BS: Atheists

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Apr 13 - 03:24 AM

Jack is not a true Christian. Real Christians are so busy contemplating their own sins that they have no time to worry about the sins of strangers.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Apr 13 - 03:17 AM

Do think that I would be bigot if I said that said that homosexuality is a sin? Mr. Musket.

I am really not qualified to judge that. But the point is moot.

It did not say that it was a sin. I implied that homosexual adultery is a sin. But then I think that all adultery is sin.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 13 - 02:33 AM

"I guess that is true for Atheism as well!"
Not really Sailor Boy - Atheism comes with argument and discussion and not with "the fear of god" and the threat of "eternal damnation".
"I am not attacking Atheism here"!
Yes you most certainly are, and you are carefully avoiding all the brainwashing features of all religions, the threats, the humiliation, the "Give me a child for for his first seven years and I'll give you the man" aspects that is part and parcel of what your religion brings with it.
A few weeks ago there I heard part of a radio interview with two ex-Magdalene nuns (who wisely chose who be identifies as "sisters X and Y) who talked of their victims, who as young women, had been put into their care for "getting into trouble". The nuns described the girls as "prostitutes" and proudly declared that by taking them in they were "cleaning up the streets of such people". When asked did they apologise for the horrific treatment now known to have been meted out to these unfortunates, they replied "for what?".
Last night I watched an interview with some of their victims; constant humiliation, crippling beatings, sexual assaults by priests, including an appalling description of one priest who would regularly sexually assault one girl then masturbate over her.
The the total and lifelong destruction of these womens' lives was a common feature of the interviews.
One interviewee, not a Laundry Girl but of an orphan in a Magdalene-run home, described how she attempted to make contact with one of these 'slaves', was discovered talking to her and was taken to the Mother Superior's office, beaten with a purpose-made rubber belt and had her hair sheared off and her head shaved bald, leaving her scalp covered with bleeding cuts. She was then forced to stand in front of a mirror for hours to witness the "results of her sinning".
Far from being "a thing of the past," the troubles of the church in Ireland have only just begun.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 08 Apr 13 - 01:23 AM

Hello Sailor!

I note that above you state that adultery is a worse sin than homosexuality.

Sin?

Oh, of course. You have 'religion' so bigotry is acceptable eh?

Possibly the strongest argument about a shallow belief system is Sailor Boy's sense of morality exhibited above.

Not much more to add really.   I am not gay and cannot see myself falling into a relationship with a man in the way I have done with women, but for Clapton's sake, I don't look down on people and call them sinners.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 11:57 PM

"Faith can be very very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong."
R. Dawkins

I guess that is true for Atheism as well!

I am not attacking Atheism here. I am simply showing Steve Shaw that any dogmatic true believer, including the most famous atheist in the United States at the time can damage her kids by not letting them think for themselves.

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20076618,00.html

As Murray tells it, his atheism was enforced from childhood by a tyrannical, explosive and indifferent matriarch. Growing up in a household run by his mother and maternal grandmother (his father left when he was an infant), Bill says it was clear to him that his mother wanted only girl children: "One of her favorite stories—I've heard her repeat it many times—is that when I was born and the doctor told her, 'It's a boy,' she asked him if there wasn't some way he could put it back." Bill says he remembers her cruelties all too well: Once, in a fit of temper, she shattered a model airplane he had been working on for months—and another time she bit him so severely he still recalls the pain. "As a kid I won a baseball trophy," he says. "Two years later when she came across it she asked where I had bought it. I told her I'd won it, but since she didn't know or care that I played baseball, she didn't believe me. Her attitude was that if she couldn't see it or touch it or feel it, it didn't exist."

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 11:45 PM

Ooops!

Do you think parents should be separated from their parents to prevent indoctrination?

Do you think children should be separated from their parents to prevent indoctrination?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 11:37 PM

"If your only justification for indoctrinating children with your faith of choice is that the kids might not actually turn out to be dangerous, then I think you have a little more thinking to do. "

Steve that is the dumbest thing that you have said so far.

I'm saying it is not dangerous for children to be raised in their parent's faith. You know, the status quo.

Do you think parents should be separated from their parents to prevent indoctrination? You know, to prevent this grievous wrong.

Steve has been telling us all that he is the reasonable one who relies on science and logic. He's telling us that I am the one who has to prove that "Inserting" "Faith" into the "vulnerable mind of an innocent child" is not dangerous. Are Steve and Mr. Dawkins planning to hang out at churches and pick up the children as they walk out the door?

(That was a joke everyone else. I am not attacking atheists, I am mocking Steve's (and Mr. Dawkin's) wild assertions and implications.)

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 09:51 PM

If your only justification for indoctrinating children with your faith of choice is that the kids might not actually turn out to be dangerous, then I think you have a little more thinking to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 08:57 PM

A soldier in Stalin's, security forces has no religion and was dangerous. A child soldier 10 years old with nothing to believe in but his gun and an AK 47 is dangerous.

Billions of people have faith in religion are not dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 08:56 PM

Some creationists do eventually modify their ideas based on where the evidence leads:

Glenn Morton Statement

But it tends to take quite a while, and they need to get quite a good understanding of real science and real evidence before they change their ideas.

