If you're American...

KLook wrote:The beliefs enumerated by the founders were carefully worded to not promote a religion. They had enough of the Church of England.

Kevin

You put a negative connotation on something that was not negative. It promoted freedom of religion.

I don't know about all that athiest stuff. I know when I came back from the Nam, my faith was a big question in my heart & soul--after a few drunkin years being pretty crazy, I remember waking up at a brother Nam Vets home & in the Kitchen was a small framed picture/ poster entitled--"FOOTPRINTS" it was me, not him. PS--I'm far from a Bible thumper, but I know for a fact that there is a power a lot bigger then me. I chose to call him "Creator". With his guidence, I am where I am today.

KLook wrote:Don't mind Bill Fred. He is a little wound up right now and choosing to attack when he can't provide proof of anything. He is incorrect in my using PTA instead of PTL. I meant PTA. ALL groups are the same was the point. They are exclusive and inclusive. (If you think like they do) I have made no other assertions Bill other then historical references to murder and mayhem visited by religious groups. You typify the holier them thou attitude, getting shriller by the second rather then debating your points in a calm, constructive way. I can see you standing on a rock trying to rain down gods wrath on us unbelievers.
I didn't decide to become fully atheist until later in life, people like you made it possible. I have to deal with people here in this life, I'll deal with god when it is apparent he is a factor in my life.

Kevin

Hence the Episcopal Church

franco b wrote:

KLook wrote:The beliefs enumerated by the founders were carefully worded to not promote a religion. They had enough of the Church of England.

Kevin

You put a negative connotation on something that was not negative. It promoted freedom of religion.

it gives many people the reason to exist and move forward every day.

There ya go Fred, I cut out the part about blinders because I don't think you have any.

You put a negative connotation on something that was not negative. It promoted freedom of religion

I did not type anything negative? Just the fact that the framers were careful because they had experienced religious persecution. (Some of them)
They knew the pitfalls of something as powerful at religion. Salem comes to mind.

Kevin

KLook wrote:I did not type anything negative? Just the fact that the framers were careful because they had experienced religious persecution. (Some of them)
They knew the pitfalls of something as powerful at religion. Salem comes to mind.

What they banned was Federal sponsorship of a particular religion. All the faiths and sects were perfectly free to be as arbitrary as they pleased and persecute who they pleased which they soon did with Mormons and Jews.

. All the faiths and sects were perfectly free to be as arbitrary as they pleased

Yes, yes. Which ties into what I had to say about groups in general being all the same. Religious or not they are groups of people that get together for their similarities not their differences. Unless you are in the group with Bill, they are glowing bright virgin white and never fart.
Sorry if that sounded negative. There was a lot of country to move into and promote your own savior or vision of one in those days. It is still going on in Maine. There is a new church on every corner and the standard joke is(amongst us heathens) that the Christians can't get along long enough to get through Sunday. So they leave and build their own church of the special few or empty pew. Take your pick.

Kevin

franco b wrote:

SteveZee wrote:Religeon in general has been responsible for more bloodshed than atheism ever has since the dawn of time.

Genghis Khan, Alexander, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Mao. Quite a lot of bloodshed there too, without any religion. Atheists all. Aggression is fundamental to our species. Religion has nothing to do with it and has always sought to curb the nastier parts of human nature. What that nature is and why we do what we do is a study that is still largely ignored, probably because it conflicts with our own God like image of ourselves. We are a lot less free than we believe ourselves to be.

Mao and Stalin I'll buy, but Adolph fancied himself a good Christian doing God's work.
“I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty
Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.”

[Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]

Alexander was a pagan and worshiped the Greek god's of the day and Napoleon Bonaparte was also no atheist. He believed in God but not organized religion. Most all of them had their God's Richard. They thought they were on the side "of right" with so many victories.
You are absolutely right about aggression and human nature though and I'll give you that religion helped "originally" to try and curb some of that. But as is the case with most things started with the best of intentions, humans corrupt those intentions for their own gains.

