjoying the sun.

People who have been in the prison of the intellect can only do one thing: learn. This is the mental equivalent of opening the front door and walking down the street to the crossroads — and walking wherever you want to go.

Religions discourage certain types of thought. That's a given. If the only way you know to understand the world is by saying "God did this," or "Evolution contradicts the Bible, and is false," or "The only way to salvation is through my religion," how can you let your mind develop to its fullest potential? You can't.

If your religion tells you that euthanasia, or abortion, or cloning, or birth control or reading certain books is wrong, how can you honestly say that you make any kind of decisions in your life? You can't; you didn't decide — you were told what to think, you were told what to be. Decisions involve thought. They may involve minimal thought, you may decide things on the spur of the moment, or on what your gut is telling you, but a least you have the option.

You may even reach the same conclusions as your church taught you. You may decide, after thinking about it, that abortion is wrong, that euthanasia amounts to murder, that cloning is dangerous, and that birth control denies the rights of future people to exist. That's fine — because you did it yourself. You used your brain and thought about it, and the brain is the only thing preventing us from being just another freaky species of ape.

Your ability to reason and think is what makes you special, they are what gives you value above everything else around you, they are what gives you value as a human being. Reasoning defines humanity, not the genes, or way we live or colour of our skin.

What else do you gain from Atheism?

You become personally responsible for your own deeds and actions — no god or devil made you do something. You did it yourself. This is tremendously empowering; the knowledge that you can change your world for the better is a heady and intoxicating brew. With this often comes a maturity; this isn't a given. No one is suggesting that all Theists are akin to children, blundering through the world with blinkers on. But when you finally realise that what you do is your own responsibility, that you can't pin the blame for it on some spiritual entity sitting on your shoulder, you begin to realise that your actions affect other people, for good or worse. This is the first step on the road to adulthood. Maturity isn't dependent upon getting older — it's dependent upon getting wiser.

No one is sitting up there judging you, either. No one is sitting on his throne and saying "Joe Bloggs masturbates! Off to Hell with him!" or "John ate pork and worked on the Sabbath! Satan, go and torment him for his sins!" before hurling a lightning bolt in a fit of pique.

You have freedom from unnecessary guilt, with Atheism; sin is a myth. The only crimes are hurting others or on the statute books. The invisible goblins of original sin or innate evil never existed; no man or woman is born evil, we can only become evil through our own choices.

Another commonly cited objection to Atheism is that it generally allows for no afterlife, that this life is all we have, that there is no hope for the future. This is a strength of Atheism rather than a weakness. As human beings, we live in the moment, and to hold out false hopes of some better place because of what we do during our lives on Earth is to deny that. We live in the moment, we enjoy life and feel so strongly because we only have one life. Death could come at any moment, life could cease. That is what makes life so precious: its fragility, the sense that it could end at any time. Instead of working towards some invisible reward after death, we can make the world better right now, in the moment we're living in. The world is a fantastic place, and to call it a mere waystation on the way to something else demeans and trivialises everything good and worthwhile within it. Religion tries to deny the reality of death, when the reality of death is, in effect, a way to make ourselves acknowledge that what we do and are is truly precious. Relegating life to a training ground for heaven cheapens it, and dehumanises everyone.

The only way heaven can be a real place is if we make it here on Earth, and the only way to do that is to recognise and salute the fact that we are mortal, fragile, ephemeral beings, and that we have a limited time here. Our span on Earth may be brief and fleeting, but we burn brighter because of it. A sunrise is only beautiful because it happens once a day; the same applies to a human life. We are beautiful and special creatures because we're not going to live forever. Atheism brings you to terms with your mortality, it allows you to embrace it as a fact and not be afraid. There is no final judgement, and no one spends an eternity suffering; the only judgement we receive is here, while we are alive. You only get one life, so you'd better make the best of it you can.

Atheism lets you become the best you be. All religions are aimed, directly or indirectly, at suppressing what it means to be a human being.

Only Atheism lets you have the freedom to be truly human — and what a wonderful thing that is.


Where do Atheists Get Their Morality From?


From wherever they think best.
Atheism is not a worldview. It doesn't carry any obligation to any kind of political or moral system. In that sense, it is amoral. Note that it is amoral, not immoral. Immorality is flouting the conventions of one's own morality; amorality is being without morality.

You would be justified in asking, then, if this means that in practical terms that Atheists have no morality. The answer is, of course, that Atheists can and do have morality and ethical codes. What the amorality of Atheism entails is a lack of obligation to any system of morality.

An Atheist can have any system of morality he or she wishes.

Why should an Atheist be moral, without a god to make him to do so? You may as well ask why he should use his head for something besides a mobile hat rack. Morality is a built-in condition of humanity; the moral tendency exists in just about everyone, barring psychopaths.