I interacted with Glenn in religious discussions quite a bit on various newsgroups and forums many years ago, and then later slightly from a professional viewpoint (I'm in seismic surveying too) when he was based for a while in the UK and got the impression of a very honest and open individual who wrestled with his conscience for years before finally breaking with his original indoctrination. I think he was quite bewildered when his creationist (soon to be former) colleagues reacted in such a vicious and personal way to his last paper.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Stringsinger
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 08:43 PM

From the standpoint of a child learning to think for him/herself without outside indoctrination, "faith" can be interpreted as a means of indoctrination. If a child is old enough to determine whether he/she should have "faith" then that's a different story. Then "faith" is not dangerous but chosen unless it is a kind of "faith" that wreaks havoc on those who don't have it. Dawkins point is clear, here. Indoctrination (faith) without the framework of questioning and decision is dangerous.

The Taliban have faith and they instill it into the minds of young suicide bombers who are not mature enough to understand what it happening to them. They have "faith" and are dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 08:30 PM

Jack: I'm not holding my breath. Seriously. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 08:12 PM

Nice post Rob. Seriously.

Good luck getting though. Seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 08:09 PM

"Jack, you seem to be purposefully misunderstanding what Dawkins meant"


Jack -- I wasn't defending anything that Dawkins said.

I am sorry that I thought you were defending Dawkins. Can you see why I might have thought that.

" You seem to be clumping all atheists together sometimes"

I don't think that, I have been talking about Dawkins and his followers the whole time. I have been clear about what I don't like. I have been specific in my criticisms.

Considering the post before you, which vividly displays the attitude I was trying to counter, I don't even think I have been very harsh.

I think that Dawkins is trying to stir up that kind of thing and I think he believes the statement fully, without qualification.

"Faith can be very very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong."

I am happy to see that you don't. I count you on the side of reason. Steve and Mr. Dawkins, not so much.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 08:05 PM

As for whether or not a religious upbringing is desirable, I'm actually on both sides of the question. For the most part, I think it depends on the specific situation. For most Christians I know, their faith manifests as a desire to feel love for their fellow man, to live their lives with honesty and integrity, and to do good works. I support those types of values being instilled in our young people.

Those desirables are, as you know, fully achievable without even a hint of religious indoctrination. It's perfectly possible to support those types of values without so much of a sniff of religion. Your post is one of those excuses I mentioned used by deluded Christians to send their unfortunate offspring to those indoctrination camps we call faith schools. Faith schools may well pretend to preach love for fellow men, but they also instil the benefits of keeping away from the riffraff.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 08:02 PM

Pete From 7 Stars: i would beg to differ rob as to who gets most influence in media and education.thought for the day and songs of praise [is there anything else/] gets ,i suspect,much less time than the evolutionary programming of dawkins,attenborough type programs.the same is true in state schools.RI,assembly ,if at all religious anyway,is countered by the naturalistic viewpoint of so called science

Pete, you're comparing apples with oranges here. The vast majority of Christians and Jews, and a significant number of less fundamentalist Muslims are accepting of science, the scientific method and the strong evidence for evolution. So science-based programmes are NOT in opposition to religious ones. They're just entirely separate. However, the ones discussing religion in UK tend not to include atheism or agnosticism as part of their spectrum of discussion. I find it difficult to understand why a programme such as "Beyond Belief" simply never includes an atheist or agnostic viewpoint. You have an issue examined from a Muslim, Catholic, Anglican, Sikh and Jewish viewpoint but it's never even raised that an atheist may have something valuable to add to the issue under discussion.

And Pete: .as a result they get science wrong,-think junk dna,vestigual organs,the eye wrongly wired etc.all predictions and assertions of evolutionists.

I think you'll find it's creationists who've constantly (and knowingly) mis-represented science on their websites and in their publications. Sometimes they've continued (as in the case of moon dust, leap seconds, "the vertical whale" etc) to use their discredited arguments for years, decades even, after they were proved to be wrong, until the inability to keep those discredited arguments going has forced them to make anodyne comments such as "we don't recommend using that argument any more"....without at any point admitting that they were deliberately continuing to promulgate said arguments for years after they were discredited and *known by creationist leades to have been discredited*. In most spheres of endeavour this is called "deliberately lying" to your followers.

Pete: just to add to my previous post where my mind muddled my message,-and surprisingly no-one pulled me up on it
....diamonds supposedly millions of yrs old registering radio carbon.

The problems seems to be, Pete, that you get all your "knowledge" of science from snippets on creationist websites and show little evidence of having made any *independent* efforts to follow the real evidence, so to someone who's had a more in-depth scientific education, *most* of your posts mentioning science seem quite muddled.

With regard to the diamond point in particular. AiG says:

There are two main applications for radiometric dating. One is for potentially dating fossils (once-living things) using carbon-14 dating, and the other is for dating rocks and the age of the earth using uranium, potassium and other radioactive atoms.

Which is plain wrong. Fossils as such are generally NOT dated using carbon-dating, as fossilised material millions of years old usually no longer contains organic carbon...the carbon having been replaced with inorganic materials over time. Carbon dating *is* used to date once-living things, as long as they've not been subject to permineralisation and as long as they're sufficiently young (ie younger than about 50,000 years) that there is still a reasonably accurately measurable C12/C14 ratio left in the material.

Carbon dating has been subject to cross-checking against dates from dendrochronology, varves, ice cores, coral growth rings etc and in all cases the curves match where they overlap, giving a strong indication that the utility of carbon dating *within its applicable band* is correct. For it to be otherwise physical laws would have had to be different in the past....something which we can rightfully be *very* skeptical of in the light of information gleaned from geology, astrophysics and cosmology (all different subjects to evolution/ biology, but which dovetail nicely where they overlap).

