So what is non-religious

[squalid]

I got a bit confused by this survey reported on abc well the bit where they asked "Are the Hurricanes a Deliberate Act of God"

abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1174220&page=1

Apprently 17% of people who listed them selves as non-religious belive they were and thats a higher percentage than either catholics and non-evangelical protestants.

So what does abc actually mean buy non-religious? It certainly isn't athiest.

[postlibyan]

for some people, the term "act of god" means "something entirely random, with an explanation so complex and involving so many factors, that it's really hard to say". choosing that option does not necessarily imply that the answerer believed in god. also notice that many other categories are missing from that list, for example, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, etc. the list only has a few flavours of Christianity. there are many people who would lump all the rest into a "not really religious" category.....

just a few thoughts. i really don't know.

PJK

[Dragon*of*Heaven]

I think postilion is probably on the correct path here. there are a lot of religions missing. Plus lets not forget that there is also a large portion of people who though they believe in a God list themselves as being non religious simply because they do not conform with the points maid by organized religion.

[Hilly]

I'm not sure, looks like a lot of mumbo jumbo to me.
To me an act of god is something from an insurance policy, ie something out of mans control.

However one thing did catch my attention:

"Alabama State Sen. Hank Erwin, R-Montevallo, recently called Hurricane Katrina a punishment from God, saying New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast "have always been known for gambling, sin and wickedness. It is the kind of behavior that ultimately brings the judgment of God." Wooooooo.

[vertigo]

It is the kind of behavior that ultimately brings the judgment of God.

They have to say that because if they say God didn't cause it but did nothing about it one would have to realise that humans should fend for themselves and not pray to God for help.

So ultimately they spin it as just punishment, a reason to be more pious. In other words, they milk the situation as best they can.

Tsunamis are a different matter entirely, because they are so destructive. These folks are left with "I can't believe God would condone such destruction". Gee, thanks for that, God. It's nice to know you don't condone it. Just leave it for us to handle instead...

The moral is this. Even when what a theist says sounds slightly credible, don't credit them with any sense. They are not sensible and they are just using it to further their cause. Shun them, not by trying to refute their apparently motivated argument, but by refusing even to hear it. If you argue it, argue it for the sake of atheists, and only to the degree that it is worthwhile for atheists to hear that response. Don't for a second be so utterly stupid as to think it will make a difference to the theists, that it might make them think. Don't let them delude you.

Theism is parasitic; it feeds on whatever is available. Only if you have reason to believe the arguer has legitimate motivations should you attempt to argue the point.

[Dragon*of*Heaven]

The moral is this. Even when what a theist says sounds slightly credible, don't credit them with any sense. They are not sensible and they are just using it to further their cause. Shun them, not by trying to refute their apparently motivated argument, but by refusing even to hear it. If you argue it, argue it for the sake of atheists, and only to the degree that it is worthwhile for atheists to hear that response. Don't for a second be so utterly stupid as to think it will make a difference to the theists, that it might make them think. Don't let them delude you.

Theism is parasitic; it feeds on whatever is available. Only if you have reason to believe the arguer has legitimate motivations should you attempt to argue the point.

Vertigo aren't you being a tad bit harsh by drawling the line so black and white. It is true that they basically spout nothing of their own accord. It is also true that they are clearly not free minded as they spout dogma again and again. Still don't you think that your statement while I'll be it holding a fair amount of truth, its a bit pessimistic. Would it not be better to attempt to show them reason. Even if they don't listen you will have at least gotten in some practice Socraticly. When you wont even talk to a theist or hear their argument, by what are you using to focus your own opinions and judgments. When you don't talk to them by what right is it that they should listen to what you say.

[vertigo]

When you don't talk to them by what right is it that they should listen to what you say.

They won't listen, that's what I'm telling you. Regardless of whether they should or should not, they won't. My not talking to them takes nothing away, so it is not the case that I should talk to them.

However, certainly there can be merit in presenting the argument for atheists to appraise. Obviously, theistic arguments are so primitive it really should need only a sentence or two, and only for the most unversed atheist.

Vertigo aren't you being a tad bit harsh by drawling the line so black and white.

Truthfully, I'm being a tad bit honest. The fact is that theists use logic insofar as it doesn't interfere with their religion. Logic is a tool for them to make their cult more credible, to make it sound reasoned. Underneath the veneer you'll find the same corrupt seed every time.

Would it not be better to attempt to show them reason.

It would absolutely be worse. Reasoning with them is futile. Reason only works if you subscribe to it, and they don't. Save reason for the reasonable.

When you wont even talk to a theist or hear their argument, by what are you using to focus your own opinions and judgments.

It's called reality. It's what knowledge is about. I focus my opinions and judgements on reality. The reality is that theism is a scourge, not to be taken lightly or allowed to remain disguised as something arbitrary and meaningless. It is deplorable, so let us rightly deplore it. It is willful disregard of the evidence one finds, a conscious and willful denial of reality as we find it. It is pathetic and dishonest.

Does anyone here disagree with the last two lines of the previous paragraph? If so, give me your spin on theism. No theists need reply; I would prefer if you didn't. (Christlivesinusall may reply, he or she is new so I'd like to hear their opinion.)

[Superhappyjen]

Americans are full of sillyness. "Act of God" is an insurance term. It's just like the bible-belters to take it to literally mean that a supreme deity has come out of the sky and hurricained the crap out of New Orleans.