Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Do the religious truly believe while the nontheists truly don't believe?

View Poll Results: Do the religious truly believe while the nontheists truly don't believe?
Poll Options:
I am a theist and I think most nontheists truly believe there is no god(s). 1 votes (4.00%)
I am a theist and I think most nontheists don't truly believe there is no god(s). 3 votes (12.00%)
I am a nontheist and I think most theists truly believe in their god(s). 15 votes (60.00%)
I am a nontheist and I think most theists don't truly believe in their god(s). 6 votes (24.00%)
Voters: 25. You may not vote on this poll
Do the religious truly believe while the nontheists truly don't believe? (Page 2)
Thread Tools
budster101
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Illinois might be cold and flat, but at least it's ugly.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2004, 01:31 PM
 
Originally posted by dfiler:
Actually no. Atheists rarely communicate their beliefs to anybody. Doing so, no matter how well intentioned, seems to work out badly for them in the end.
I agre with you. It is working both directions is what I am stating, and you are mutually excluding atheists from the rest who are being trampled on. Those people I stated as religious, gay, straight, and so on. Maybe the atheists need a Jesus character to be crucified so they can worship him. He could perform non-miracles of science and have a following the world over. I'm only teasing, but why do you persist in stating that atheists are being persecuted here? They are those who are attacking religion. Not once did you address my thoughts of excluding gays from school, as prayer is excluded?

Religion is not contageous is it? Gayness is stated not to be, as is atheism. Be consistent.
     
dfiler
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Pittsburgh
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2004, 01:40 PM
 
I'm more interested in discussing the certainty of convictions and how others perceive this certainty. Less interesting to me are inflamatory arguments about who to ban from what.

But for the record, I aren't on a crusade to ban anybody from anywhere; nor do my fellow atheists.
( Last edited by dfiler; Dec 27, 2004 at 04:33 PM. )
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2004, 10:43 AM
 
Actually no. Atheists rarely communicate their beliefs to anybody. Doing so, no matter how well intentioned, seems to work out badly for them in the end.
I think this is a very good point. Also very interesting. You take a word, generally add an 'a' to it and the new word becomes the antithesis of the old. For example; you have 'moral', then you have 'amoral'. Amoral is in essence a 'non-recognition' of right and wrong. Let's look at atheism defined;

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Atheists, by definition; do not have beliefs to communicate. Their discussion would focus on what they are generally against, not for. This may very well be the central reason why your communication is all too often fruitless or even counter-productive. You are taking a belief that for most has offered some meaning and purpose and have said basically; "you've been duped." How could this message no matter how well it's delivered have good intentions? I'm not sure it can. I imagine the reason the discussions have become heated is because you may offer alternatives that rely on faith in mankind and mankind's knowledge. The problem here is that it has been proven time and again with and without religion-man too often bastardizes data and knowledge to support a presupposition and an agenda. In other words, man cannot ultimitely be believed or trusted either. When is he telling the truth? Perhaps "righteous mankind" is as difficult to prove as a Righteous God.

I don't see the atheist as being persecuted. I simply see them as having very little to bring to the table of ideals that is not already being brought by science more effectively.
ebuddy
     
Sven G
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Milan, Europe
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2004, 11:40 AM
 
Personally, I am an agnostic, but I find that Jesus is partially interesting from a "revolutionary mind" perspective: sadly, current theists tend to forget the (almost - otherwise we wouldn't have such a society, today) revolutionary nature of Jesus - while having no problem with submitting themselves to people more similar to those Jesus despised than to what he advocated. Strange world...

The freedom of all is essential to my freedom. - Mikhail Bakunin
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2004, 12:02 PM
 
Originally posted by Sven G:
Personally, I am an agnostic, but I find that Jesus is partially interesting from a "revolutionary mind" perspective: sadly, current theists tend to forget the (almost - otherwise we wouldn't have such a society, today) revolutionary nature of Jesus - while having no problem with submitting themselves to people more similar to those Jesus despised than to what he advocated. Strange world...
Today's conservatives WOULD be considered revolutionaries back then. It's about perspective.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2004, 12:05 PM
 
Sven tell me, as an agnostic; who was it Jesus despised?

*hint, it's a loaded question intended to expose ignorance.
ebuddy
     
Sven G
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Milan, Europe
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2004, 12:05 PM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
Today's conservatives WOULD be considered revolutionaries back then. It's about perspective.
Yeas, but today is today, 2000 years after - not back then...

The freedom of all is essential to my freedom. - Mikhail Bakunin
     
dfiler
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Pittsburgh
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2004, 12:19 PM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
Atheists, by definition; do not have beliefs to communicate. Their discussion would focus on what they are generally against, not for.
Excellent post. But I disagree with the portion quoted above.

Atheists certainly do have beliefs. Yet you are getting at something important here. There is little reason to bring up an unproveable (and un-disprovable) phenomenon that one does not believe in. Most people also don't believe that a martian named fred ate waffles for breakfast today on a moon of saturn. They'd probably never discuss the topic unless a friend brings it into the conversation.

Your post also provoked a slightly defensive reaction from me since I am an atheist. I let that settle before writing a response. The reaction was from what I read into your post in combination with conversations I've endured in the past. I feel that atheists are perceived as being combative or negative when in fact they are not.

Atheists, day in and day out, are exposed to religious expression. Eventually, they learn how to interact with religious people and activities in a friendly manner. Typically, they simply choose to not mention their beliefs and enjoy the interaction as best as possible. On occasion a religious conversation is direct and involved, so smiling and nodding would be fake at best. In these instances, the mention of being an athiest will startle many religious people. Religious people aren't used to, every single day, being exposed to differing views. They immediately perceive the mentioning of atheism as being negative or combative.

