BS: Atheists

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: bobad
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 11:16 AM

As an adjunct to this thread:

A sign of the times - a church being put to an alternate use: Boekhandel Selexyz Dominicanen: 700-year-old Church Could be World's Most Beautiful Bookshop

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Stringsinger
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 10:44 AM

I'm sorry that we have to throw epithets at each other although I understand that this topic creates passion. When Dan created this thread, I don't think he knew the rancor that it would cause. But this rancor might be an important step toward our ultimate understanding of one another. So I'm grateful that Dan brought it up.

Aside from the personalities and brickbats, name-calling and righteous indignation, we can conclude that out of these disagreements that there is the potential of learning something valuable.

As for my own conduct, I didn't willfully lie to anyone. There would be no point in it.
I thought I had read something when I hadn't. I made a mistake. But it wasn't done willfully. I apologized for my error.

I did however react to the knee-jerk response to Dawkins whom I admire for his honesty, clarity and scientific observations. His books are an important read for anyone who attempts to criticize his views.

I think he and Ingersoll remain important critics of organized religion and shed the light on
the all too human negative behavior of some in the various churches. As to the other so-called (fallaciously I might add) "new atheists", each one has something of value to offer, even the vituperative Hitchens.

Having read some of the works of theologians, there have been redeeming ideas there that although I accept that they differ from my own, I find informative.

Religion is a fascinating subject for studying. It's an index into how the human brain functions and absorbs information. Some of the references of religion offer an insight into the language, lexicon and mores of various cultures. For this reason, comparative religion courses in college can be edifying if the student is allowed to think for him/herself.

Indoctrination and dogmatism are the enemies of clear thinking. They are the cause of needless battle lines being drawn. Understanding views other than our own is a help to ending the rancor and conflict.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 10:18 AM

"He was caught in a lie. He lied to me."
Evasion is as much a pert of lying as is straightforward porkies.
Continuing evasion is continuing dishonesty
Claiming my issue with the Church is Catholic is straightforward lying
- dismissing those issues is as downright insulting as my dismissing yours would be.
" I hope it is not news to you that people say mean things on the Internet."
It isn't - then why are you whingeing about being calloed a liar.
"You want to critique religion as a whole start your own danged thread"
You mean we can't talk about religion here - only atheists?
If you can't handle the subjects you pontificate on, don't pontificate, or at least, be honest enough to say you can't - and don't thow thread drift at me - it's a popular ploy with somebody equally eveasive as you seem to be - It just don't work.
As I said I am going to continue posting and I am aware that you are going to continue evading the points I raised - your refusal to respond will be answer enough and am happy to take it to the other thread - no new one necessary
Thank you for reminding me why I find religious people who defend the indefensible so dishonestly distasteful
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 09:09 AM

Jim, Stringsinger told me that he had read the opening post of a thread and the article posted. He told me this more than once. He told me this because it was clear to me that he had not been reading the thread and I had said so. Then he posted THE same article I had posted, not once, but twice that It contained important information about the topic of the thread, which was true because it was the topic of the thread nad strindsinger would have known that had he actually read the opening post.

He was caught in a lie. He lied to me.

Perhaps you can catch me in a lie? You could go through these threads and give us all links to the things you accuse me of. If you are right they are all still there. I am particularly interested in the "conspiracy theory" quote you keep referring to.

"The same goes for your pronouncements – that's why we hasve these little tete-a-tetes "

We are having these "tete-a-tetes" because the raw pain an emotion you show is palpable and I have been trying to show some compassion. It is seems very clear to me that you have emotional baggage about the Catholic Church. I thought you might have been raped or something the way you were acting. If that is not true if you are just acting this way to be an asshole. Please tell me. It will make me feel better.

"Not so long ago a bunch of us were called "******* liars and bigots" by one of you guys" Grow up. I'm not going to take crap for something someone else did.

"I have made it quite clear that my "issues" are with all organised religion and the effects it is having on our lives "

Then boo freaking hoo about your "issues" I haven't been talking about that I have been talking about several people who are rude. You want to critique religion as a whole start your own danged thread.

So in summary, I have not tried to denigrate anyone but a couple of "new atheists and two members of this forum, you know who they are, who have been denigrating me. If you think I am lying. Grow a spine and prove it rather than whining about it. I am not going to spend any more time on your hate filled spews about religion. If someone else has called you names don't take it out on me grow a pair and take it out on them, or grow up and just get over it.