KLook wrote:

. Unless you are in the group with Bill, they are glowing bright virgin white and never fart.
Sorry if that sounded negative.

Kevin

What exactly is your problem? Just because you can't defend yourself doesn't make me the bad guy because I never claimed to be perfect or sinless. Why is it you're so bitter against Christians when atheists are just as guilty as those that you continually point out to justify your religion. Here I'll give you a definition that you can understand......A religious person attempts to justify himself by his actions before God whereas a Christian KNOWS that they can't justify themselves before God.

KLook wrote:

. All the faiths and sects were perfectly free to be as arbitrary as they pleased

Yes, yes. Which ties into what I had to say about groups in general being all the same. Religious or not they are groups of people that get together for their similarities not their differences. Unless you are in the group with Bill, they are glowing bright virgin white and never fart.
Sorry if that sounded negative. There was a lot of country to move into and promote your own savior or vision of one in those days. It is still going on in Maine. There is a new church on every corner and the standard joke is(amongst us heathens) that the Christians can't get along long enough to get through Sunday. So they leave and build their own church of the special few or empty pew. Take your pick.

Kevin

Yes you are astute in recognizing aspects of human behavior and you have an emotional (spiritual) response to it. Isn't there a pervasive nature to the actions you describe and your feelings toward it? Why do both occur? Why is logic at a loss? Why do seemingly normal people behave illogically in your view? Not that they do or don't do, but why? That we don't have answers to these questions is why some recognize that there is a pervasive force beyond our understanding.

A very comfortable recognition at that Richard.

That we don't have answers to these questions is why some recognize that there is a pervasive force beyond our understanding.

I have known some very astute and intelligent people that turned to the gospel after starting out looking for answers. In questioning them in civil debates like you and I are having, they describe their frustration that science cannot answer the ultimate question. I can only conclude that many people, no matter the intellect, HAVE to have an answer to function day to day. To be religious is not a bad thing unless you go overboard, and I know some of those also. All things in moderation. I however do not need such propping up, for whatever reason. AND I will put my morals up against anyone you can find. The ten commandments are what I would call natural moral laws that man would come to over the thousands of years of governing people. The early people were every bit as smart as today, and they had no technology to distract them. Much of their time was observing the human animal and how he acted and reacted. We have not advanced far in understanding human minds for a long time.
So atheist is not a dirty word, just to people that insist I think like them or put money in the till.

Kevin

KLook wrote:

That we don't have answers to these questions is why some recognize that there is a pervasive force beyond our understanding.

I have known some very astute and intelligent people that turned to the gospel after starting out looking for answers. In questioning them in civil debates like you and I are having, they describe their frustration that science cannot answer the ultimate question. I can only conclude that many people, no matter the intellect, HAVE to have an answer to function day to day. To be religious is not a bad thing unless you go overboard, and I know some of those also. All things in moderation. I however do not need such propping up, for whatever reason. AND I will put my morals up against anyone you can find. The ten commandments are what I would call natural moral laws that man would come to over the thousands of years of governing people. The early people were every bit as smart as today, and they had no technology to distract them. Much of their time was observing the human animal and how he acted and reacted. We have not advanced far in understanding human minds for a long time.
So atheist is not a dirty word, just to people that insist I think like them or put money in the till.

Kevin

That's a good observation right there Kevin. Back in the near past people didn't have the "spare" time they do now and most of their lives were spent on the business of living. I agree that the "commandments" certainly came from the experiences of people trying to live together in groups and civilizations in some sort of relative peace.
That religion was able to take credit for a moral list(commandments or any others) was quite a coup for them I'd say and was responsible for people "buying in". That's the allure of many religions I'd venture to guess? Being part of a group that is moral, social, espousing good will, and attempting to answer questions that cannot then or presently be answered. It's nice until it becomes something else that is intolerant towards others and/or becomes our way or the highway. While it is a fine thing for some people, I too don't think it is a requirement for leading a moral and fruitful life.

