BS: Atheists

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 09:50 PM

Although I agreed with the information in the exhibit completely, 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.

Is there a way for us to be more diplomatic and tolerant without compromising our own views?

The thing about information is that it is neutral. Information is tendentious only when it is presented partially (which, admittedly, happens a lot). Honest presentation of information need not be diplomatic. That implies dressing up so as not to offend. When it comes to good information, well out with it, I say. All of it. There is no reason why information, dispassionately presented, should offend anyone save those who are determined to be offended at all costs.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 09:38 PM

Went to a wedding today. It was a thoroughly Christian wedding in a beautiful village church in south Devon (in fact, the two people met as a result of their church activities). I sat at the front, away from the rest, to video the ceremony for the couple. I even stood up and sat down at the appropriate points as the lady vicar instructed us (why did I have to say "lady" there? You decide!!). You can tell from the shaky bits of my recording when I was bobbing up or bobbing down. It was all lovely, there was a super choir, there was laughter when neither of the rings would go on, the sun beamed in through the stained glass and (just for once!) there was a really good organist. I have to video with my specs off as I can't see the little screen otherwise, but that means I can't see the real-life action except though that screen. I spotted two blokes who are avowed atheists, people just like me, singing the hymns and even intoning the awful Lord's Prayer! I really don't know why I'm telling you this. People like pete, Jacko and akenaton come on here and continually and dismally misrepresent themselves deliberately. It's pretty easy to inadvertently misrepresent yourself as a hard-faced, polemical bastard when, really, you're no such thing. I talked to dozens of thoroughly committed Christians today, and not a single one went away from those conversations thinking that I thought they were deluded. That is the difference between real life out there and the increasingly hysterical rantings of Jack, the crass and abysmal stupidity of pete and the dark-ages bigotry of achy-tony. I met a load of people today (admittedly on their best behaviour and dressed in their finery, though frequently fizz-fuelled, unlike me, with a 70-mile drive home ahead of me - grr) who laid far greater store by their friendly humanity that by any religious or otherwise convictions. I hate to tell you Christians this, but, bar the most ardent evangelists, being a Christian is actually a very small part of your life. You are a committed Christian, I am a committed atheist (I'm right and you're deluded, by the way ;-) )but we live our lives in exactly the same way. Unless you are divorced from worldly reality, you do not think of God every two minutes any more than I think of atheism every two minutes. Actually, I'm far too busy thinking about sex every six seconds myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 09:33 PM

I am not missing his point. You are missing his deceit. You are choosing to abandon a 2,000 year old generally accepted definition for Mr. Dawkins.... paradigm. Your non-belief is not the problem, it is your apparent belief in Dawkinistic dogma. I don't try to deprogram Christian cults. I don't let them try to reprogram me. I am not a philosopher. I am not a theologian. I am certainly not a fan of Christian apologetics , in fact I find their arguing for God to be manipulative and I am not interested in the company of people who would be persuaded by that approach. So I will spare you that tedium. When you have released yourself from the Dawkins cult, I will be happy to talk to you about what I believe.

It is true that no child is born a Christian. But there certainly ARE Christian Children. I was way more observant than my parents when I was five. I used to beg my grandparents to take me to Church.

I was baptized into the United Church of Canada as an infant. To say there is no such thing as a Christian Child to me rings a little hollow. And contrary to Mr Dawkins assertion. There is a generally accepted definition of Christian child which is the child of Christian Parents.

Mr Dawkins takes issue with that definition. Good for him. Making up one's own definitions is a hoot. But when people on this forum treat people as stupid for not sharing Mr. Dawkins definition, there is a problem. IMHO

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 09:03 PM

Sorry Ed....Maybe I'm becoming "intectually challenged myself, or its just too late at night, but I just can understand this
"All forms of sexual associated arousal may have morphed together and gone hand-in-hand from the beginning, for all we know? After all, there has long been activities associated with the sexual intercourse act. Many of these trancend species."

It looks a little like Orwellian "newspeak" to me, but as you are the author, I'm sure it isn't   :0)

Just got back from the greyhound racing 150 mile round trip so I'm off to bed.....thanks for your response....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: John P
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 08:40 PM

Jack, you seem to be purposefully misunderstanding what Dawkins meant. It is absolutely true that no child is born a Christian, or any other religion. While it may not be the intent, it is absolutely true that a religious upbringing is indoctrination.