I hope it is not news to you that people say mean things on the Internet.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: bobad
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 08:25 AM

This should hearten some of our posters: Russia moves to introduce jail sentences for insulting believers' feelings

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 06:12 AM

Sailor Boy
"You saying something is so, does not make it so."
The same goes for your pronouncements – that's why we hasve these little tete-a-tetes
"until you get the answer you want. "
I'd settle for an answer – haven't had any yet, please don't claim I have unless you are prepared to show that you have.
"You are accusing me of lying in that last post."
You accused Stringsinger of lying – are you reserving a right for yourself that you would deprive the rest of us of? Not so long ago a bunch of us were called "******* liars and bigots" by one of you guys for expressing views on religion he didn't agree with – so what; it's all part of robust debate.
Who the hell do you people think you are – you'll be telling us you can walk on water next.
"I don't want to continue this discussion with you"
Didn't think for a moment you would, I shall continue to respond to what you have to say - your silence is answer enough – no change there.
"I hope you work out your obvious issues with the Irish Catholic Church."
Further distortions (lies) – I have made it quite clear that my "issues" are with all organised religion and the effects it is having on our lives – "Catholic" doesn't come into it – just the one I have had most experience in.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 04:28 AM

Jim.

You saying something is so, does not make it so.
And just so you are clear on this. You are not the Spanish Inquisition. You do not get to keep asking me questions until you get the answer you want.

You are accusing me of lying in that last post.

Since you feel that way. I don't want to continue this discussion with you. I hope you work out your obvious issues with the Irish Catholic Church. But you have dumped them on me for the last time. Goodbye.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 04:08 AM

"You've posted a new accusation"
Sorry Jack, you know this is not true - I said exactly the same thing earlier on another thread and you described it as a "conspiracy theory".
"They wanted to talk about how "scientific" Dawkins was".
Again, not true - I and others have consistently written on the effect that the church has had on our lives - I think I have mentioned Dawkins once, in passing.
"I did get tired of trying to answer the same question"
You haven't answered one of mine, in fact, you have studiously avoided them in order to present believers as 'the persecuted ones - using a few limp-wristed insults to prove your case.
Personally, I see no signs of atheists persecuting believers, rather I see them objecting to the malign influence the church has had and continues to have on our lives.
Religious persecution appears to be very much a sect-versus-sect affair that blights all our lives, whatever we believe or don't believe - atheist persecution of the religious is the only "conspiracy theory" here.
As has been said often here and elsewhere, people are entitled to believe what they wish, it is vital for a free society that this is not interfered with. But it is equally important that these beliefs are not imposed on us all, as they have been for far too many centuries.
Deal with that one rather than puttling down straw men of your own making.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 02:46 AM

Thank you, pete. That was nicely answered.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 04:18 PM

OK Jim,

You've posted a new accusation so I will try to respond to that. I did not start new threads to avoid anything but the rancor.

I started them, I had found new articles, new to me at least, with interesting ideas, interesting to me at least. I thought and still think each thread I started was a separate and interesting topic. The first was Dr. de Waal's talk about Dogmatism of both Christians and "the new atheists", the second was about Islamophobia and the new atheists. The third was about how Ronald Reagan and Chris Hitchens were treated after they died and I thought it had some bearing on the discussion about Thatcher. The fact that Hitchens was the controversial figure used as an example had much more to do with the timing of his death.

None of the atheists wanted to talk about the Dogma. They wanted to talk about how "scientific" Dawkins was. Oh yeah and how much smarter Steve Shaw is than Beethoven was. No one wanted to talk about the Islamophobia. They wanted to talk about how evil I was for posting the article, as if I had written it all myself. And when I posted the article saying that we should not canonize controversial figures and said myself that we should not whitewash the past once they die, Stringsinger accused me of doing that by posting that very article.

This thread was not started by me, nor were three others what all the threads once they reach a certain number of posts, have in common is the Mudcat atheists using on of two tactics on each and every one, talk about the evils of religion treating all religious people the same, or completely change the subject.

So no I did not start threads to avoid answering questions. I did get tired of trying to answer the same question as people would just read the tread title, decide what it meant and pull criticisms out of their butts, not you Jim, Other people, Stringsinger did it several times and was caught red handed in a lie about having read the thread. I have answered all of your other questions on these few threads. I don't feel the need to defend the deeds of every person who ever did a cruel of misguided thing under the cloak of religion. I concede there have been many. If you will concede that there are some good people, like Ebbie's daughter, and Joe then we can walk away from this unfortunate thread with something of a consensus.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 04:12 PM

fair question ebbie. i have 3 daughters ,only one of which is regularly in church.i cannot imagine being negative about a devout parent whose children choose otherwise in life and belief.how beit i was actually complimenting yourself for being fairminded about christian life and faith as exemplified by your daughter,despite being unpersuaded of it yourself.i hope that satisfied your query, and that i have not missed the import of it.    pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 03:31 PM

"i freely admit that my starting assumption is the truth of the biblical narrative."