AiG then states: Carbon-14 (14C), also referred to as radiocarbon, is claimed to be a reliable dating method for determining the age of fossils up to 50,000 to 60,000 years. If this claim is true, the biblical account of a young earth (about 6,000 years) is in question, since 14C dates of tens of thousands of years are common....When a scientist's interpretation of data does not match the clear meaning of the text in the Bible, we should never reinterpret the Bible.

So it's *very* important for creationists to cast doubt on carbon dating....if they don't then their whole edifice of literal belief comes tumbling down. AiG's further comments on carbon dating are a farrago of wrong assumptions and conclusions which are well de-bunked on several sites.

The RATE diamond experiments are critiqued here:

RATE Critique

And the publication "Perspectives On Science And Christian Faith, March 2008, pages 35-39, concludes:

The RATE team has honestly acknowledged that even if their technical claims were accurate, there remain unsolved problems that cannot be reconciled with any known scientific process. In his summary at the RATE conference in Denver on Sept. 15, 2007, Don DeYoung noted the need to invoke divine intervention in order to circumvent these problems. However, the oft-stated summary by the RATE team, that their results provide assurance of the biblical interpretation of a young earth, leaves the average listener with the mistaken impression that these problems are nonexistent, trivial, or soon to be resolved. Rather, the RATE team acknowledged overwhelming evidence for hundreds of millions of year's worth of radioactivity12 and admitted that compressing this activity into a few thousand years would generate more than enough heat to vaporize all granitic rock.13 They state that no known thermodynamic process could dissipate such a large amount of heat.14 Their expressed hope in solving heat dissipation by cooling via enhanced cosmological expansion15 has not been realized and is not consistent with our knowledge of the expanding universe.16 Thus, the RATE team has provided solid evidence that, scientifically, the earth cannot be thousands but must be billions of years old.

In fact, carbon dating isn't the main thing that should concern fundamentalist creationists. It's the fact that it complements and agrees with dates from varves, ice-cores, tree-ring dating and coral growth, all combining to form a coherent picture. We have varve records going back unbroken for 40,000 years and ice cores going back 700,000 years.

Pete, if you'd actually learn some real science as opposed to getting snippets from AiG and elsewhere, you'd do yourself a big favour. The evidence for an old earth and an even older universe is both overwhelming and very consistent. There are still unknowns, and a few (a *very* few in the big scheme of things) inconsistencies, but to try and leverage young earth creationist dogma into explanations for such inconsistencies is a disservice to those with truly enquiring minds who are willing to follow the evidence where it actually leads, rather than trying to shoe-horn such inconsistencies into a world-view which refuses to accept evidence when it contradicts its pre-suppositions.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: John P
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 07:54 PM

♫ I've looked at life from both sides now . . . ♫

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: John P
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 07:43 PM

Jack -- I wasn't defending anything that Dawkins said. I was questioning your insistence that he was speaking scientifically when he said that, and I was questioning your apparent blaming of anyone who likes Dawkins for any reason for his words, or at least assuming that other people agree with everything he ever said. You seem to be clumping all atheists together sometimes, and it sometimes makes it hard to know who you are talking about -- it becomes easy to think you are getting angry at all of us. And I'd still much rather find out what you think about these issues than what you think Dawkins thinks about it.

As for whether or not a religious upbringing is desirable, I'm actually on both sides of the question. For the most part, I think it depends on the specific situation. For most Christians I know, their faith manifests as a desire to feel love for their fellow man, to live their lives with honesty and integrity, and to do good works. I support those types of values being instilled in our young people. I don't like kids being told that fantastical events are the literal truth. I think it's bad for the moral fiber. I see that many kids naturally question the faith of their parents and reach their own conclusions. I also see that many don't, and the ones that don't are often the ones who want to tell other people how to live their lives. I really don't like the idea of telling parents how to raise their children, and I really don't think parents should get to do whatever they like to their kids. I guess I'll go figure out how to play "Both Sides Now".

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 07:40 PM

The issue with implanting "faith" into children so young that they can't possibly understand the consequences is, in my opinion, the greatest of all the evils of religion (one or two popes and Mother Teresa come a very close second). Let us remember that faith is the unquestioning acceptance of doctrine in the face of all contrary evidence. "Giving" children faith at a very early stage flies in the face of everything we believe about what one of the main aims of true education should be: the imparting of the skills to children that will enable them to seek, assess and criticise information, and to require evidence for any assertions that that are not based on self-evident truth. We are unjustifiably gentle on religion when it comes to this. We indulge all those seriously misguided people, many of whom are very nice people of course, who send their children to faith schools with the excuse that they "mean well". They are doing their children a serious disservice whilst doing their organised religion of choice a hell of a big favour (if you don't catch 'em young you don't catch 'em at all). I'm never going to excuse people who think in their heart of hearts that, because they think faith is a good thing, it's fine to force-feed that faith into young children. My view is that the concept of a God who breaks all the rules of nature is a far more complex notion than anything science has ever thrown up, and, as such, children probably shouldn't even hear about God at least until they can vote or join the army. God-bothering is not a trivial matter. You'd think I was a lunatic if I suggested that seven-year-olds should be taught string theory, yet we allow them to be taught about God, an infinitely more complex matter than string theory, and a chap to whom we are supposed to bow down our heads without question. Yes, we certainly let the faith-school/Sunday school brigade off far too lightly. The people who run them are manipulative scumbags and the people who send their kids to them are seriously deluded. It's the kids I feel sorry for.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 07:40 PM