Please please have compassion for atheist expression. We smile and nod about religious stuff daily. It's not us who are promoting our views publicly!

<rant mode off>
Really, I feel that atheists are generally non-combative and that they certainly aren't responsible for arguments between the two camps.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2004, 12:32 PM
 
Atheists, day in and day out, are exposed to religious expression. Eventually, they learn how to interact with religious people and activities in a friendly manner.
Are you hanging out with Pastors, Priests, and Ministers? Maybe this explains the constant berrage of God-centered discussion. You might know that Christians consider themselves surrounded by the secular and often times nod and smile. They are not all the Bible-thumping ministers you seem to portray.
Typically, they simply not mention their beliefs and enjoy the interaction as best as possible.
This is somehow different than most Christians? I can hardly watch a program on television without Christians being made fun of, anywhere from the Simpsons on down. I can't watch a comedian without some level of guilt. I can't listen to morning radio without some type of secular-leaning sex-centric banter being embraced.
On occasion a religious conversation is fairly direct or involved, so smiling and nodding would be fake at best.
Same here.
In these instances, the slightest mention of being an athiest will really startle many religious people.
Try bringing up Jesus. This'll generally end any comfortable situation.
Religious people aren't used to every single day being exposed to differing views.
Really? I think you're seeing things in a very isolated view.
They immediately assume that mentioning atheism as being negative or combative.
Again, try mentioning Jesus in secular conversation. They'll immediately assume you're holding them accountable for transgressions.
ebuddy
     
dfiler
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Pittsburgh
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2004, 12:47 PM
 
Good points. Mentioning jesus certainly can initiate religious conversation. Religious conversations typically aren't the most relaxing (for lack of a better word) unless amoung like minded individuals. So yes... I will concede the religious people also must watch what they say.

My point simply was, that atheists are an extremely non-vocal minority. Thus, the general public's exposure to expressions of atheism is pretty minimal.

Unusual things put the human brain in high gear. This physiological response is normal and useful to the survival of any creature. It is also normal to be on gaurd when coming in contact with new people, places, or situations. Until everything is assessed, it is prudent to remain cautious, on gaurd, and even a bit combative.

Minorities within a population are well aware of this phenomenon. The member of the minority group is far more used to dealing with people not of that minority, than the majority is with dealing with the minority.
     
Sven G
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Milan, Europe
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2004, 12:47 PM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
Sven tell me, as an agnostic; who was it Jesus despised?

*hint, it's a loaded question intended to expose ignorance.
"Ignorance is strength", you know...

Did Jesus like the too rich and powerful (at the expense of others)? Probably not, eh...?

We are talking about rather obvious things, here, after all, aren't we?

Anyway, Jesus could have thought whatever he wanted and despised whomever he wanted to despise - the problem is another one, today, in today's real world.

The freedom of all is essential to my freedom. - Mikhail Bakunin
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2004, 12:52 PM
 
Haha, funny back-and-forth between dfiler and ebuddy. Who's the bigger victim? Me! No, me me!
     
dfiler
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Pittsburgh
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2004, 12:56 PM
 
Heheh

Lemmie pull out my victometer...
Ah screw it, crusify me to a menorah and call it even.
( Last edited by dfiler; Dec 28, 2004 at 02:27 PM. )
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2004, 05:28 PM
 
Did Jesus like the too rich and powerful
loved 'em. In fact, one was made one of his disciples. What he despised was sin, not man. There is nothing new under the sun. There was sin then, there is sin now, there will be sin tomorrow.
ebuddy
     
Sven G
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Milan, Europe
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2004, 04:59 AM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
loved 'em. In fact, one was made one of his disciples. What he despised was sin, not man. There is nothing new under the sun. There was sin then, there is sin now, there will be sin tomorrow.
Sorry, but I took for granted that we were talking about the "sins" (I wouldn't call them so, of course): for example, even a cruel dictator remains a human being, underneath - it's what he does and "thinks" (?) at the moment of his cruel deeds which is despisable, and thus his "character" becomes corrupted and represents him more than his essence.

Of course, IMHO "sin" - of which there could be many definitions - isn't something linked to the so-called human nature, but depends much more on circumstances, negative status quos, repressive societies, etc. etc.; that is, also and above all on individual and social history.

Then, I'm also rather a secular humanist, so I definitely think human beings are quite perfectible and capable of evolving towards more free and productive ways of interacting reciprocally...
( Last edited by Sven G; Dec 29, 2004 at 07:04 AM. )

The freedom of all is essential to my freedom. - Mikhail Bakunin
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2004, 10:03 AM
 
Sorry, but I took for granted that we were talking about the "sins" (I wouldn't call them so, of course):
I apologize, I think semantics are important here however. The problem with many Christians is that they allow themselves to despise people instead of people's actions. When the focus becomes personal, it impedes the movement for improvement.
for example, even a cruel dictator remains a human being, underneath - it's what he does and "thinks" (?) at the moment of his cruel deeds which is despisable, and thus his "character" becomes corrupted and represents him more than his essence.
Because human-nature is not capable of serving two masters with equal veracity. Once power is attained, it corrupts because the individual begins to serve the wrong master. He always has and always will. This may seem pessimistic to you, but I do not believe a perfect Utopia among man, authored by man is possible. There's simply too much evidence to the contrary. I certainly am not one to thwart the effort, but many do. By this token, I may find it important to show up for work on time and work diligently, unfortunately-some others do not. There are antagonists and pessimists just as there are optimists. There are under-achievers just as there are over-achievers. There are the peaceful just as there are the aggressive. There is no 'blanket-philosophy' for all of mankind that can effectively and peacebly meet all the variables in attitude, level of dedication, and motus operandi. In short, I think you have a great idea on paper. It's just not plausible.
ebuddy
     