Where does the Moral Tendency come from?
And that, luckily enough, leads us to the foundational principle of morality: empathy. Psychopaths lack empathy with their fellow human beings, and cannot be truly said to have a moral impulse.

The principle of morality is empathy; what differs are our approaches to that principle, and how we interpret our feelings of empathy in order to make a coherent system.



Why do we feel empathy?
Human beings are society animals; we are tribal, fundamentally speaking, and it is this which forms the basis of human morality. It also forms the idea of justice; through our empathy for other humans, we seek to mete out punishment to wrongdoers on the same level of seriousness as the crimes they have committed.

The only difference between people is how they codify and rationalise this morality, and attempt to apply it in rational terms to the way they live. As well as being emotionally-led creatures, we're also afflicted, as a species, with a curiosity which would put cats to shame. This is what, in my opinion, ultimately leads to us assigning causes to things, whether through frustration at not knowing, as with Theism; or through reasoned and rational methods, as with science. It is also the foundation of reasoning and rationality; it's a great deal easier to find out how things work if you use a consistent system of thought, whether intentionally or not.

We attempt to apply our curiosity and the reasoning engendered by it onto everything, which is where we frequently fall into trouble.

Empathy is an inherently subjective emotion. We feel empathy to different degrees according to our relationships with people; mostly for our families or those with the closest emotional bonds to us, then to other members of the 'tribe', and finally to outsiders.



What other reasons can an Atheist have for morality?
Well, there is also the principle of enlightened self-interest; I can be altruistic and kind, because it will eventually benefit me. Is this selfish? Yes, and no. In one way, it is, simply because one is seeking to better one's own situation; but in another, it is not, because it first benefits the situation of others.

What ways do we have of codifying our moral tendency? Enlightened self-interest can be used to expand the empathy concept to new levels, to include everyone. If the whole world is a better place, rather than just my street, surely I benefit from this.



Ways of acting morally
The Golden Rule is perhaps the best known fundamental moral principle, and one of the simplest. It states

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
This is a useful and essentially satisfying way to act. It relies on enlightened self-interest and the principle of empathy to get results.

An expanded version of this rule is called the Categorical Imperative, and was formulated by the philosopher Immanuel Kant. He came up with it as a means of expanding and clarifying on the process of how ought becomes is.

The Categorical Imperative is basically as follows:

Whatever you do, consider the consequences if your actions were a universal law.
It's a means of testing the moral dimension of our own actions before we take them. What would the world be like if everyone acted exactly as you do in the same situation? If every time you pass someone collecting for a charity, you don't give any money because the next person might, consider how it would affect things if everyone expected the next person to give instead.

Humanism is another system of morality; it is too big a topic to go into here, to be frank. Briefly, though: Humanism is founded on the principle that the only 'saviour' of humanity is humanity itself. To this end, it relies on compassion and enlightened self-interest to foster a sense of altruism and community. A fuller and more accurate look at Humanism can be found at http://www.americanhumanism.org; Humanism is such a massive topic that it is beyond the scope of this article to examine it in detail.

To conclude, though, it should be said that these are not the only options. If all your morality rests upon is a gut feeling of what is right and wrong, it is every bit as valid as any of these, or any other, systems.

However, morality entails the making of choices in difficult situations, and sometimes a gut feeling isn't enough; sometimes we don't have any feeling one way or the other, or our feelings are ambiguous. If you have a codified system of morality, you can more easily make difficult moral decisions, or at least have some kind of rational basis to make them on.

How you make your moral choices is not important, but the fact that you make them at all is. No matter what your reasons for choosing a particular moral stand, you should always remember that no morals are absolute, and that you always have a choice.


Should We Tolerate the Religious?


Toleration of all forms of unfounded belief and the strange practices those beliefs give rise to are protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the constitutions of the virtually all democratic countries. Why?

What is it about the irrational beliefs we know as religions that makes them different?

If people have unusual and irrational beliefs we usually treat them as mentally ill, or dangerous, untrustworthy or misguided. But there are whole classes of irrational beliefs that we treat entirely differently. Instead of marking out their adherents as strange and dangerous we conspire among ourselves to value their absurd beliefs. We actually come to value the people who hold these absurd beliefs, often above the ordinary people with more rational beliefs. Some people are actually jealous of people because they succeed in believing more outlandish things, people actually envy the minds that can more fully suspend their innate resistance to believing absurdities. Holier than thou, more faithful than thou; more credulous than thou.

What have they done to us? How have they managed to engineer this absurd situation? Not only do people with irrational beliefs not suffer the scorn they clearly deserve but they have built up a notion within the wider community that the toleration of the religious is the greatest test of any society or state. If there was a country with no unemployment, no crime, no disease and no religion too they would call it a tyranny, and we would probably believe them.