The issue with implanting "faith" into children so young that they can't possibly understand the consequences is, in my opinion, the greatest of all the evils of religion (one or two popes and Mother Teresa come a very close second). Let us remember that faith is the unquestioning acceptance of doctrine in the face of all contrary evidence. "Giving" children faith at a very early stage flies in the face of everything we believe about what one of the main aims of true education should be: the imparting of the skills to children that will enable them to seek, assess and criticise information, and to require evidence for any assertions that that are not based on self-evident truth. We are unjustifiably gentle on religion when it comes to this. We indulge all those seriously misguided people, many of whom are very nice people of course, who send their children to faith schools with the excuse that they "mean well". They are doing their children a serious disservice whilst doing their organised religion of choice a hell of a big favour (if you don't catch 'em young you don't catch 'em at all). I'm never going to excuse people who think in their heart of hearts that, because they think faith is a good thing, it's fine to force-feed that faith into young children. My view is that the concept of a God who breaks all the rules of nature is a far more complex notion than anything science has ever thrown up, and, as such, children probably shouldn't even hear about God at least until they can vote or join the army. God-bothering is not a trivial matter. You'd think I was a lunatic if I suggested that seven-year-olds should be taught string theory, yet we allow them to be taught about God, an infinitely more complex matter than string theory, and a chap to whom we are supposed to bow down our heads without question. Yes, we certainly let the faith-school/Sunday school brigade off far too lightly. The people who run them are manipulative scumbags and the people who send their kids to them are seriously deluded. It's the kids I feel sorry for.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 07:36 PM

Howard and Don, thanks for the feed back. But I still think that "and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong"

Goes beyond what you both said. I am saying that Dawkins is just as dogmatic and extreme in his views as many of the religious people he condemns.

I think his views are much more polarizing than mine or Joe's or Brendan's Or even Rick Warren's, Billy Graham's and Charles Stanley's

I'm puzzled that no one agrees, but maybe my attempts at humor (the Cult of Dawkins etc) have made agreement with me too high a hill to climb.

Then again, repeating the same points to make a seemingly simple and self-evident argument is kinda boring. I have to entertain myself somehow.

Or did y'all think that I actually thought there was a cult?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 07:03 PM

If Dawkins wrote it he presumably believes it. Why shouldn't he?

If you think faith is a good thing, then clearly you will want to pass that on to others especially your children, and will view his statement as outrageous. However if you believe that faith is a bad thing, then you'll see indoctrinating young and impressionable children as bad thing. It's not really surprising that opposing views come to opposite conclusions

Religious people are often ready to take a very similar tone against things they disapprove of.

I can understand that Jack disagrees with both the statement and the underlying assertion, but that's his point of view and I can't see why he's surprised that someone with a different point of view should think differently.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 06:56 PM

""Faith can be very very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong.""

Niki Lauda, twice Formula One World Champion, shortly after the birth of his son, was asked by a journalist if he could take some photos of the boy.

Lauda pointed out that he couldn't answer for the son, but if the boy agreed, it was alright with him.

The reporter said "But he's only six months old, and and can't talk, so he can't give permission".

"So", said Lauda, "You'll have to wait tll he can". End of conversation.

Maybe Dawkins feels that making faith choices for a child which hasn't any conception of faith or any capacity to choose, is equally wrong.

Not saying I agree, especially with the wording, but the idea.......?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 06:29 PM

Sorry Brendan, I guess we are going to disagree on this. Honestly I don't see how it is debatable. When Dawkins said this

"Faith can be very very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong."

He meant exactly this

"Faith can be very very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong."

He has had editors and publishers and and debates and defenses of it. The words are NOT accidental.

He does not SAY "the abuse of faith" can be very very dangerous He is saying that to implant it (faith) into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong.

Its a simple question to you Brendan and to you and to everyone who cares to defend Mr. Dawkins, well two questions really do you think that he believes this "to implant it (faith) into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong." Do YOU believe it?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: BrendanB
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 04:44 PM

I would say that abuse of faith is very very dangerous. Faith is entirely personal and any attempt to to impose it on those who actively reject it is unacceptable.   I think that is what Dawkins is focussing on. In my experience children who have been educated in Catholic schools are well able to question Catholic doctrine. ( I have worked in Catholic schools and know that to be true). In fact, I have encouraged young people to question religious teaching because faith that is not arrived at freely is no faith at all.

Sexuality and relationships between adults are complex and challenge the understanding of those not directly involved. I hope that I will never sit in judgement on others in this (or any other) matter. We must all answer for our own behaviour not that of others. The fact that I have not committed adultery is probably down to luck as much as anything else.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 04:28 PM

Okay, John, let me take a whack at this.

"Do you believe that Jesus died and was mystically brought back to life three days later?"

No, I don't believe that. But that is a standard folkloric style of telling stories about important religious figures. Examine the other religions, and you will find that ALL important religious figures both entered and left the world in miraculous ways.

"Do you believe that the only way to enlightenment is through Jesus?"

No.

"What's the story on the whole three-in-one thing? What's that mean?"

Supposed triune aspect of the Deity:   Father, God, presumably the father of us all, as well as the father of Jesus, the Son, who tells us directly of God's will, and the Holy Spirit, the word of God as enunciated by Jesus. Again, it's a simile, a way of telling the story.

"Do you believe that Mary produced a virgin birth?"