Well you see, pete, that's exactly where you're going wrong!It's a bit like trying to get from London to Glasgow using a map of Narnia.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 02:40 PM

I have a question for you, pete: Had I written that I am a devout Christian with few reservations about creationism but that my daughter, try as I might have to bring her up 'right', has abandoned the faith and is today doing her best to set creationists straight, would you still think of my post as being "fair"? Or would you judge me deficient in my faith, inconsistent in my lifestyle and a bad mother?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 01:44 PM

that was a very fair post ebbie.

thankyou rob for expanding on answer re diamonds.i am afraid that i would probably need an explanation of the explanation.you are quite right that lesser intelligent like myself could be decieved.the question is who is doing the decieving.i can only decide that by how much is understandable to me and the creationist position makes most sense to me.i freely admit that my starting assumption is the truth of the biblical narrative.the "leaders" whom you accuse of lying,are not here to defend themselves.but as i have said before they have [ i believe] publicly invited evolutionist leaders to debate.it seems dawkins ,and probably others have not taken the opportunity of exposing the "lies" of creationism where creationist scientists can defend themselves publicly.
you may have covered it but as far as the diamond carbon is concerned the detection was much greater than any residue reading .

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 01:35 PM

""My point is that, agnostic as I assuredly am, I raised a child quite different from me. Did I 'brainwash' her to think as she does? I don't think so. My main virtue, to way of thinking, is that I taught her to think for herself. The fact that she doesn't think as I do makes me smile.""

You are absolutely right Ebbie.

Your daughter was taught how to think, and then made a decision at a stage in life when she was more than capable of making an "informed" decision.

That can happen in either direction and is equally acceptable, whichever path is chosen.

It is the very antithesis of the approach which tells children what to think from the day that they start to talk.

I find it strange that parents should do that, while waiting until the teens before discussing careers.

If one, why not the other. And please, nobody try to say that an understanding of right and wrong is dependent upon religious education. That wild goose got away long ago.

And it is probably a good idea at this point to re-iterate that I am NOT an atheist, lest anyone get the wrong idea.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 12:10 PM

I am nowhere as high-powered on this subject as most of the posters on this thread are: I am not as well educated nor as clear thinking nor even as interested in the subject as most of the posters on this thread are.

However, having been reared as I was (in a fundamentalistic, don't-ask-too-many questions- being disrespectful to God is a sin- church and family) it is hard for me to take any church or any dogma too seriously.

But again: my daughter felt the need for religious certainty. By the age of 12, she was getting herself out of bed on Sunday mornings to go alone to church. I respected her for that, and still do. When she was 15 or so, I told her that I kind of envied people who were so sure of their beliefs but that it just was not me.

She is very bright and went to college on scholarships based on her grades and areas of interest. Today she is a pastor's wife and deeply involved not only in her church but in many causes from battling homelessness to combating domestic violence to providing access to higher education.

She writes essays for her church's website and sounds as though she has a personal relationship with her 'savior'. Maybe she has- I don't know, because I don't understand such certainty.

My point is that, agnostic as I assuredly am, I raised a child quite different from me. Did I 'brainwash' her to think as she does? I don't think so. My main virtue, to way of thinking, is that I taught her to think for herself. The fact that she doesn't think as I do makes me smile.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Stringsinger
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 10:09 AM

"You have obviously not read my posts you self-righteous lying ass!"

Spoken like a true Christian and follower of Jesus. It makes your "god bless you" seem hollow. But I understand your anger because many of the ideas that you present are challenged and are defended by accusing me of not reading them.

One of the reasons I keep these posts going is that Mudcat is one of the few places left where new ideas that run counter to the prevailing bureaucratic mantras can be expressed with the hope that a dialogue will ensue that would be enlightening. it's one of the few places on the internet that suggest a return to democratic values. Of course, when you express a point of view that runs counter to the accepted shibboleths of our politicians and religious leaders and their adherents, you can expect vituperative ad-hominems and curses.

Still, I think the discussion is worth it, since it presents other ideas rather than the smug prevailing ones that are taken for granted.

A discussion of what atheists are or are not is valuable since there are different definitions and points of view held by them. Sam Harris, Dan Dennet, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins do not always agree in their views. Still, they see the importance of information and dialogue. Having read some of their works, I have been presented with new ideas that are worthy of consideration.

When Dawkins suggests that god is a delusion, he is not accusing religious people of being deluded in every part of their lives. Obviously, to be a good sailor, you can't be deluded to run a tight ship in perilous oceans. He is talking about religion in general, how it is applied to a majority of people who believe. He has been open and sincerely interested in how they have come to their conclusions and I recommend that before we talk about Dawkins, some familiarity with his point of view which comes from reading his books would enhance this conversation.

Demonization of any point of view doesn't enlighten anyone. As I have mentioned before, I don't demonize Christians and having been one myself years ago,I think I understand where they are coming from. It's easy to push their buttons unintentionally.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 06:08 AM

On the road coming into this town there is a somewhat knocked-about Georgian building, now half tyre repair place, half car showroom; it is referred to by the locals as "Ball's school".
During the famine, which hit this area pretty badly, both with starvation and eviction by English absentee landlords for failure to pay rent, it was occupied by an English clergyman named Ball who ran a school which supplied soup to the children on condition that they changed their religion to Protestant.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Howard Jones
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 03:55 AM

My home town has a monument to mark the spot where in the 16th century a 15-year old boy was tied to a tree and burnt to death for the crime of reading the bible in English. This was far from being an isolated incident during the Reformation. The school I went to was founded some years later by the man responsible out of remorse - or perhaps because with a change from a Catholic to a Protestant monarch he felt it expedient to move with the times.