Do the religious tolerate?
All religions demand that we tolerate them and their practices. Do they reciprocate? In a kosher pig's eye.

Religions are profoundly intolerant of other beliefs and especially of those with no such absurd beliefs. The atheists and agnostics are tarred with the same brush as the devil worshipers and dupes of the powers of their hell. They spread the idea that only through their own brand of self-lobotomy can a human being become whole and worthy.

Most religions have a huge list of insults they use to describe the out-group and pour scorn upon them. Some of these words and phrases have been so widely used that we have forgotten what they mean and the baggage of hate that they carry:-

Heretic

Idolater

Barbarian

Primitive

Profane

Sinful

Diabolical

Blasphemer

Infidel

Pagan

Heathen

Sacrilegious

Impious

Evil


and last but by no means least that little word gentile.

They all come down to us and them, sheep and goats, saved and the damned. Is it just a coincidence that it is always the outsiders that get the bad name and the roasting in the hells of the in-group's own devising?

Some religions try to put up a facade of toleration, but usually only when they are in the minority. Sikhs, Moslems and even Christians are very big on talk of toleration when they are surrounded by people of other faiths and none, but when in power the history of religions seems to be the same, absolute power leads to intolerance. Religious persecution has been a justification for genocidal killing throughout history. There is no distinction to be made between Catholic and Protestant, sun worshipers, Moslems or the gods of Rome. When a religion has the ear of the state it uses that influence to persecute the out-group; only lack of absolute power keeps religions from persecuting their enemies. The claim of the universal plea for religious tolerance comes only from a community that is resigned to pluralism.

Religions press for tolerance for all religions as long as they are not in the overwhelming majority or in control of the civil power, in that case they discriminate only in favour of their own cause.

Do religions deserve an even break?
Given that religions hypocritically call for tolerance only when they see themselves as beneficiaries should the rest of us listen to their special pleas?

My answer is that they should be allowed an even break, but no more. They should be allowed to continue to operate but that does not give them any special concessions. They do not deserve charitable status and special tax status. They should be free to advertise just as any political or commercial cause is free to do so, that is, subject to law. Coca Cola is not allowed to claim that drinking its products will bring you everlasting life, to allow a Church to make such a claim without evidence would be inequitable. People who sell diet supplements are not allowed to make outlandish claims for them, why should we allow religions to make outlandish claims without some cautionary note added similar to the "can help weight loss only as part of a calorie controlled diet".

How about

“Believe in me and have everlasting life” Jesus
CAUTION
This message is classified as religious according to the
Religious Messages Act. No proof is required or available for such an assertion.
Making life changing choices based on such assertions is not rational.

Putting such a caution on religious messages would not stop the religions from advertising just as compulsory health warnings do not stop cigarette companies advertising. They might even wear those cautions as badges of honour, just as rappers display the cautions about explicit lyrics with pride, often way beyond the covers of their records. Such messages may do everybody a favour. If a religion can't be compulsory the next best thing is for it to be mildly persecuted, it gives it some rebel-chic.

[iPhuck10]

Mislim da nemas prava da se ovako ponasas,jer je krajnje nedemokratski!
Prvo,ti ne verujes,ali ima ljudi koji veruju,i to treba postovati,a ne nametati im!
Drugo,jedna od osnovnih komponenti pojma gradjanina/ke jeste i njegovo/njeno religijsko opredeljenje
Trece,ljudsko pravo na veroispovest znaci da neko moze a ne mora da ispoveda veru!

Otkud ti pravo da drugima nameces svoj izbor?To je KRSENJE LJUDSKIH PRAVA!

[BlueSoniq]

Da li to znaci da ti koji veruju u iracionalno mogu da naturaju onima koji su razumni svoja ubedjenja? Ili da mogu svi da ispovedaju svoju veru, i recimo Jehovini svedoci ili Adventisti ili samoubice nekog sunca...............

[Zmitjkoe]

Prvo,ti ne verujes,ali ima ljudi koji veruju,i to treba postovati

Postovati? Ja razumem vasu potrebu da vas neko postuje kao osobu/licnost ali kao vernika - nikad. Cime zasluzuje postovanje neko ko veruje u Sveti Qurac (ili njegov protivnik koji veruje u Sveti Palac). Tolerancija je maximum koji mozete dobiti. I to ne uvek.

[Faraon zvezda i tame]

Krajnje je zalosno sto se broj vernika u nasoj zemlji tako dramaticno povecao u poslednjih 20 godina. Ja kad sam bio mali je bilo 95:5 u korist ateizma. Sada je potpuno invertirano, 95% je religiozno.

Ja ne znam kako neko moze tako brzo da menja ovako vazna ubedjenja.