Refer to my response to the first question about the folkloric aspects of stories about important religious figures. Side note: a pastor friend of mine, when confronted with this question, responded by saying, "What matters is what Jesus said, not the gynecological and obstetric details of His conception and birth." Yup.

"Do you believe that God made the world in six days and that the Theory of Evolution is essentially incorrect?"

Absolutely NOT!

"Do you believe in life after death? What is heaven and hell within your belief system?"

I don't know, nor does anyone else. The subjective fact is that a) I know that one day I'm going to die; that I cannot imagine myself NOT existing in one form or another (I am rather fond of the Eastern belief in reincarnation, and that living many lives is like going to school and passing from one grade to the next), but—let's put it this way: if there is an afterlife, it will be a whole new adventure, if there is not, I will no longer have a consciousness with which to be disappointed.

"Do you believe in Satan?"

No.

"Do you think God listens to and cares about prayers? Whose prayers get answered if equally good people ask for equally good but opposite results?"

Since I don't even know if there IS a Supreme Being, I don't have a lot of confidence in prayers being answered. I think prayer works on the person doing the praying.

"If God is omnipotent, why is there so much underserved suffering in the world? How is God not a complete schmuck in this regard?"

That is subsumed under my answer to the question directly above this one.

My state of agnosticism does not prevent me from going to the church I go to, which is a quite liberal church. The words of Jesus are what they consider important (with little attention paid to such things as virgin birth and resurrection and ascension in the body other than celebrating the usual religious holidays like Christmas and Easter), and this translates into trying to find housing for the homeless, providing a program of free meals for the hungry, and generally taking what Jesus is alleged to have said seriously in the form of action, rather than proselytizing.

I wish more churches would do that instead of making themselves a pain in the ass.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 04:20 PM

"On the other hand I believe that anyone who believes in stoning adulters is a barbar "

I believe that adultery is much much worse than any sin having anything to do with homosexual sex, other than adultery.

You are hurting someone you promised to love when you commit adultery. If you don't love them, divorce them. If you do love them and want to commit adultery, get counseling.

But I don't believe in third parties treating it as a crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 04:10 PM

BrendanB

You have not alienated me. For that matter no one else but the few people who have deliberately tried to goad me into anger with deliberate insults have alienated me and I am happy to talk to them on any post of theirs that doesn't include a deliberate insult.

Thank you for the insight into your life as a Catholic and your opinions about faith.

"I get tired of people denigrating Richard Dawkins. I really believe that he is a genuine human being and an extremely clever man who has very clear views based on a formidable logic. However, in my world, I recognise that reason is not the be all and end all. I admire Dawkin's intellectual rigour but he is a fallible human being and is as capable of error as the rest of us."

I am sorry it makes you tired, but this is an important point I am trying to make.

Dawkins is clever and he has famously applied intellectual rigour and reason to the creationism vs evolution "debate".

But where is the intellectual rigour and reason is this statement? I don't see any, none at all. I see an emotionally worded polemic statement with NO basic in science and very little, very dubious basis in logic.

"Faith can be very very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong." R. Dawkins, The God delusion.

"is as capable of error as the rest of us."

Fair point. Dawkins is capable of error. I am too. But is that statement an error? I think is deliberate. It is a key premise of his book. If it were an error, would his editors have missed it?, His publisher? Himself when he repeats and reinforces the point as I have seen him do?

I don't think so.

This is a clear point we can make in this debate right now. Do you agree with this sentence, the whole sentence and the connection made between atrocities and religious upbringing or not?

"Faith can be very very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong."

Do you think that is based on reason and intellectual rigour and science, or not?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: BrendanB
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 04:01 PM

Actually, Leviticus says 'put to death', not 'stoned'. Just thought I'd pre-empt any pinhead dancing.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: BrendanB
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 03:39 PM

Sorry,
To continue:
....A barbaric cretin who has no place in civilised society. (Check out Leviticus). As far as they are concerned I'm with Dawkins. But the fact is that most Christians that I know really do want and try to love their neighbours. In fact, that is what powers many people's belief. As far as I'm concerned that is what the Easter message is all about. Happy Easter! Feel the love!

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 03:35 PM

"Jack, you seem to be purposefully misunderstanding what Dawkins meant.

" I've never read anything by Dawkins,"

I've read a lot about what he has said on this topic. To much really.

To me that means I am in a much better position it than what "he meant" than you are. Do you dispute that? Exactly how do you know what "he meant." without having read the underlying context? How do you know I am "deliberately" distorting?

And believe it or not I really do not care if you accuse me of sounding like pete. All that means is that your have made up your mind on these issues and refuse to listen.

Is that a result of Dawkinsistic dogma? I don't care.

"Dawkinsistic dogma" was a bit of a joke referring to earlier threads discussions about whether he uses dogma or not. Atheist and author Frans de Waal said so in an article. Apparently you have come into conversation very late. Apparently you took me literally. Not a problem. I'd still rather be compared to pete who knows where his dogma comes from than to be caught blindly defending the nonsense pseudo logic of the Cult of Dawkins.

It is absolutely true that no child is born a Christian, or any other religion.
(didn't I say this already? Didn't I say that the "straw man" he implied was that people of faith did not believe that?)

While it may not be the intent, it is absolutely true that a religious upbringing is indoctrination."

I could argue the point that while there is a degree of "indoctrination" that bringing up a child in your own faith is a lot more complex than just indoctrination. What child would not say "Why can't I go to Church with you mommy?" If parents waited until they were 18 to indoctrinate them?