KLook wrote:

That we don't have answers to these questions is why some recognize that there is a pervasive force beyond our understanding.

I have known some very astute and intelligent people that turned to the gospel after starting out looking for answers. In questioning them in civil debates like you and I are having, they describe their frustration that science cannot answer the ultimate question. I can only conclude that many people, no matter the intellect, HAVE to have an answer to function day to day. To be religious is not a bad thing unless you go overboard, and I know some of those also. All things in moderation. I however do not need such propping up, for whatever reason. AND I will put my morals up against anyone you can find. The ten commandments are what I would call natural moral laws that man would come to over the thousands of years of governing people. The early people were every bit as smart as today, and they had no technology to distract them. Much of their time was observing the human animal and how he acted and reacted. We have not advanced far in understanding human minds for a long time.
So atheist is not a dirty word, just to people that insist I think like them or put money in the till.

Kevin

There is so much there, most of which I can agree with. What stands out is that you have evolved a system of personal belief that involves a recognition that things are not always what they appear to be on the surface and that the true answers can be contrary to popular belief. This may start out as logical thought but to be comfortable with it eventually emotion or spirituality has to be involved. A system of faith that in essence has a different definition of God regardless of what you call it. If I defined God as natural law then how could Atheism exist?

Early man was very much concerned with technology. Fire; how to make it and control it. Medicinal plants. Specialized tools. Clothing. Hunting technique. Self defense. Religion was also technology since it effected the cohesiveness of groups.

franco b wrote:

KLook wrote:

That we don't have answers to these questions is why some recognize that there is a pervasive force beyond our understanding.

I have known some very astute and intelligent people that turned to the gospel after starting out looking for answers. In questioning them in civil debates like you and I are having, they describe their frustration that science cannot answer the ultimate question. I can only conclude that many people, no matter the intellect, HAVE to have an answer to function day to day. To be religious is not a bad thing unless you go overboard, and I know some of those also. All things in moderation. I however do not need such propping up, for whatever reason. AND I will put my morals up against anyone you can find. The ten commandments are what I would call natural moral laws that man would come to over the thousands of years of governing people. The early people were every bit as smart as today, and they had no technology to distract them. Much of their time was observing the human animal and how he acted and reacted. We have not advanced far in understanding human minds for a long time.
So atheist is not a dirty word, just to people that insist I think like them or put money in the till.

Kevin

There is so much there, most of which I can agree with. What stands out is that you have evolved a system of personal belief that involves a recognition that things are not always what they appear to be on the surface and that the true answers can be contrary to popular belief. This may start out as logical thought but to be comfortable with it eventually emotion or spirituality has to be involved. A system of faith that in essence has a different definition of God regardless of what you call it. If I defined God as natural law then how could Atheism exist?

Early man was very much concerned with technology. Fire; how to make it and control it. Medicinal plants. Specialized tools. Clothing. Hunting technique. Self defense. Religion was also technology since it effected the cohesiveness of groups.

I can agree with most of that and how religion fits into society. It it absolute and required for every individual? Man's technological learning curve is not linear or rather it is exponential. We have "discovered" more in the last 100years than we did in the last 2000. The effects of that are astounding and it will continue in a very steep ark. I only wish I would be around to see the next 100.

Your mention of God as natural law is an interesting one that we could entertain rigorously. This is quite different from moral law though. Nature defining itself through it's hiearchal system of physics, balance and food chain, etc.. without regard to morals whatsoever. Reason rather than revelation so to speak. Necessary truths that are not always logical.

SteveZee wrote:This is quite different from moral law though. Nature defining itself through it's hiearchal system of physics, balance and food chain, etc.. without regard to morals whatsoever.

Not true. The evolution of moral law follows natural law and the rules of evolution and was and is critical to our survival. Moral law is also evident in many animals. Your dog don't bite you, but might bite me.