But really, the question I can't avoid is: 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?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 08:37 PM

""Homosexuality is a perversion of the original purpose of sexual intercourse""

How do we know that is so? Where is that accurately recorded and who amongst us were there to certify it as so?

All forms of sexual associated arousal may have morphed together and gone hand-in-hand from the beginning, for all we know? After all, there has long been activities associated with the sexual intercourse act. Many of these trancend species.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 08:25 PM

Ian, I am very worried about homoseual health issues.

As a matter of information for the "intellectually challenged", I was taking issue with Mr Peekstock's contention that to describe Black people as "lazy", women as too emotional to be in authority, and homosexuals to practice a perversion..... were equivalent.

They are quite obviously not so, the first two do not stand up to scrutiny,and the third, male to male sex, is a perversion of the original purpose of sexual intercourse.
Sometimes perversions become acceptable in certain areas or time spans.....the Roman Empire in decline came to accept many perversions, but this did not mean that they were no longer perversions

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 06:16 PM

I was wondering if you would be that stubborn.

"Can be" is the present tense, have you proved that it can be or given some data that may or may not have been dangerous in the past.

More importantly, have you proved scientifically that "faith" was the one and only cause for the crusades or the inquisition?

There have been a lot of children raised in Christian homes in the meantime that have not tortured any heretics or sacked Jerusalem.

Have you proved scientifically that "Faith can be very very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong"? Of course not. The words "can be" (too vague) have no place in a scientific hypothesis. Nor do "very very dangerous" (not quantifiable), "grievous wrong"(moral judgement and not quantifiable), "implant" (loaded word, not scientifically applicable to ideas except in bad sci-fi movies) and of course "innocent child." (scientifically meaningless term used to evoke emotion.)

Come on MtheGM. You may think it is obviously true. But clearly you have not looked at it in the context of the debate.

It is a nonsense statement carefully constructed to make someone taking their kids to church seem like an act of child abuse that automatically creates the next Hitler. If people didn't take it seriously, I would think it was a Monty Python line.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 06:10 PM

oh come off it shimrod.you know very well that if you post civilly that i usually answer you.if at any time i have not,perhaps i was not available.
actually i was making a direct comparison between religious/philosophical ideas.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.
and 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.and how much dna will they need to find in dinos and diamonds [i can feel a song beginning!]before the claims of contamination cease.
i know i will get criticism from other religious here,but lets face it they get insulted too,even though they accomodate evolutionism.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 06:01 PM

From Joe Offer's post further up the thread:

"I went to the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History in Washington DC a couple of years ago. I hadn't been there for at least twenty years, and the museum had changed a lot. It had a large and excellent exhibit telling the story of evolution. Although I agreed with the information in the exhibit completely, 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."

All I can say is: bravo to the staff of the Smithsonian! It probably goes without saying that if the boot was on the other foot, and the fundamentalists were in charge, there would be no compromise and no displays devoted to the theory of evolution. History teaches us that deluded fanatics are not known for their diplomacy.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 05:51 PM

I was aware, Jack, of the whole quote, & take your points. But I was responding to your own selective citation of part of it to make the point --

'"Faith can be very very dangerous" is not a scientific conclusion'

which you appear to think a nice knockdown point, to make in turn the counter-point that nobody had claimed that it was 'a scientific conclusion'; & that its truth as a general statement of a possibility was fully demonstrable from history.

"You think that maybe that your argument is a few hundred years too late?"

No ~~ you contradicted it as a general statement for not being what it had never set out to be: 'scientific'; science does not deal in 'can be's'. A bit desperate, isn't it?, to fall back on the age of my cogent examples to demonstrate the truth of the proposition, in an attempt to disprove its obvious truth; expressed as a conditional, I repeat: how 'enough' can a conditional be to support anything?


~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 05:51 PM

Don T, I don't think that conflict was JUST about religion. It was also about Colonization and class warfare as well. We had Orange parades in my home town in Canada. The were more about Empire than religion.

Since 1998 we have had 15 years of relative peace. I don't think the religious closed down in 1998.