And Dawkins said it was a lot worse than indoctrination didn't he?

He said it was a grievous wrong.

"deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong."

John P. if you think that religious upbringing is a grievous wrong, you and I have no reason to discuss, religion, or education or family ever again.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: BrendanB
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 03:29 PM

OK, JtS is attracting quite bit of flak at the moment but because I honestly believe that his heart is in the right place let me see if I can divert some of it my way.   (There again, I may just succeed in alienating Jack.)
I am a Catholic who enjoys attending mass, not least because my wife and I are frequently asked to provide music (which is not the only reason but certainly adds something).
Why do I believe in God? I don't know but I know that I do and I value my faith. It somehow makes me complete. I do not believe that faith is of itself a danger to anyone. However, I have no doubt that many people, including many Catholic clerics, have abused their position and shat on my faith in many vile and loathsome ways. Does that devalue the faith? No. In exactly the same way as rape does not devalue the victim. The scumbags who commit such foul acts devalue only themselves.

I get tired of people denigrating Richard Dawkins. I really believe that he is a genuine human being and an extremely clever man who has very clear views based on a formidable logic. However, in my world, I recognise that reason is not the be all and end all. I admire Dawkin's intellectual rigour but he is a fallible human being and is as capable of error as the rest of us.

My faith is frequently mocked by fundamentalists who believe that the Bible is unerringly true (no I don't believe that). On the other hand I believe that anyone who believes in stoning adulters is a barbar

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: John P
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 02:42 PM

Your non-belief is not the problem, it is your apparent belief in Dawkinistic dogma.

Jack, does it bother you at all that you are starting to sound like starry pete, and that you are being lumped together with akenaton as far as the sensibility of your posts is concerned?

"Evolutionism", "Dawkinistic dogma". Sheesh!

Because you pointed the above comment at me, I'll try, once again, to be very clear: I don't believe in anything and, after everything you've read here on the subject in the last few weeks, saying I do is just you being a bit of an asshole. I've never read anything by Dawkins, but the quote you've been obsessing over has a very obvious and basically innocuous meaning that you are apparently willfully ignoring. As I said before, and you disagreed with. Oh well.

I'm not really interested in what anyone who is not here has to say on the subject, and I don't think that legalistically parsing absent peoples' words will lead to any enlightenment. I'm really a lot more interested in what YOU think. I'm seriously hoping you'll answer the questions I asked earlier:

Why do you believe all this Christianity stuff? How do you manage to square religious claims with the observed universe around you? I really don't get how you manage to make it all add up. Is there any explanation that will make sense to a non-believer?

Perhaps I should get more specific with my questions so we can have a more specific set of concepts to talk about:

Do you believe that Jesus died and was mystically brought back to life three days later?

Do you believe that the only way to enlightenment is through Jesus?

What's the story on the whole three-in-one thing? What's that mean?

Do you believe that Mary produced a virgin birth?

Do you believe that God made the world in six days and that the Theory of Evolution is essentially incorrect?

Do you believe in life after death? What is heaven and hell within your belief system?

Do you believe in Satan?

Do you think God listens to and cares about prayers? Whose prayers get answered if equally good people ask for equally good but opposite results?

If God is omnipotent, why is there so much underserved suffering in the world? How is God not a complete schmuck in this regard?

I'm sure there are a lot more questions, but I'll stop now. I know this thread is supposed to be about atheism, but without belief in gods there is no atheism. Maybe in order to understand atheism we need to understand faith more completely. I'd like to hear anything you can say that springs from your personal experience.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 01:53 PM

"Can't you get it into your head that 'scientifically' doesn't come into it? I wasn't trying to be 'scientific'""

How condescending, how like Dawkins.

You do not appear to realize that my original point, the one you were countering when you brought up the inquisition, brought science into it. YOU ARE CHANGING THE SUBJECT AND IMPLYING THAT I AM THE STUPID ONE FOR STICKING TO IT.

When Dawkins writes his books he does so as a scientist when he spouts unscientific nonsense in his books, naive, uncritical people take that as science. Or at least as words from a scientist.

"Faith can be very very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong."

Maybe we can get Bill D to parse this sentence. He has the vocabulary to describe convoluted tricks of logic.

Here is what I see. "Faith can be very very dangerous" Has he proved that "faith" is the cause of the atrocities committed in the name of religion? Not to me that is for sure. I don't think that "faith" causes a priest to bugger a child. Do you? The Crusades were a lot more about European politics and treasure than they were about faith. If they were about faith those noble knights might have stayed after the spoils tapered off. The inquisition was about consolidating power.

Can people commit atrocities of the same level without faith? I think you can think of some examples.

"deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong."

I have talked about the emotional words of the second part. He is certainly appealing to your reptile brains rather than your scientific, reasoning parts. Certainly Musket has bought into the idea of religious education = rape, let me say at this time that I am sympathetic to the points made by Jim Carroll about the Irish system. But let me try t say this carefully. What the priests are doing is rape. No one, not even the pedophile priests consider what they "implant" into those kids to be "faith."

Everyone agrees that raping kids is wrong. A friend of mine was raped and abused by "Christian" "brothers" in an orphanage when he was a child in Canada. Now the orphanage and "Brothers" are monitored when dealing with children. That is the way it should be.

But Mr. Dawkins goes far beyond that, doesn't he. He is saying that people like Joe Offer and my Christian cousin when they share their faith with their kids are "Implanting" something evil and doing their own kids a "grievous wrong."