Edited by Faraon zvezda i tame, 21 June 2004 - 11:48.

[Hal 9000]

Mislim da nemas prava da se ovako ponasas,jer je krajnje nedemokratski!
Prvo,ti ne verujes,ali ima ljudi koji veruju,i to treba postovati,a ne nametati im!
Drugo,jedna od osnovnih komponenti pojma gradjanina/ke jeste i njegovo/njeno religijsko opredeljenje
Trece,ljudsko pravo na veroispovest znaci da neko moze a ne mora da ispoveda veru!

Otkud ti pravo da drugima nameces svoj izbor?To je KRSENJE LJUDSKIH PRAVA!

ajde bre celavi socijal demokrato ne laprdaj

[kokoshkov]

Ateızam je apsurdno stajaliste s obzirom da ustaje protiv neceg cega nema. No, sa cisto socioloskog ili politickog aspekta, ateizam predstavlja borbenu politicku doktrinu koja cilja protiv hijerokratskih drustvenih emanacija. To je u redu, ali velicati ateizam kao Vrhovnu Istinu je isto sto i velicati Vrhovnu Istinu kao Vrhovnu Istinu.

[BlueSoniq]

Pre bi moglo da se kaze da ateizam ustaje protiv religije, a ne protiv boga.

[darwin]

The noun "atheism" has 2 senses in WordNet.

1. atheism, godlessness -- (the doctrine or belief that there is no God)
2. atheism -- (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods)

http://www.cogsci.pr...=1&word=atheism

[iPhuck10]

Postovati? Ja razumem vasu potrebu da vas neko postuje kao osobu/licnost ali kao vernika - nikad. Cime zasluzuje postovanje neko ko veruje u Sveti Qurac (ili njegov protivnik koji veruje u Sveti Palac). Tolerancija je maximum koji mozete dobiti. I to ne uvek.

Kao gradjanina/ku!Jer je religija,kao i nacija,komponenta pojma gradjanina/ke!Btw,Hale cegecvarku,ako nemas nista pametno da kazes,ne otvaraj usta!

[darwin]

Postovati? Ja razumem vasu potrebu da vas neko postuje kao osobu/licnost ali kao vernika - nikad. Cime zasluzuje postovanje neko ko veruje u Sveti Qurac (ili njegov protivnik koji veruje u Sveti Palac). Tolerancija je maximum koji mozete dobiti. I to ne uvek.

Kao gradjanina/ku!Jer je religija,kao i nacija,komponenta pojma gradjanina/ke!Btw,Hale cegecvarku,ako nemas nista pametno da kazes,ne otvaraj usta!

A seljane onda ne moras da postujes?

[Hal 9000]

Ateızam je apsurdno stajaliste s obzirom da ustaje protiv neceg cega nema. No, sa cisto socioloskog ili politickog aspekta, ateizam predstavlja borbenu politicku doktrinu koja cilja protiv hijerokratskih drustvenih emanacija. To je u redu, ali velicati ateizam kao Vrhovnu Istinu je isto sto i velicati Vrhovnu Istinu kao Vrhovnu Istinu.

naravno da posmatram ateizam kao politicki i drustveni pokret a ne kao velicanje vere u nepostojanje boga.

mene licno uopste ne interesuje da li postoji bog ili ne (mislim na boga kako ga zamisljaju judeo-hristofilo-muslimani i ostali hindusi) jer cak i ako postoji, trebalo bi ga likvidirati....

[iPhuck10]

Postovati? Ja razumem vasu potrebu da vas neko postuje kao osobu/licnost ali kao vernika - nikad. Cime zasluzuje postovanje neko ko veruje u Sveti Qurac (ili njegov protivnik koji veruje u Sveti Palac). Tolerancija je maximum koji mozete dobiti. I to ne uvek.

Kao gradjanina/ku!Jer je religija,kao i nacija,komponenta pojma gradjanina/ke!Btw,Hale cegecvarku,ako nemas nista pametno da kazes,ne otvaraj usta!

A seljane onda ne moras da postujes?

Nema veze sa podelom na selo i grad...

[Dragan]

" mene licno uopste ne interesuje da li postoji bog ili ne (mislim na boga kako ga zamisljaju judeo-hristofilo-muslimani i ostali hindusi) jer cak i ako postoji, trebalo bi ga likvidirati.... "

Da li vas tema religija posebno inspirise da pisete gluposti ili vi to uvek tako ?
Da ne bi bilo zabune - ja nisam vernik ni jedne vere i smatram da su religiozne organizacije i mnogi "vernici" ucinili mnogo zla, ali kao sto rekoh to ne opravdava nikoga da pise gluposti tipa "...ako bi bog postojao trebalo bi ga likvidirati".