Now this was a long time ago. However Christianity claims 2000 years of heritage, so you can't just wipe away the last 1950 or so years and say they are no longer relevant. Equally horrific things are happening today all round the world in the name of religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 03:30 AM

"I have seen Atheists say that if you believe in God you are stupid and mentally ill."
Pretty small stuff compared to a lifelong of brainwashing from the day you begin to think and speak. Some sort of hard words are to be expected by somebody who climbs into the minds of our children and, using fear and coercion implants an irrational doctrine there that has been passed down the millenia.
"I think "lets work together in peace"
With who exactly, Atheists and believers, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, all Christians....?
Inter-religious dispute has been and continues to be one of the great causes of hatred and a major threat to world peace on this planet - not much signs of lions lying down with lambs there.
Sounds to me as if you are mustering your forces for a 'last battle' in a war you are losing.
In my lifetime Christian churches have climbed into bed with some of the greatest monsters in history, Hitler, Mussolini, Pinochet, Salazar, Franco, Papandreou, Videla, Massera, Agosti......
"Did the C of E say "if you don't go to church you'll. (go to Hell or whatever?)"
Now your talking brand-names - the threat of hell and eternal damnation is part and parcel of every religion - sometimes it comes wrapped in a velvet glove, sometimes it is presented in all its magnificence.
"You are a real piece of work."
Not a bad "piece of work" yourself.
Evasion is the most common form of lying on all these threads and you have proved yourself a master of the art. You have not addressed once the effect of implanting myths and legends as facts into the minds of children, you have skirted around the behaviour of the church towards the faithful, particularly and most horrifically children, (hinting darkly 'it was them wot dunnit' "Did the C of E say....") - a form of inter-religious one-upmanship that continues to infest our lives, and you have whined at being called a few names at a time when the world is torn apart and threatened with extinction by inter-religious disputes.
You are not the victims here, and to claim you are is the greatest lie of all.
Whatever failings they may have, Dawkins and co have my gratitude for their robust attempts they are making to break the stranglehold of religion - I hope I live to see it, but I'll probably toasting my feet on the hobs of hell you have invented to terrorise people into submissive obedience.
Why not surprise us and answer some of the serious aspects of religion rather than dodging behind unfounded accusations of 'bullying' and 'persecution'.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 10:08 PM

"Wow, Jack! I've just read again all of Stringsinger's posts on this thread and none of them should have elicited anything like the flame you just directed at him. "

Well John, he's been doing this for 5 threads now. This is his mildest.

I'll admit that I could have and should have been kinder

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 09:48 PM

Pete, yes, it's true as I actually stated in my post, that radio-carbon dating is only valid back to an age of 50,000 years or so. It's not that it becomes "undetectable" but that the C12/C13/C14 ratio error bars, when the C14 proportion becomes very small, in effect swamp the precision of the measurement, making attempts to date beyond this increasingly inaccurate.

The fact that Carbon 14 has been detected in diamonds is irrelevant. Unlike living entities, diamonds are not made from atmospheric carbon, but are formed deep within the Earth. They naturally contain some traces of nitrogen that can be altered by decay of radioactive elements present in the diamond into C14.

Radiocarbon dating is based on the measured ratio of unstable C14 to stable C12 and C13 in atmospheric carbon dioxide...but the original ratio of these two non-atmospheric isotopes in a newly-created diamond is unknown. So any attempt to use isotope ratios in diamonds as a dating tool is a ridiculous use of the technique. The creationists at RATE who did this work KNOW that it's a ridiculous thing to do, and of no value whatsoever except in planting entirely spurious "seeds of doubt" into those of their followers who have insufficient knowledge of the true physical processes to understand themselves that they are being sold a complete "red herring".

It's a blatant attempt to deceive followers into doubting the efficacy of carbon dating of *organic* matter, because if they don't it drives a big nail into the coffin of YEC-ism. Your leaders are LYING to you and they KNOW they're doing it!

If someone wants a "get out" by saying that radioactive decay rates may have changed over the years, they need to be aware as I also said in the post above, that comparison with varve and ice core samples shows no such occurence over at least the last 40,000 years, and other calibrations take us back much further. But also look again at my last italicised paragraph in the other post. If radioactive decay had been significantly different in the past, RATE's own work shows that the required heat dissipation over a mere 6000 years would have been enough to vaporize all granite rock on earth. We'd be (not) living on a molten slag-heap if it were true!

So I've directly tackled your points in this post (though I had tackled them in the previous one somewhat less directly). Your diamond point has been refuted to its originators many times yet they continue to propagate it as evidence.