"Faith can be very very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong."

I have to say that if you believe that sentence as written, I don't have time to talk with you. I will take the time to have a serious conversation, or even a lighthearted one, but trying to reprogram that level of delusion is a too daunting a task.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Stu
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 11:49 AM

I'd like to see a paper on the diamonds too - any chance of a ref pete?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 10:51 AM

"....diamonds supposedly millions of yrs old registering radio carbon."

Again, not heard of this so can't comment. Did you get it from a creationist source, pete? But even if it's true and even if it casts doubt on the science behind radio-carbon dating (which I doubt) then it says absolutely nothing about the validity of the creationist viewpoint. Again, for the umpteenth time, you can't just insert God into the gap that you think you've spotted!

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 09:27 AM

Sorry, akenaton, I left a word out of my last post. It is inserted below.

""There are things that will never become clearer over a good ol' slug of diet sprite.:)""

BTY, a perspective on alcohol:

While alcohol does cause disinhibition and is disasterous for some, there is more in its favour than this negative aspect. Many people enjoy its effects to escape insecurities, minimize outside distractions to allow a focus that is free from negative peer-learned and social evaluations and "the intrusive minutiae of everyday life". The "attentional tunnel vision" provides a useful route to assist and focus thinking and discussion of many life issues. It frees one from social (and even religiously learned) distractions. This is likely why so many writers write with a glass of whisky at their side. It is fair to say that everyone would not agree with that alcohol, in moderation (not to ther point of being pissed, of course), is "a preferred cup of tea" for everyone.

As to the benefits of teetotaling, George W. Bush was a teetotaler for 20 years. This did not help him to exhibit "clear thinking,at all. It may have led to his era of "teetotatalitarianism" while in office.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Stu
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 09:03 AM

" . . . I kept wondering if the information could have been more diplomatically in a nation that has such a large population of evangelical Christians who probably hold a literally biblical view of the beginning of things."

But why should an institution dedicated to the pursuit of science have to accommodate any religious viewpoint, whether it be Christian, Jewish, Muslim or The Prince Phillip Movement? More to the point, what was undiplomatic about the way the information was presented?

The Smithsonian (I know people that work and volunteer there and are of the highest calibre) or any other museum shouldn't succumb to alter their presentation of current scientific understanding to placate those souls seeking solace and guidance in the supernatural. I would hope the Smithsonian might engage those whose beliefs eschew science for other explanations, so a mutual respect and understanding could be reached even if the fundamental positions of both parties cannot be reconciled.


"i regard evolutionism as a faith position"

Then you misunderstand what evolution is and why people believe in it. It's not a faith position, it's about evidence.


" . . . since you mention dinos.i notice that darwinists now say that soft tissue can last millenia,not because its proven but because the paradigm is paramount."

Er, pardon? I think you are confusing (or deliberately conflating) 'darwinists' with palaeontologists and palaeobiologists and geochemists etc etc

Let me ask you Pete, how does soft tissue preserve? Do you think there are little bits of muscle or whatever, emerging fresh from it's rocky tomb? Soft tissue preservation is not a process, but many processes and is comparatively rare, although advances in technology, cross-discipline collaborations and improved field and lab techniques mean we are finding and recognising more and more instances of soft tissue preservation (cadaver decay island, anyone?). I know a chap who found a dinosaur with the skin envelope preserved, in 3D down to cellular level but the taphonomic processes that led to this preservation are at least partly understood, although there is a long way to go in subject area. The soft tissues Shweitzer et al have apparently discovered within a T. rex bone are the subject of heated debate, although I attended her presentation at the SVP meeting in Raleigh last October and found her latest work and analysis persuasive that these structures are not bacterial mats.


". . .some evolutionists admitting that their position is philosophical rather than scientific."

Ack. Palaeontologists (like all scientists) engage in philosophy, it comes with the territory and it may surprise you to learn that it's often a subject for discussion over a few beers. In fact I would suggest it's essential as scientists as it helps us understand where our research fits in and relates to other subjects the mighty, incomplete jigsaw that is current human knowledge. However, to suggest that belief in evolution if a philosophical position in and of itself I personally would say is incorrect, but I am happy to be proved wrong, so please put up the links (and not to creationist websites - that's cheating!).

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 08:42 AM

akenaton LOL

I know where you are coming from on that one. There things that will never become clearer over a good ol' slug of diet sprite.:)

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 08:07 AM

Perhaps no one picked up your point because of its somewhat cryptic phrasing.

I assume you are referring to the research which carbon-dated natural diamonds to be younger than the surrounding geological formations in which they were found. However this can be explained by the inaccuracies inherent in the carbon-dating method. Beyond a certain point, the few remaining carbon atoms in the sample are obscured by background radiation and the results cannot be held to be reliable. Even over shorter time periods there will always be a range of uncertainty in the results. Science doesn't claim to give certain results, which is something the religious often seem to have a problem with.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 07:54 AM

just to add to my previous post where my mind muddled my message,-and surprisingly no-one pulled me up on it
....diamonds supposedly millions of yrs old registering radio carbon.

your responces to my points are what i would expect despite even some evolutionists admitting that their position is philosophical rather than scientific.but thankyou for the civil responces.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 06:25 AM

Evolution is a theory derived from evidence. The evidence is not complete so our knowledge is not certain, however on the available evidence evolution is the most persuasive explanation. The theory may have to be changed or refined as further evidence comes to light - that does not undermine the theory, on the contrary it is the essence of the scientific approach.