Scientist  (op)
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Madison
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 31, 2004, 01:09 PM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
I think the question is worded with a juvenile pre-supposition in that it is too black and/or too white. Don't take offense, it's hard to be diplomatic in the written word. Let me put it this way; Faith or Non-Faith as it were, is more a continuum ranging from 0% faith to 100% faith. It is neither all, nor none. Most, I would imagine (if it were measureable) would fall somewhere between 20-90% faith in an ultimate being, a God. Those closer to 90% may be pastors, missionaries, clergy of some type or others that have dedicated thier lives with intent to serve their God. It should be noted that even those walking among Jesus for example, experienced a wavering of faith. It can be assumed then among humankind, that 100% faith is rare if not non-existent.
I apologize for the late response. I've been overseas.

There was no "juvenile pre-supposition". The distinction between theists and nontheists that I made comes from an understanding of human nature. If you take a look around you'll notice that most people don't identify themselves as agnostics. In one way or another most people identify themselves as either theists or atheists.

Quantifying faith into percentages seems a little silly. It's hard to imagine what that can mean. Can you expain further?
Is it not reasonable to anticipate that our understanding of the human mind would be aided greatly by knowing the purpose for which it was designed?
-George C. Williams
     
Scientist  (op)
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Madison
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 31, 2004, 01:16 PM
 
Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
Messed up poll. I really don't fit into any of those said categories.
I'm somewhere between agnostic and a deist or something like that. I am sure there is a God, but what religion I don't know. From a previous thread, most of my views matched up with Orthodox Judaism (100%) and Islam (95%), then Christianity (75%) in that order.
If you believe in a god then you are a theist. You most certainly aren't an agnostic. The poll was intended to get a general idea of what people think. If I made it any more complicated it would have been too confusing. Also, the most relevant aspect for me isn't the religiousness of a person but their views towards the beliefs of others.

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
Little story. When I was examining the punks (to see how messed up they really are), I went out on one of their little things where they take Carpet Fresh and light stuff (like playgroun equipment) on fire.
If this is your impression of punks then you need to do a lot more examining.
Is it not reasonable to anticipate that our understanding of the human mind would be aided greatly by knowing the purpose for which it was designed?
-George C. Williams
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2005, 01:48 PM
 
Quantifying faith into percentages seems a little silly. It's hard to imagine what that can mean. Can you expain further?
Really, you don't get it? This thread was really quite convoluted and wreaked of an agenda. I answered with probably the most succinct and honest answers you're going to see in this thread. The below were your questions at the beginning;
if you are a nontheist the question is: "Does a typical theist truly believe in their specific god(s) or do they have a lot more inner doubt and conflict than they will admit to?"
The answer to this is; Scientist is a nontheist who thinks those believing in a God have a lot more inner-doubt and conflict than they will admit and believes they mistakenly accuse others of 'struggling' with belief or disbelief regardless of whether or not it may be true for some. Why you posted this question as if you were genuinely curious (knowing you wouldn't be available to respond) is beyond me.
If you are a theist the question is: "Does a typical nontheist truly not believe in any god(s) or do they have a lot more inner doubt and conflict than they will admit to?"
I am a theist and believe the answer to this is we all have inner-doubt. It ranges anywhere from 0% faith all the way to 90% faith in an ultimite being or the non-existence of one. Is this not obvious to you? Your agenda becomes more clear in the following;
I ask this because I see a lot of religious people accuse nontheists here of secretly believing in yet hating or rejecting god. Many have similar concerns regarding theists. So what do you think?
I believe that some non-theists do not like the feeling of conviction they get from religion. Some non-theists feel religion is downright dangerous, and some simply quietly disbelieve and try to answer life's questions using other models-wavering in their level of faith in their position from time to time. Then there are some non-theists who use their models to combat the models of religion. By the same token; there are some theists who believe mankind needs conviction. Some theists believe religion is ultimitely productive and some theists simply quietly believe and use religious models to answer life's questions. Then there are some theists who use their models to combat the models of the non-theist. Also, wavering in their level of faith from time to time. Where you fall in all this is often (but not always) indicative of your level or percentage of faith in your position.

In short; I think there would've been better ways of espousing your position than posting disingenuous questions.
ebuddy
     
Scientist  (op)
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Madison
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 2, 2005, 02:51 AM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
Really, you don't get it? This thread was really quite convoluted and wreaked of an agenda. I answered with probably the most succinct and honest answers you're going to see in this thread. The below were your questions at the beginning;

The answer to this is; Scientist is a nontheist who thinks those believing in a God have a lot more inner-doubt and conflict than they will admit and believes they mistakenly accuse others of 'struggling' with belief or disbelief regardless of whether or not it may be true for some. Why you posted this question as if you were genuinely curious (knowing you wouldn't be available to respond) is beyond me.