Pete...PLEASE start educating yourself rather than culling snippets of long-discredited information from publications of those who have a strong vested interest in lying to you on the (seemingly accurate) assumption that you don't actually know enough real science to understand the snake oil they're selling.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: John P
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 08:30 PM

Wow, Jack! I've just read again all of Stringsinger's posts on this thread and none of them should have elicited anything like the flame you just directed at him. You are proving his Moby Dick point, you know. If you want to see some bullying, you should look in a mirror.

Why are the opinions of atheists pissing you off so much? It doesn't seem like you.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 07:23 PM

that was a lot to go through rob,,and your greater learning is evident.however even reading it twice i,m not convinced that you actually tackled my points.is it not true that radio carbon can only go back so far before it becomes undetectable.is it not also true that it has been detected where other scientific disciplines claim millenia older.are not diamonds claimed to be in the latter category .

sugarjack - i have on previous threads provided quotes and sources.i am not about to do it all again.i am quite busy.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 05:44 PM

Stringsinger.

Lying about what I have said is not treating me respectfully. Lying about reading it isn't any better. You are a real piece of work. Please excuse me if I don't address you anymore. I have little interest in the words of liars.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 05:39 PM

Your going after Dawkins is as a Christian Ahab going after the white whale of atheism.

You have obviously not read my posts you self-righteous lying ass!

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 05:36 PM

It's not surprising that some religious people see themselves as victims of bullies. After all, there they were all nice and snug under their comfort blankets and then along came all of those nasty old atheists, backed by reason, logic and science, and whipped their blankets away! Now they're exposed to the icy cold of reality.

Not only that, but they've no longer got any reason to declare themselves superior to, or more enlightened than, anyone else and have no justification for browbeating, brainwashing and bullying others.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Stringsinger
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 05:09 PM

Jack your posts, I've read them all and found them not particularly illuminating. You don't have to talk to me directly. I will respond when I read something that is off the wall.

There is no enemy, here. Just an attempt to have an adult conversation about an important issue. Your going after Dawkins is as a Christian Ahab going after the white whale of atheism. Dawkins is not an enemy of anyone. Remember, this is not a bar fight here. It's a difference of opinion to be treated respectfully.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 01:29 PM

MtheGM,

I am not about to ever call the Crusades and inquisition bullying.

They were far worse than that. But as I have pointed out before that the Crusades was about looting and the inquisition about the consolidation of political power.

Also, I have never said that the bullying of SOME current atheists was as bad as some Christians of the past and of SOME current Christians. I have taken great pains to say that politically, bullies like Dawkins and Harris and for that matter Musket and Shaw, hurt in the fight against religious fanatics imposing their will on society more than they help.

I am not the enemy. People like Joe Offer and Brendanb are not the enemy. Creationists taking over school boards and people trying to impose things like sharia law and Sunday laws on non-believers are the problem. People claiming to represent reason engaging in name calling make it seem as though the fight is between different sides of the same coin rather than reason and fundamentalism.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 01:11 PM

I'm sorry, Jack. I know it was all long ago, and all that. But I revert to the Crusades and the Holy Office: violence and cruelty committed explicitly in the name of religion. These are history in Christian terms; but is not Sharia Law, with some of the appalling details of its imposition [teenage girls caned 100 strokes on the bare buttocks for the enormity of conceiving after rape; 'adultresses' buried to the neck in sand and stoned to death ~~ well documented recent instances], a contemporary instance of the same syndrome in a present-day setting involving another faith?

As Jim has been at pains to point out, you cannot point to any such enormities committed explicitly in the name of atheism.

No-one is saying these are an inevitable outcome of all manifestations of religious faith. But you cannot wish their existence, historical or contemporary, away, in relation to some.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 01:00 PM

"I am also suggesting that bullying is part and parcel of most religious teaching and has been down the ages."

It wasn't for me. Not at all. But a lot of my upbringing did involve bullying.

I have seen Atheists say that if you believe in God you are stupid and mentally ill. Not blackmail perhaps, but still bullying.

I think "lets work together in peace" is the best approach.

Did the C of E say "if you don't go to church you'll. (go to Hell or whatever?)"

My Mom's family and my Grandmother on my Dad's side were all Anglican. I never once heard that from them.

I empathize with your experiences. But they are far from universal.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 12:48 PM

"If you want to say that no atheists ever are bullies "
Never said anything of the sort - atheists can be bullies, left handed, vegetarians, wife beaters, like Bob Dylan music..... just like believers can. What I am saying is what they are has nothing to do with their atheism.
I am also suggesting that bullying is part and parcel of most religious teaching and has been down the ages.
A major part of that bullying is spiritual blackmail; "if you don't go to church you'll...." and this from the point when a child begins to think and understand what is being said to it.
I've yet to hear an atheist say "if you go to church you'll spend eternity living in Milton Keynes listening to Daniel O'Donnell records" - thence the difference.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 12:10 PM

I follow Carlos Santana in my Facebook. He posted this today.