Scientists have to revise their thinking all the time in the face of new evidence. Some theories, such as the sun going around the earth, have to be entirely discarded. Others may have to be radically revised, such as the Newtonian view of physics after Einstein. This lack of certainty in science is a strength, not a weakness, as it leads us towards a better understanding of how the universe functions, albeit still an incomplete and imperfect one.

It seems to me that what religious people seem to crave is certainty, which science cannot deliver. Faith, by definition, depends on an absence of evidence. Religious beliefs about creation depend not on evidence but acceptance of a narrative which has been passed down the generations.

The difficulty is that different people may sincerely hold entirely different and inconsistent beliefs. One person may believe that the world was created by God in seven days; others may believe that it was created by the union of Earth and Sky, or emerged from chaos, or from an egg. No matter how sincere these beliefs, they cannot all be true, and crucially, there is no evidence to support them. On the contrary, there is evidence to show that they are wrong.

What really worries religions is the concern that if one part of their narrative is undermined, all of it is. The story of Genesis isn't really an important part of the Christian message, and it doesn't really matter what theories some middle-eastern nomads held about the creation of the world 4000 years ago. However if you have insisted that every word of the Bible is literal truth, it's going to cause problems when part of it is shown to be wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 06:15 AM

I think you may be right Ed, if I was pissed it would probaby be crystal clear.....unfortunately I'm teetotal! :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 04:09 AM

"i regard evolutionism as a faith position.the details vary and may change but the dogma of materialistic causes dont.as a result they get science wrong,-think junk dna,vestigual organs,the eye wrongly wired etc.all predictions and assertions of evolutionists."


pete, I'm not a biologist/palaeontologist myself so can't comment on those details. I have no doubt that some scientists may, on occasion, get the details wrong. And if one scientist should happen to disagree with the findings of another scientist, then the original findings will probably be challenged - that's one of the ways in which science progresses!Science is NOT dogmatic or faith based ... as is, for example, your religion.

You seem to think that any 'inconsistencies' in the evolutionary model, that you and your fundamentalist chums think that you've found, entitles you and your mates to shove God and the Bible into the gap - well, it doesn't! That is illogical and absurd.

To sum up:

1. Science and religion are not equivalent. Science is open-ended and not dogmatic. Religion (particularly of the fundamentalist type) IS dogmatic and brooks no arguments.

2. Picking holes in the scientific world-view and then asserting that that your religion fills the gaps is just plain silly!

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 04:08 AM

"The sensible ground is somewhere in between. Isn't it?"
Yes - try it sometime
In Ireland, it has taken the serial sexual abuse of generations of children to have the matter even discussed - it still has to be acted on.
Meanwhile the church still hangs on to its most effective point of influence - the minds of children (though they might just have conceded their bodies) - tooth and nail.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 03:22 AM

Hello Sailor!

Just been having a giggle over your recent contributions. . I would like to give you the opportunity to back pedal by summarising your waffle rather than quoting you.

1. Agreeing with something Dawkins wrote is 'following him.'

2. Sectarianism is only a small factor in the NI troubles. Apparently 20th century people were still Pissed off with Cromwell enough to segregate themselves a few hundred years later into two factions of something that reckons to be about love and peace and that was as convenient as say, what type of socks you wear. Never mind, you obviously understand the issues due to seeing Orange marches in Canada.

I'd get to three but it would do no more than reinforce how amazingly shallow you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 03:22 AM

Hello Sailor!

Just been having a giggle over your recent contributions. . I would like to give you the opportunity to back pedal by summarising your waffle rather than quoting you.

1. Agreeing with something Dawkins wrote is 'following him.'

2. Sectarianism is only a small factor in the NI troubles. Apparently 20th century people were still Pissed off with Cromwell enough to segregate themselves a few hundred years later into two factions of something that reckons to be about love and peace and that was as convenient as say, what type of socks you wear. Never mind, you obviously understand the issues due to seeing Orange marches in Canada.

I'd get to three but it would do no more than reinforce how amazingly shallow you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 01:03 AM

"Have you proved scientifically...?" you twice ask me rhetorically in your peculiarly convoluted response to my simple propositions, Jack, and use 'scientific[ally]' three or four more times in addition.

Can't you get it into your head that 'scientifically' doesn't come into it? I wasn't trying to be 'scientific', but just to give a few historic examples, that nobody claimed to be 'scientific', to show that Dawkins was making a general point which wasn't meant to be 'scientific' either. The more you go on replying contemptuously and contentiously to points that no-one has urged, the less convincingly you come over.

I am leaving this topic now, as my head is beginning to spin trying to make any sense of your illogical arguments. If you choose to reply, then that will give you the last word on the matter; and much good may it do you.

Best

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 10:06 PM

It's a challenge, akenaton - drink (think) deeper and you will discover :)

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 09:55 PM

A tripod with a quick release comes in handy for the bobby bits.

Bifocals are handy for seeing screens and the action.

Sounds like a lovely day.

Lady vicar was a nice detail that added a bit of depth to your lovely description.

I don't talk about these issues in real life either. I also don't obsess about how others in real life are NOT talking about it.

But if you and I and Gnu were sitting around in a larger group and he asked a serious question about Heaven and Hell and you mocked the question saying "Hell is when you are on your last dirty shirt and Heaven is a bloody sip of scotch, and you didn't get a big enough rise out of that a you kept "prodding and ribbing" (your words) until you got a rise. I can see that it is possible that I might have something to say.