I am a theist and believe the answer to this is we all have inner-doubt. It ranges anywhere from 0% faith all the way to 90% faith in an ultimite being or the non-existence of one. Is this not obvious to you? Your agenda becomes more clear in the following;

I believe that some non-theists do not like the feeling of conviction they get from religion. Some non-theists feel religion is downright dangerous, and some simply quietly disbelieve and try to answer life's questions using other models-wavering in their level of faith in their position from time to time. Then there are some non-theists who use their models to combat the models of religion. By the same token; there are some theists who believe mankind needs conviction. Some theists believe religion is ultimitely productive and some theists simply quietly believe and use religious models to answer life's questions. Then there are some theists who use their models to combat the models of the non-theist. Also, wavering in their level of faith from time to time. Where you fall in all this is often (but not always) indicative of your level or percentage of faith in your position.

In short; I think there would've been better ways of espousing your position than posting disingenuous questions.
Is it so hard to believe that I really am curious about the subject? I am not "espousing" any position at all. I'm a little offended that you would think this. My only agenda is to understand.

It seems like most theists really believe in such a way that it is hard for them to contemplate the world using any other worldview. For my purposes here I consider this "truly believing". The same seems true of the nontheist position. I also believe the same is true of almost any belief. It seems to me people would have trouble functioning if they didn't have faith in their models. That is probably an understatement.

I have noticed that several forum members here believe most atheists believe in, but reject, God. I am curious about why some of them think this, as it most certainly doesn't seem to be the case with me or some other nontheists who I know. I don't suspect that many theists are considerably doubtful about their beliefs, although I thought I would ask that question as well to even things up. You, a theist, seem to disagree with me here, which I find interesting. I wanted a little more information regarding your "faith gradient" model since I do not find it very satisfying. If faith ranges as you say then why dont most people in, say, the 10%-90% range call themselves agnostics?

Oh, and I would have replied sooner, however the internet didn't work in my hotel room in England. Stop searching for sinister motives. I have none.
Is it not reasonable to anticipate that our understanding of the human mind would be aided greatly by knowing the purpose for which it was designed?
-George C. Williams
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 2, 2005, 10:38 AM
 
Agnostic defined;
1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
3. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

The above definitions if forced to lump them together would probably mean; 'ultimitely silent or non-committal with regards to the existance or non-existance of a deity'. They can waver in faith on one or even both of the scales I gave you. Many of these will say; "I believe in a God, but I'm not sure who or what it's up to." Some cannot bring themselves to serve that which they cannot see. Some cannot serve pure logic and/or science alone because they don't believe the models of man in that regard either. Some may believe there's a God, 'just in case' and others who don't believe there's a God, but even if there might be, it doesn't matter. In short, they'll not commit (at the time they claim to be agnostic) to either position. They would be the type to likely not respond to a thread like this, because they have no view niether for, nor against theism. They would probably fit on my scale of 'non-faith' at 10-30%. These are what Christians might call 'fence-sitters' and with many-will look for answers to complex questions later on in life.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 2, 2005, 10:48 AM
 
Scientist's; I wanted a little more information regarding your "faith gradient" model since I do not find it very satisfying.
I think you referred to it as "silly". I gave you a continuum of faith in either a deity or non-existence of a deity; illustrating almost all possible variations and 'degrees' of both. If that was not satisfying, perhaps it's because it didn't fit your presupposition. This is why I believe you were simply trying to espouse your position with little concern over the actual answers. The fact that you found the most thorough reply you'll likely get to these disingenuous questions pretty much establishes my point.
I am not "espousing" any position at all. I'm a little offended that you would think this. My only agenda is to understand.
You can BS yourself, but you cannot BS me my friend.
ebuddy
     
Scientist  (op)
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Madison
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 2, 2005, 01:31 PM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
I think you referred to it as "silly". I gave you a continuum of faith in either a deity or non-existence of a deity; illustrating almost all possible variations and 'degrees' of both. If that was not satisfying, perhaps it's because it didn't fit your presupposition.
Refering to your idea as "a little silly" was probably a reaction to your use of the word "juvenile" in your post. Perhaps if I should have used "unclear" as a more diplomatic choice. I can think of several possible answers to the question of what having "90% faith" could mean. I could try and guess what you mean. I have several ideas in mind. If only you would explicity say how you come up with your percentages I might understand your position well enough to accept or reject it. We may even agree. To help clarify your position, perhaps you can answer these questions. Hypothetically, how would you calibrate your faith percentage system? Do you use the maximum possible extent of belief reached in a person as the 100% point? Assume a person's maximum religious belief acheived in his lifetime was a simple belief in the existance of an immortal trickster named Loki. He sticks with this belief 100% of the time. Does this mean he has 100% faith because he doesn't question his beliefs at all? Does the fact that he rejects the existence of the rest of the Norse pantheon mean anything? Now the existance of Loki doesn't really impact his life much. Loki is chained to a tree in hell, is continually tortured by a snake and therefore is unavailable to personally influence this man's life. Having faith in this sort of thing seems quite easy to do in comparison to some faiths which require believing in so many more discreet ideas. What if someone believes in the whole pantheon some of the time but had serious doubts about the existence of the giant and dwarve races about half the time? Would this average out at 75% faith or so?

Originally posted by ebuddy:
This is why I believe you were simply trying to espouse your position with little concern over the actual answers. The fact that you found the most thorough reply you'll likely get to these disingenuous questions pretty much establishes my point.