Carlos Santana
I made a request to the audience
When we were in Melbourne, Australia
I asked-
if you are or consider yourself to be an atheist
Please stand up
Many of you did stand up !!!
Well - I LOVE respect honor
and salute your courage- conviction
And your honesty
Thank you for being YOU
I DO believe in a SUPREME being
We are given the freedom
of free will and choice
Live long healthy and prosperous
My sisters and brothers
Of all beliefs and faiths
Peace

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 12:08 PM

Jim,

I've said all I have to say to you on this topic. If you want to say that no atheists ever are bullies with your evidence being that the Churches bully more, I have no useful response.

I sincerely hope that you work out your issues with the Irish Catholic Church.

"Christians and non-believers can become allies on social causes or even get along together as long as atheists such as Dawkins can present his views without being called a "bully"."

I am tired of talking with you Stringsinger. You don't read what is said. You simply make half-assed pronouncements about the word or two that you do read. Have a nice life.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 11:26 AM

"All I have been saying is that some atheists are bullies"
I would say outspoken and articulate - I don't see any atheists picketing family planning clinics or terrorising young women when they are at their most vulnerable.
I've never come across atheist suggesting that those those who don't share their views "don't believe in anything" or are really "closet atheists (whole thread devoted to that one), or are to be "pitied and prayed for"   
I don't see any atheists pulling the strings of government in order that they observe "god's law" - what the hell is "militant atheism" anyway?.
The history of any church with any degree of influence is to abuse that influence - the history of any church with power is one of bullying militancy, often to the extent of going to war. The British, and many other Empires was launched on "God and Country - if you ever gat a chance read Mark Twain's brilliant 'King Leopold's Soliloquy.
The Church of England, while having to some degree the ear of the government, is little more than a figurehead to be wheeled out at coronations, royal weddings and state funerals - too much influence as far as I'm concerned but it will do to be going on with.
The Catholic church, certainly in Ireland, wielded enormous power, as a result the laws here remain fixed somewhere in the early part of the twentieth century - I wonder if you are following the Halappanarva inquest - now that's what I call being militantly aggressive.
The grip of the church here has loosened somewhat due to the revelations of the clerical abuse affair, and will probably relax again when the Magdalene Laundries cases come into the open.
the church's favourite preoccupation seems to have been going into people's bedrooms and telling them how they should be doing 'it' - celibate old men (supposedly) telling us about "the birds and the bees".
Nowhere in my experience has this happened anywhere with atheism, those who have no spiritual belief are now free to express their views openly, and this appears to be what you are describing as "bullying".
I don't know what "reasonable non-believers are - those who don't talk about it, those who only don't believe on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays - what?
As far as I'm concerned things will only be put right when Church and State are totally separated and when people's beliefs are their own and not implanted from an age when it is virtually impossible to be removed.
You realise I suppose that such discussions as this would have the 'thought police' banging on our doors at midnight, well within my lifetime anyway?
"....angry with certain people in authority in the Irish Catholic Church"
A clarification - I was born in Liverpool and lived in the UK until my retirement, my father and mother were born in Glasgow and Liverpool respectively, my grandparents were both Liverpudlians.... Our experiences were of the English Church - nothing to do with Ireland - but than again, Catholic means "Universal".
"civil and reasonable."
Can't think of anything less "civil or reasonable" than the behaviour of the church down the centuries - far more evil than "communism or some other evil".
By the way, the number of anti- atheist threads that have been on-the-go recently (a number of them being started by you) falls well within my description of "bullying".
Must go - god seems to have abandoned our garden and left me to clear up the mess.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Stringsinger
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 11:15 AM

In accusing so-called "militant athests" as bullies, you are missing the point. Atheists have every right to present their views as do evangelical Christians, Islamists or Jews (the latter not being particularly evangelical). The so-called "militant atheists" have every right to criticize religion without Christians feeling victimized. The thing that bothers them the most is that today more atheists are becoming articulate and so-called "moderate Christians" can't stand that so they call atheists "bullies" when in fact the reverse is true.

Christians and non-believers can become allies on social causes or even get along together as long as atheists such as Dawkins can present his views without being called a "bully".

Christians and non-believers are never allies in their thinking, however. Without "militant types" such as civil rights activists, environmental activists, women's rights activists, peace activists, this country would never progress to anything more than a soporific stupor and social improvements would never be made. This so-called "reasoned" view is pernicious in that it suppresses social activism.

It is incumbent upon Christians and other religious people to understand the atheist position without getting their back up and calling names such as "bully".

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 10:22 AM

Jim,

All I have been saying is that some atheists are bullies and having faith in religion does not automatically make a person dangerous.

You and you family seem to have good reason to be angry with certain people in authority in the Irish Catholic Church. It is fair to say that they had too much of the wrong kind of power in your society at the time and that they abused it.