I am not in any way saying that Christians have not done wrong. I am 100% certain that Mr. Dawkins has NOT made the case that Faith is the cause of these atrocities.

I think we need to see through Mr. Dawkins bait and switch. He says, look at me I am a "prominent" scientist. Look at my credentials. He wrote some biology books, evolution books, fair enough.

Then he says thinks this

"There is no such thing as a Christian child: only a child of Christian parents."

His readers think that is science. A person on this forum argues it as if it his own words. It is not science it is propaganda aimed at the weak minded. Everyone of sound mind and strong mind on this planet knows that Children are not born with Christian beliefs. Mr. Dawkins uses the straw man that we do to sell this idea. Everyone outside of Mr. Dawkins cult would have no trouble calling Children being raised in Christian homes, going to Christian schools, attending Christian churches, Christian children. They don't do it to brainwash anyone. They do that because that is what such children have been called for 2,000 years. What are we going to call them? Children living in Christian homes with parents pumping crap into their brains?

He is implying that I am stupid if I say "Christian child" because "There is such thing as a Christian child." How can anyone who believes in Christian Children not be stupid? We have seen it argued on this thread that there is no such thing as "Christian Children."

Praise Lord Dawkins for miracle of the morphing definitions!

It is he who is changing the meaning of words. It is he who is pushing his ideas on me. And it is certain that with certain people on this forum, his evangelism is working.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 05:09 PM

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

Two words Jack.

""Northern Ireland""

The place where generations of chldren grew up, if they were Catholic to hate Protestants, if they were Protestants to hate Catholics.

Hating enough to be killing each from 1969 till 1998, 29 years of very recent proof.

Would you deny that?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 03:45 PM

Religion should NEVER be compulsory, and the right not to have your child religiously educated should be enshrined in law.

It is in this country in the public schools though some want to change that.

On the other hand

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

Mr. Dawkins appears to be arguing that in his ideal world anyone who chooses to have their children educated in the religious school of their choice ought to get a visit from the police and be charged as abusers.

The sensible ground is somewhere in between. Isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 03:38 PM

"Can you really, Jack, think of the Crusades or The Holy Office (the Spanish Inquisition which, notoriously, nobody expects!), and deny the proposition that "faith can be very dangerous" ['can be', note; NOT 'is']?"

Please do me the courtesy of addressing the entire quote.

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

I think "can be" is not nearly enough to justify this. "deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong."

Is he saying that Joe should not have sent his kids to Catholic school because they might have grown up to burn people as witches?

You think that maybe that your argument is a few hundred years too late?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 03:31 PM

"Faith can be very very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong."
Wonderful - where do I sign?
The compulsory religious education of young children is little short of brainwashing and should be a criminal offence. The Jesuits were fully aware of this when they made their notorious boast, "Give me a child for for his first seven years and I'll give you the man".
Religion should NEVER be compulsory, and the right not to have your child religiously educated should be enshrined in law and should NEVER be influenced in any way by outside pressures (humiliation by the church was always an effective weapon when I was growing up). It should be a free and conscious decision of all parents to have their child religiously educated if they chose to do so, and even this must be carefully monitored. At a certain point in a child's life they should have a say in their religios upbringing. If a child receives religious education they should be made fully aware of all religions as philosophies and given the free choice to investigate; once you withdraw the right of free choice, you create automatons.
I grew up in Liverpool, a city sharply divided on religious lines, the consequence being a permanent undercurrent of tension and unrest,.
I worked on the docks, where, if the work was plentiful, you got on with everybody, but if the ships were few and far between, the Catholics or the Protestants were laid off, depending where you worked, and you went off to seek work among 'your own kind'.
Even our two football teams were religiously divided which, at certain times in the season, led to actual open violence (I know this also to be the case in Glasgow; a Celtic/Rangers match was the first place I saw men in cages, divided off into Catholic and Protestant).
The "Glorious Twelfth" was invariably open street warfare.
I have never seen anything resembling this between the church laity and non-believers - the clergy certainly, with their patronising pity and unspoken condemnation, but not from 'real people', whatever their beliefs and non-beliefs.
I really don't know what world you people occupy.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 03:03 PM

Yazidis [also Yezidi, Azidi, Zedi, or Izdi]