You can BS yourself, but you cannot BS me my friend.
Sigh. I appreciate your effort in providing a thorough reply but it simply isn't articulated in enough detailed for me to understand precisely what you mean. I apologize for not having faith in your judgment and taking your word as gospel.
Is it not reasonable to anticipate that our understanding of the human mind would be aided greatly by knowing the purpose for which it was designed?
-George C. Williams
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 2, 2005, 03:33 PM
 
Hey everybody, this is what Scientist thinks;
"Scientist is a nontheist who thinks those believing in a God have a lot more inner-doubt and conflict than they will admit and believes they mistakenly accuse others of 'struggling' with belief or disbelief regardless of whether or not it may be true for some."
afterall, you did actually say this; "I ask this because I see a lot of religious people accuse nontheists here of secretly believing in yet hating or rejecting god." Why didn't you simply ask; "Are you a theist who thinks this?"
See, that wasn't so tough now was it? I mean, if you feel a certain way, just say it. You don't have to post entire threads asking questions you don't want answers to.

Then I could've replied with; "no, you're wrong. Some struggle with faith either for or against a deity. They vary in degrees of faith in their position depending upon whatever circumstance moves them. Few are neither all or none as you'd like to suggest." I am a theist who knows there are certain 'atheists' who believe in a God, but are angry with a God they see as absent from their lives or the lives of their loved ones and use the atheist postion to be adversarial and antagonistic. You'll see this anger in the manner in which they discuss religion with Christians for example. You have to wonder sometimes why so much vitriol and ad hominem attacks on Christianity. This leads one to believe they are struggling. There are some atheists who don't believe in a God at all and they simply live their lives. There are some who stop to smell the roses on Monday and think if there is a God, He is a good God, but then on Tuesday wake up to news of 120,000 dead and disbelieve again. Faith wavers in any postion on a continuum from 0-100%. Nothing more needs to be said. You asked a question and as a theist I answered it for the third time. So, maybe a fourth try is in order. Your thread topic is; Do the religious truly believe while the nontheists truly don't believe? The answer is; sometimes yes, sometimes no and in varying degrees. I hope you've been incredibly enlightened by the answers to the questions that plague you so.
ebuddy
     
Scientist  (op)
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Madison
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 2, 2005, 04:18 PM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
Hey everybody, this is what Scientist thinks;
"Scientist is a nontheist who thinks those believing in a God have a lot more inner-doubt and conflict than they will admit and believes they mistakenly accuse others of 'struggling' with belief or disbelief regardless of whether or not it may be true for some."
afterall, you did actually say this; "I ask this because I see a lot of religious people accuse nontheists here of secretly believing in yet hating or rejecting god." Why didn't you simply ask; "Are you a theist who thinks this?"
See, that wasn't so tough now was it? I mean, if you feel a certain way, just say it. You don't have to post entire threads asking questions you don't want answers to.
Your interpretation of my motives is incorrect and I stand by that. Is there a rule here against asking more than one question at once?

My main motivation for starting this thread was to get an idea about how people regard the beliefs of others. That's what the poll was designed to determine.

Apparently you believe some on both sides are often unsure and some aren't. Fair enough. You sure chose a strange way of trying to express that idea.
Is it not reasonable to anticipate that our understanding of the human mind would be aided greatly by knowing the purpose for which it was designed?
-George C. Williams
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2005, 05:01 PM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
I am a theist who knows there are certain 'atheists' who believe in a God, but are angry with a God they see as absent from their lives or the lives of their loved ones and use the atheist postion to be adversarial and antagonistic. You'll see this anger in the manner in which they discuss religion with Christians for example. You have to wonder sometimes why so much vitriol and ad hominem attacks on Christianity. This leads one to believe they are struggling.


Or maybe they're angered by thousands of years of history in which religious doctrine, and Christianity in particular, was used to justify violence, oppression, discrimination, ignorance, superstition, fraud, theft, self-aggrandizement, corruption, etc. Or perhaps they suffered same in their personal lives as a direct result of religious indoctrination. Or they see real science being displaced in the schools. Or tragedies like the tsunami being written off as the will of God or the result of mortal sin. Stuff like that.

Despite being an atheist, I'm well aware of the potential emotional, social and aesthetic benefits of religion. However, it isn't difficult for me to become angered by the aforementioned. Indeed, I know many believers who are also angered by them. So, while there are no doubt atheists who struggle with their beliefs, some are angry for perfectly sound reasons (which are not necessarily limited to Christianity, but tend to focus on it because it is the predominant religion in the West).
     
roberto blanco
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: mannheim [germany]
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2005, 06:43 AM
 
Originally posted by zigzag:
Or maybe they're angered by thousands of years of history in which religious doctrine, and Christianity in particular, was used to justify violence, oppression, discrimination, ignorance, superstition, fraud, theft, self-aggrandizement, corruption, etc...
very concise and to the point.

/now cue the "it's not religion that makes people do these things, - PEOPLE ARE TEH EVAL SINNAA11!!!!" tripe.

//don't think that religous faith must lead to this kind of behavior, but historically it did, and in some cases it still does.

life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators - r. dawkins
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2005, 10:20 AM
 