Did they think that they were protecting the world from communism or some other evil? I think so. But I think it was a grievous wrong for them to try to use your families faith as a political tool.

I think it is important for societies not to give any one group too much influence or power.

I like the principle of separation of Church and State in the US system. I am willing to fight for it politically. Your story provides a valuable cautionary tale.

But I don't see militant atheism as a viable tool in that fight. I want to see all of the name calling and semantic distortion come from the other side and for the side of reason to remain civil and reasonable.

Moderate loving Christians and reasonable non-believers are natural allies. Militants of all types cause more trouble than they are worth.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 04:19 AM

"That seems like your dad was mistreated to me."
He thought so at the time; he came to believe his break with the church opened up the world that had been denied to him by his religious education.
It wasn't just the excommunication that affected him initially.
He was wounded and taken prisoner in Spain - I have already described how he was put before a mock firing squad over a number of months; I don't think I mentioned that he was given mock last rights by the same priest throughout that period who was well aware that what was happening was deliberate mental torture.
The only time I ever saw my father weep was when he told me a story of an event that took place when the result of the war hung in the balance.
A young Spanish lad still of school age was taken prisoner for being a runner (messenger) for the Republicans. The Italian commander of the prison questioned the lad and decided he was harmless and instructed that he be detained along with the rest of the prisoners.
The priest (he of the last-rites), was from the same village as the lad, and, should the war have gone the 'wrong' way, was apparently worried that he would been identified as having supported the fascists so he demanded that the boy be executed - he was.
"It also seems that you don't have nearly the beef with the C of E as the Catholic Church."
I found there to be far less compulsion and attempt at mind-control than with my relatives who followed the faith.
"Are you saying the school did or didn't brainwash you"
They didn't attempt to - they simply put their case. Ironically the highest exam mark I ever received in school was in the Religious Education class - 95%.
This was due to my love of literature and my ability to remember the poetry of the psalms and the beautiful prose that we were taught - all gone now when they abandoned the King James Bible.
You still ignore the main point of these arguments - the bullying compulsion that accompanies religion - THIS IS NOT THE CASE WITH ATHEISM.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 08 Apr 13 - 10:45 AM

I recall that Religious Education classes were in the curricula of the various (C of E) schools that I attended - but, curiously, I can remember very, very little about them. All that I really recall is that the Bible is in two halves: the first half is full of begatting and slaying and people living in the desert with dishcloths on their heads (that's how my infant brain pictured it anyway); the second half is about someone called Jesus (or,as he's referred to these days, "this man Jesus".). I probably couldn't tell you a lot more about Christianity now! So school didn't succeed in brainwashing me. I suspect that I probably found it all pretty unconvincing then. On the other hand, school did force a lot of useful stuff about reading, writing, arithmetic and science into my thick head.

Still, I'm glad that I wasn't born into a Catholic or Protestant fundamentalist family.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Stringsinger
Date: 08 Apr 13 - 09:57 AM

Indoctrinating children before they have the intellectual capacity for making choices about what "faith" they desire is wrong. Any attempt at religious brainwashing is no different than any other kind, political or otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Apr 13 - 07:28 AM

>>My father, as well as being excommunicated, had come to the attention of the security services and had been blacklisted from his work - he was a skilled cabinet-maker. Unable to find alternative work he had taken to the roads as a navvy and spent mots of the time away from home.<<

That seems like your dad was mistreated to me.

It also seems that you don't have nearly the beef with the C of E as the Catholic Church.

Are you saying the school did or didn't brainwash you. If they did, they certainly didn't do it well.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 13 - 06:13 AM

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.

If you tell your kids you're an atheist you will have to explain to them why, in a world saturated with religion-by-default, you have rejected religion. Gone completely against the flow. Contrary to what you say, that conversation is actually a very good tool for showing children how to think for themselves (the very opposite of what faith requires). You will be telling them that you have looked in vain for evidence for God's existence and found none. You will tell them that it's up to them to consider evidence and come to their own conclusion, free of pressure. That's what every atheist I know has done. I've done it with my own two kids. No atheist I've ever known insists that you follow his convictions. That can hardly be said to be true for faith, can it?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 08 Apr 13 - 06:01 AM

Dawkins presumably uses extreme language because he's challenging extremists.

Most religious people I know are not extremists. They just get on with living their lives the best they can and trying to be good people – just like most non-religious people I know. They accept science and education, and decide for themselves which parts of their religious scriptures hold what they consider to be fundamental truths, and what should be regarded as metaphor. So far as I am concerned, that is absolutely fine – it is no concern to me what they choose to believe in. To me, it's like having an interest in stamp-collecting or golf – I don't see the attraction myself but understand that some people do.

However some religious people want to impose their views on the rest of us. Even moderate religious organisations seem to believe that their views should receive special consideration when public policy is being considered. The more extreme insist that their views should receive special treatment – for example, those who insist on creationism being taught in schools (but only their version of creationism of course). At its worst, religion is hostile, even violently so, to education and free thought, not mention personal freedom.