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 03:01 PM

Could the Yazidis,with elements of Zoroastrianism,Judaism, Christianity, Manicheism, and Islam, unite these major world religions under the Peacock Angel?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 02:24 PM

Can you really, Jack, think of the Crusades or The Holy Office (the Spanish Inquisition which, notoriously, nobody expects!), and deny the proposition that "faith can be very dangerous" ['can be', note; NOT 'is']? He doesn't in any event claim anywhere that, because his arguments may be largely science-based, everything his book contains must be experimentally demonstrable fact, with no room for opinion. I think this a somewhat unconvincing point of yours.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 02:07 PM

Jim I respect your right to that as much as I respect a young parent with values of Joe Offer is to be free from this.

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

AND may I please please please point out that this "Faith can be very very dangerous" is not a scientific conclusion. That it is his opinion expressed in a pseudo-scientific polemic book.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 02:00 PM

"But when you try to coerce others into your beliefs, that is no longer free speech. It is attempted indocrination.

When you show me one comment from Dawkins which demands that anybody join his mindset, then and only then,you have anything remotely comparable to evangelism."

Billy Graham used to invite people to his shows and speak about God and Salvation and tell you the benefits then invite you, if you were ready, to the front of the room to be "saved." That was what was called "evangelism" by most of the world. In fact Billy Graham is still called the world's greatest evangelist.

Dawkins goes on TV and says, in effect that you are delusional if you believe in God. He talks about "fairies at the end of the garden." He talks about the "tragedy" that so many people believe. He tries to change the definition of phrases and words like "Christian children" and "delusion." He is using ridicule and falsehoods to convince people of his views and a number of people on this forum repeat his dogma word for word. He surely is pushing his views a lot more than Billy Graham ever did.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 01:52 PM

"Not having people who constantly insult and try to bully other people telling you how to raise your kids."
If I wanted to bring my children up in a non-denominational school I would have to send them 20 miles away and hope that the small Portacabin that passes for a school has room for them.
Failing that, I would have to send them a further 20 miles into the next county, again to a tiny building that might or might not have room for them.
Ironically, one of the pluses from the revelations of the clerical abuse scandal is that the church might soon have to relinquish its hold on all primary school education - amen to that.
The result of a survey announced last month revealed that over half the teachers teaching in primary schools in Ireland do not want to teach religion
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 01:33 PM

""well I think freedom of speech applies to everyone.""

Oh come on Dan. You must have noticed that religious evangelism goes much beyond free expression of views.

You are as entitled as anybody to speak of opponents delusional beliefs.

That is merely expressed opinion.

But when you try to coerce others into your beliefs, that is no longer free speech. It is attempted indocrination.

When you show me one comment from Dawkins which demands that anybody join his mindset, then and only then,you have anything remotely comparable to evangelism.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 01:24 PM

"What is worth fighting for? "

Not having people who constantly insult and try to bully other people telling you how to raise your kids.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 01:23 PM

""don t - the church must be very evangelistic down your way.all i get calling is the watchtower.they came ages ago and i discussed with them.i agreed to them coming back but i,ve not seen them since.""

If you talk the way you write Pete, I'm not at all surprised.

You're too way out for the JWs.

You're too off the wall for the Moonies.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 01:19 PM

""Atheists don't believe in gods. Period. And, for a lot of us, the whole question just isn't very important.""

As I said earlier, ""There is no CHURCH OF THE WHOLLY UNBELIEVING!""

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 12:23 PM

What is worth fighting for?

Children being raised without fear of feeling guilty whenever they are having fun. No old men telling you how to be moral whilst secretly buggering your sons. Scientific discovery not being held back by superstition. One less excuse for hate. Women and gays feeling equal to heterosexual men (and closet gay priests.)

He may be an imaginary friend but his awful actions seem real enough.




By the way Akenaton. I did notice your comments above. Not just worried about the health of gay people after all then? Back in your hole worm.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 12:11 PM

>>>In my interactions with religious and nonreligious people alike, I now draw a sharp line, based not on what exactly they believe but on their level of dogmatism. I consider dogmatism a far greater threat than religion per se. I am particularly curious why anyone would drop religion while retaining the blinkers sometimes associated with it. Why are the "neo-atheists" of today so obsessed with God's nonexistence that they go on media rampages, wear T-shirts proclaiming their absence of belief, or call for a militant atheism? What does atheism have to offer that's worth fighting for?