Or maybe they're angered by thousands of years of history in which religious doctrine, and Christianity in particular, was used to justify violence, oppression, discrimination, ignorance, superstition, fraud, theft, self-aggrandizement, corruption, etc.
If you're angered by thousands of years of history in which religion has harmed mankind, you need to see a psychologist to help you through your depression. Name for me an ideal that was not used by the above. Let me ask you something Zigzag-what else would people have used to manipulate the majority? Wouldn't man use religion to manipulate the masses if the masses are in fact religious?
Or perhaps they suffered same in their personal lives as a direct result of religious indoctrination.
For the sake of example; like when the Salvation Army delivered much needed clothes and provisions to them when they were in need? or the Open Door Mission that was available to help them off of drugs? or, the prison ministry that came to visit them in jail when no one else would? Are you ignoring Christian contributions to science? Are you ignoring Christian contributions to medicine, your local hospitals, the aged, the poor, the hungry, the handicapped, and the oppressed? In fact, Christians and/or religious people comprise the lion-share of those who've dedicated their lives trying to ease those conditions for others. Not creating them. You view what people in power do, not what the general practitioner does. Did you know that power corrupts? Do you know why? You'd do well to avail yourself of some history texts in which you'll find that while the pagan was worshipping the sun, the monotheist was studying it's movements and predicting it's future for example. The Greco-Roman society was historically an extrememly brutal society with men fighting men 'til death for sport, men fighting animals 'til death for sport, child exposure leaving babies on trash heaps established their extremely low value of life leaving them to lives of slavery and prostitution, until Christian influence brought these practices to an end. In the era following "the disruption of Charlemagne's great empire", it was the Latin Christian Church which "patiently and persistently labored to combat the forces of disintegration and decay," and "succeeded little by little in restraining violence and in restoring order, justice, and decency." The actions in mediaeval Europe to hinder the spread of leprosy were taken straight out of the Bible in Leviticus. the Council of Nicea for example; decreed that "hospitals were to be duly established wherever the Church was established." The first hospitals in the US were formed from those who felt obligated by Christ to help the sick, poor. This also led to advancements in long-term care and birthed modern nursing care. The Red Cross was founded by an evangelical Christian, it just goes on and on...What is your focus? Death, oppression, judgement, fraud, theft, self-aggrandizement, corruption, etc...These are all results of the human condition, not of Christianity. Blanco often refers to the truth as "tripe", I disagree. You are looking for things to use in attacking Christianity when you are in reality, attacking a corrupted human-kind in power. The rest of us serve and serve quite effectively I might add.
Or they see real science being displaced in the schools.
You mean disecting frogs? Kids still do that. What 'real science' is being displaced in schools? I have a feeling I'm about to see what 'tripe' is firsthand. Are you talking about the very dogma Hitler embraced in trying to evolve his "master-race"? You might know Hitler was quite the believer in Darwin's evolution. Is this also science's fault by your logic? Let's consider something the exiled Einstein said of his degrading homeland;
"Being a lover of freedom, when the (Nazi) revolution came, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but no, the universities were immediately silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers, whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks...
Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration for it because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual and moral freedom. I am forced to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly."

Or tragedies like the tsunami being written off as the will of God or the result of mortal sin. Stuff like that.
Who said this? Are you just looking for examples now? To only view these things establishes your place among the pessimist and antagonist. You need someone to blame just as you claim the religious need someone to praise. I prefer to live in a society of praise. Do not indict God, Christianity or religion, indict mankind. He will use any vehicle he sees fit for the manipulation of man. You see this in 'real science', you see it in every culture regardless of belief.
ebuddy
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2005, 11:12 PM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
If you're angered by thousands of years of history in which religion has harmed mankind, you need to see a psychologist to help you through your depression. Name for me an ideal that was not used by the above. Let me ask you something Zigzag-what else would people have used to manipulate the majority? Wouldn't man use religion to manipulate the masses if the masses are in fact religious? . . .
Nobody needs a psychologist. You said you thought people are antagonistic towards religion/Christianity because they’re “struggling," which suggests that they might be latent Christians waiting for an epiphany of some sort. I pointed out that while that might be true of some, it isn’t necessarily true – there might be other reasons for them to be antagonistic. Their reasons might or might not be valid (we obviously have different views in that respect), but it doesn’t necessarily mean that they're “struggling.” That was the main point of my post.

Antipathy is only natural, and it goes both ways. Many Christians have antipathy for mainstream science and atheism. Indeed, many Christians have antipathy for Christian doctrines and practices that they don't subscribe to (don't you?). Atheists are no different. It doesn't mean they're struggling with anything.

FWIW, I didn’t mean to say that oppression, etc. is unique to religion or Christianity, or that religion/Christianity isn’t good for anything – indeed, I specifically said that religion can have its benefits. But the fact remains that certain beliefs and practices have been associated with religion and IMO it’s natural and reasonable for those things to give rise to antipathy on the part of believers and non-believers alike, just as they might have antipathy for a political party with a fundamentally different world-view.

Who said this? Are you just looking for examples now?
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...ghlight=choice

Scroll down for an example in this very forum. Surely you're not going to argue that there aren't people who attribute natural phenomena to God's will and/or mortal sin - I hear them do it every day. Entire religious sects are built on such beliefs. It represents a fundamentally different word-view than mine and the fact that I have antipathy for it does not mean that I'm "struggling."

To only view these things establishes your place among the pessimist and antagonist. You need someone to blame just as you claim the religious need someone to praise. I prefer to live in a society of praise.
A society of praise? What the hell does that mean? Call it what you want - I see ideas and practices that affect me directly or indirectly, and I either agree with them or disagree with them. I don't have any flowery adjectives for it.

Does the fact that you disagree with the Democratic Party platform place you "among the pessimist and antagonist"? Whatever.