Of course it's not just religion which can be oppressive, intolerant and restrictive. However religion exercises enormous influence over millions of people. For the most part, that influence is benign, even positive – I don't undervalue the good things done in the name of religion, but repeat the point that religion is not a prerequisite of doing good things. However, all too often that influence is malign, oppressive, violent and dangerous. You may say that's the fault of the people interpreting it rather than of religion itself but the effect is the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 13 - 05:54 AM

"I'm really sorry you and your family were mistreated."
My family were not mistreated - unless you call brainwashing ill-treatment - my father was grateful to have got out from under the oppressive influence of religion and the church, and I am eternally grateful to hve never been sucked into that fairy-world.
You avoid the point - religion is the result of centuries - even millenia of brainwashing and compulsion - atheism is not, yet you make yourselves out to be victims.
None of us had the choice of opting out of religion, we only had the choice of what brand of religion we were fed.
I can can still remember vividly my first encounter with religion.
My father, as well as being excommunicated, had come to the attention of the security services and had been blacklisted from his work - he was a skilled cabinet-maker. Unable to find alternative work he had taken to the roads as a navvy and spent mots of the time away from home.
When it came time for me to be enrolled in school, my mother, being half under the Iron-Heel of the church, couldn't really decide where to put me so, one day a well meaning aunt, under the pretence of taking me for a walk, whipped me around to the local RC school, St Sebastian's.
We stood in this long, gloomy, browny/yellow corridor populated by floating black-robed and hooded creatures floating from room to room, apparently without the aid of feet. We were standing next to a larger than life statue of a half naked man shot through with arrows and streaming with blood - I was petrified and we had only been standing there for a matter of minutes - god alone knows what years in such an environment would have done to me.
Luckily the school was full to capacity, so I was finally enrolled in a somewhat wishy-washy religiouswise C of E school a mile away full of human beings and without any S & M statues - lucky escape eh?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Apr 13 - 05:04 AM

"According to article it was not beatings by nuns that caused Mrs. O'Hair to abuse her sons."

Oh, well that's all right then!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Apr 13 - 04:54 AM

I'm really sorry you and your family were mistreated. My experience was very different. Some religious people have committed crimes.

According to article it was not beatings by nuns that caused Mrs. O'Hair to abuse her sons.

He traces her atheism to that self-absorption and hubris and to an aggressive antiestablishment streak that led her (with her two sons) into a variety of left-wing causes—even, he claims, to the Soviet embassy in Paris in search of exile. Rejected by Moscow, she retreated angrily back home to Baltimore where, as he puts it, "The rebel found a cause in prayer at school."

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Apr 13 - 04:45 AM

Jim Did you read the article?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 13 - 04:38 AM

"Inserted Atheism into her son the same way that Dawkins and Steve claim that people of faith insert their faith into their children."
And has had Christianity inserted into her by an education system that ruled by brute force and enforced ignorance, possibly by thuggish nuns an sexually abusive priests as described above.
Atheism isn't "inserted" into anybody, it is rationally argued in order to give an alternative to the myths, tales and fairy stories we all took in with our mother's milk due to generations of brainwashing - that is what compulsory religious teaching is - brainwashing by fear.
Arguing against the expression of rationally argued ides is extreme censorship.
My parents were fed their religion by fear - my mother went to her grave in fear of the church ind in terror of the threat of eternal damnation.
My father was excommunicated for fighting Fascism in Spain; once removed from a regime based on fear and enforced ignorance he began to think for himself and developed a fine mind eager to learn everything that had been forbidden to him during his Catholic education.
Most of the literature he introduced me to were on the Catholic "index" of banned books (including the wonderful Irish classic 'The Tailor and Ansty' - a high point of my life).
I don't know of an atheist list of banned books - do you?
Writers like Dawkins are arguing for freedom of access to all knowledge; the Church is suppressing that knowledge just as the Nazis burned books.
If you want to find deliberate suppression of thought and ideas, you would do well to look nearer home.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Apr 13 - 03:36 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. "

I've not talked about a single person as a sinner. I've accused no one of sin. Nor do I do so now.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Apr 13 - 03:32 AM

"I am not attacking Atheism here"!

Jim, I'm simply saying that this particular atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair, Inserted Atheism into her son the same way that Dawkins and Steve claim that people of faith insert their faith into their children.

I'm not attacking that woman. I'm passing on a report of what her child said was inserted into his innocent mind. If anyone attacked atheism, it was her. But that is not the case is it? She was just raising her kids in her own belief system.

I'm attacking Steve's claim but I am not attacking Atheism. Atheists are people just like everyone else. They have baggage and deserve to be left alone to raise their own kids as they see fit. Just as people of faith do.

Every now and then child services services have to step in and protect children. I don't think that they should be protecting them from being taken to Sunday school.