Do not indict God, Christianity or religion, indict mankind. He will use any vehicle he sees fit for the manipulation of man. You see this in 'real science', you see it in every culture regardless of belief.
I agree, but I think religion presents unique opportunities for human nature (both good and bad) to manifest itself. I'd simply like to minimize the potential for bad.
( Last edited by zigzag; Jan 5, 2005 at 07:40 PM. )
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2005, 10:17 AM
 
society of praise? What the hell does that mean?
A pessimist will see the bad in something. An optimist will see the good. You pointed out only the bad. I pointed out the good. The attacks against Christianity and/or religion in general become personal. They somehow transcend the boundary of what humankind does with power and becomes only what the religious do. This is pessimistic, narrow minded, and fosters a society I do not appreciate.
Call it what you want - I see ideas and practices that affect me directly or indirectly, and I either agree with them or disagree with them. I don't have any flowery adjectives for it.
To disagree using a well-rounded, well thought out position including having an idea of your own that may differ is one thing. To blindly make statements about the injustices of humankind and indict religion is another. When one is merely 'against' something, more than they are 'for' something else, they become non-contributory and pessimistic.

Does the fact that you disagree with the Democratic Party platform place you "among the pessimist and antagonist"? Whatever.
Depends on what you mean, but I think you already know how feeble this comparison really is. For example; I don't necessarily agree with the Republican platform in many cases . I don't necessarily disagree with the Democratic Party platform. One could argue if the Democratic Party actually adhered to their 'platform', they would've gotten many more votes last election. They have many ideals for which I AGREE, but the far-left and the pessimist have seemingly comprised the party's representation. Don't believe me? Listen to what Democratic officials are saying on how to increase their base. The Dems are now busily trying to figure out how to tactfully separate themselves from this poison. Perhaps one day, as the party cleans up it's act and regains control over it (as many have in my State and have gotten my vote) then they will get my vote again. I'm certainly not accusing the Democratic Party of using it's platform to justify violence, oppression, discrimination, ignorance, superstition, fraud, theft, self-aggrandizement, corruption, etc.
ebuddy
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2005, 10:57 AM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
A pessimist will see the bad in something. An optimist will see the good. You pointed out only the bad . . .
I focused on the bad because the issue was whether people with antipathy for Christianity were "struggling" or whether there might be other reasons for their antipathy. I simply pointed out that there could be other reasons for their antipathy. Nothing you've said refutes that.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2005, 11:33 AM
 
Nothing you've said refutes that, other than your statement regarding the antipathy for religion being mistakenly rooted in a failure to see the bigger picture.
*fixed.
ebuddy
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2005, 03:03 AM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
A pessimist will see the bad in something. An optimist will see the good. You pointed out only the bad. I pointed out the good. The attacks against Christianity and/or religion in general become personal. They somehow transcend the boundary of what humankind does with power and becomes only what the religious do. This is pessimistic, narrow minded, and fosters a society I do not appreciate.
Was what other people do with power under discussion? This sounds like a sidetrack to me. Just because other groups do bad things too doesn't get religion off the hook any more than (since you already brought him up) America's crimes justify Hitler's genocide. If "Well, people suck" is a valid defense, anything can be defended, no matter how much evil it has helped bring into the world.

Also, to suggest that we should live in a "society of praise" where we're all yes-men who only point out the good in things is just silly, since it supports exactly the evil I mentioned above. I don't see how such spinelessness is preferable.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
When one is merely 'against' something, more than they are 'for' something else, they become non-contributory and pessimistic.
This bothers me. Anytime somebody mentions any degree of opposition (or even disagreement) to religion, you seem to suddenly kick in with this mysterious sixth sense that tells you — even though you have practically no evidence — that there are no topics on which they have positive feelings and that their worldview is all-around pessimistic. Have a micron of respect for the intelligence of the people you're talking to, will you? If you go in assuming people are stupid, it's going to be an unproductive conversation.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2005, 01:35 PM
 
This bothers me. Anytime somebody mentions any degree of opposition (or even disagreement) to religion, you seem to suddenly kick in with this mysterious sixth sense that tells you — even though you have practically no evidence — that there are no topics on which they have positive feelings and that their worldview is all-around pessimistic. Have a micron of respect for the intelligence of the people you're talking to, will you? If you go in assuming people are stupid, it's going to be an unproductive conversation.,
Where are you coming from with all this??? Have you not read the other page and a half of this thread??? What evidence would I need to show you that would convince you of my world view? This is exactly what I'm talking about here. You believe religion is dangerous, I get it. I've already included those like you in my posts earlier. What you fail to see in your statement; "no matter how much evil it has helped bring into the world."
is that just as man has used religion for travesty, man has also used evolution, family relationships, and basically anything he sees fit in thrusting his agenda. If 90% of a people are religious, man would use religion to thrust an agenda over the masses. This is human nature, it's not Islam, Christianity, or otherwise. Those that truly adhere to the tenets of these religions will often refute the actions of man trying to use their particular religion to thrust an agenda. In all this, there are a great many good things that have come from religion, the fact that you ignored this in your post does in fact place you among the narrow-visioned pessimist. I never suggested that we be "yes-men". I suggested that we banter about ways of improving society with focus on what we are FOR, not AGAINST! If you are simply against religion, you may point to the actions of 15 religious men who have committed attrocities in the name of their religion and indict the religion as a whole. This is not productive. In doing so, you hinder the progress of the rest of us who have done a great many more good and productive things in the interest of serving our God. Ironically, it is painfully obvious to me what you are against, but still have no clue what you are for.
To suggest that I've dedicated much of my life for something you claim I lack evidence for is in fact to say I'm stupid. This is probably why productive banter with you will most likely be impossible. I'll give it a try though in the hopes that you are able to see things in a less simplistic and adversarial way.
ebuddy
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2005, 06:51 PM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
Where are you coming from with all this??? Have you not read the other page and a half of this thread???
Yes, and it seems pretty full of this "If you disagree with something, you hate everything" notion. For example:

Originally posted by ebuddy (on 12/28):
Let's look at atheism defined;

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Atheists, by definition; do not have beliefs to communicate.
Here we have the suggestion that, because somebody does not believe in a god, he "do[es] not have beliefs." I think many men who have dedicated their lives as Buddhist monks would be surprised to learn that they have no beliefs or ideals.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
What you fail to see in your statement; "no matter how much evil it has helped bring into the world."
is that just as man has used religion for travesty, man has also used evolution, family relationships, and basically anything he sees fit in thrusting his agenda.
There are two factors to consider here: how ubiquitous the abuse is, and whether we're talking about a specific subcategory of these things that encourages evil. For instance, Darwinism did influence Hitler, but it was a strange kind of Darwinism that I would argue is an evil idea.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
If 90% of a people are religious, man would use religion to thrust an agenda over the masses. This is human nature, it's not Islam, Christianity, or otherwise. Those that truly adhere to the tenets of these religions will often refute the actions of man trying to use their particular religion to thrust an agenda.
Since one of the central tenets of Catholicism is that the Pope should be followed in everything he says from the pulpit, one could hardly try to refute him while still believing in its tenets.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
In all this, there are a great many good things that have come from religion, the fact that you ignored this in your post does in fact place you among the narrow-visioned pessimist.
You're doing it again. You cannot deduce my worldview by reading three posts I've written on a single topic. That's like me reading a post by you about your favorite kind of cookie and going, "Man, all this guy does is eat fattening foods! He's a freakin' whale!"

Very few things are 100 percent bad. Most even have many good things that come from them. Just because good things come from something doesn't mean we should ignore the bad. We should take both into consideration and decide where it falls, overall, on the scale of things.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Ironically, it is painfully obvious to me what you are against, but still have no clue what you are for.
I don't see how this is ironic. People being against religion is the topic of discussion. If I were to come in and go, "You know, y'all, I think everybody who feels the tsunami victims aren't getting enough from their government should donate the appropriate portion of their wages," I'd be in the wrong thread.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
To suggest that I've dedicated much of my life for something you claim I lack evidence for is in fact to say I'm stupid.
No, it's a statement of fact that Christians have not shown me enough evidence to prove to me that their religion is true. Unlike "You're a narrow-minded pessimist," it is not a judgment of you as a person.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2005, 08:10 PM
 
yes, and it seems pretty full of this "If you disagree with something, you hate everything" notion. For example:
I've already mentioned I don't have a problem with disagreement. I have a problem with antagonism. To not believe is acceptable for you. I understand this. I'm not one that will try to force anything on anyone. I believe people are most receptive when they come to you for information, not when you approach them. You are welcome to point out bad things, but to even try to indict the religion is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The problem is greed among humankind and in trying to serve only one's self. Not a particular religion. How long will you indict religion before you realize how ineffective you've been? How are you any different than someone religious pointing out all your shortcomings? I hope that is starting to make sense to you.
Here we have the suggestion that, because somebody does not believe in a god, he "do[es] not have beliefs." I think many men who have dedicated their lives as Buddhist monks would be surprised to learn that they have no beliefs or ideals.
No you're wrong on this. I copy-pasted the definition of atheism. Take your problem to Webster if you must. Buddhist monks are Buddhist, not atheist.
You're doing it again. You cannot deduce my worldview by reading three posts I've written on a single topic.
Why not? For example; I knew right away you weren't a Christian. Perhaps you're not a sneaky as you wanted to be? I don't know. BTW; it may be that no amount of evidence would suffice for you. I don't know that either.
That's like me reading a post by you about your favorite kind of cookie and going, "Man, all this guy does is eat fattening foods! He's a freakin' whale!"
Kind of a simplistic analogy don't you think?
Very few things are 100 percent bad. Most even have many good things that come from them. Just because good things come from something doesn't mean we should ignore the bad. We should take both into consideration and decide where it falls, overall, on the scale of things.
True. Overall, I'd have to say religion is good with some bad apples in it like everything else. You have to be able to identify bad things and eliminate them, not based on what cookies they like I guess?
ebuddy
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2005, 09:50 PM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
The problem is greed among humankind and in trying to serve only one's self. Not a particular religion. How long will you indict religion before you realize how ineffective you've been? How are you any different than someone religious pointing out all your shortcomings? I hope that is starting to make sense to you.
I can't speak for everyone in this thread, but I've never said any religion causes evil. I just said that religion can be a great vector for evil, that some people may feel that this is a problem that outweighs whatever benefit it might bring, and that this opinion has enough justification that it's not totally unreasonable.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
No you're wrong on this. I copy-pasted the definition of atheism. Take your problem to Webster if you must. Buddhist monks are Buddhist, not atheist.
They're Buddhist and atheist. "Atheist" means "someone who does not believe in a god." It's the opposite of "theist," meaning "someone who believes in a god." Theravada Buddhism is an atheistic religion just like Christianity is a theistic religion.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Why not? For example; I knew right away you weren't a Christian. Perhaps you're not a sneaky as you wanted to be?
I wasn't exactly hiding it. It's not like I stuck DC Talk lyrics in my signature to throw people off. I just said I didn't want to make it an issue.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Kind of a simplistic analogy don't you think?
Only slightly. I think judging somebody to be a compulsive overeater because they appear to like cookies is just as ridiculous as judging somebody to be a narrow-minded pessimist because they disagree with one idea.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:57 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,