As one philosopher put it, being a militant atheist is like "sleeping furiously."<<<

Frans de Waal

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 11:57 AM

WOW!!! Stringsinger you are right! Dawkins doesn't push his religion!

Neither do Jehovah's Witnesses! You don't have to answer the door!

Neither does Pat Robertson! You can change the channel.

IF YOU IGNORE THE CONTEXT OF THE CONVERSATION You are absolutely correct!

Use whatever word you want if you don't like the word "push." But Dawkins is surely doing, in his own way, the same sort of thing, the evangelicals are doing to recruit followers.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Stringsinger
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 11:35 AM

Dan, I knew you are a good guy and I agree with you. Let's walk the walk together.

Jack, Dawkins doesn't push his belief on anyone. It's optional if one wants to attend his lectures. You are not going to hell if you don't go. (Talk about insanity!)

Joe, we're getting into semantics, here. Is religion an ideology, a philosophy or ?
I don't hold that it is necessarily a natural state of being in the DNA. I think it's an acquired trained response usually starting in childhood. However, with electrodes into some part of the brain something akin to a religious experience can be induced. I agree with you however that in other areas rather than the discussion of religion, a person who is religious can be intelligent, can see things from different perspectives and I agree also that to be religious is a choice. When I encounter intelligent religious people who are open to other perspectives, then I gravitate to Frans de Waal and become an "apathist" who doesn't give a damn if god exists and would rather make music instead.

I think I agree with Dick when he talks about limiting a self referent definition. Also, there's another semantic problem. I am positively "religious" about music. And that's in my DNA, though I don't attribute that to any god.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 11:17 AM

"All the "atheists are this" or "atheists are that" or "this is what atheists believe" is a bunch of bigoted bullshit, whether it's being written by religious folks or by other atheists. It seems to be assuming that we can reach conclusions about individuals based on the fact that they are a member of a group. It makes as much sense as saying all black folks are lazy, all women are too emotional to be positions of authority, or all gay people are perverts."

All atheists, are far as I understand, do not believe in a "supreme being".
It is unreasonable to say that all black people are lazy.

There is no foundation for saying that women, who are perhaps in general slightly more "emotional" than men, are incapable of being in positions of authority.
Humans are naturally designed to have sex between man and woman....that is the norm, their sexual organs are set up for reproduction. How can anyone deny that male to male sexual orientation is not pervertion?
If a man is sexualy orientated to pre-pubescent children he is quite rightly deemed a pervert....and a criminal.

That is not to say that all pervertion is bad, some sexual pervertion is perfectly harmless, but we must be accurate in our use of language.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 08:19 AM

Isn't there a museum across the river from Cinci that has exhibits of cave men riding dinosaurs? Not Flintstones, but portrayed as natural history?

Free speech has its consequences.

Of course every time they are publicly ridiculed, they get a few more dollars for their museum. Its run by an Aussie, he seems pretty smart. Frankly, I think he is just mocking us. I think he was in a bar in Melborne 20 years ago and one of his buddies said "I'll bet you can't get those Yankees to build a museum mocking their own intelligence..."

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 04:35 AM

I went to the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History in Washington DC a couple of years ago. I hadn't been there for at least twenty years, and the museum had changed a lot. It had a large and excellent exhibit telling the story of evolution. Although I agreed with the information in the exhibit completely, 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.

Is there a way for us to be more diplomatic and tolerant without compromising our own views?

I hope that can be, but I have to admit that I have to work really hard to carry on a conversation with an evangelical Christian - which often means that he/she is also a Tea Party Republican. But I try to be polite, I really do.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 04:20 AM

"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 ..."

If I can make sense of that jumble, pete, I think you're saying that there are more factually based science programmes presented in the broadcast media than religious ones. Well hallelujah to that!! If you're right, then the balance is moving in the right direction - although you wouldn't have known that if you'd tuned in this Easter.

I notice that you never respond to my posts, pete. Why is that? Scientists are open to debate - religious fundamentalists obviously are not.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 02:22 AM

Starry pete seems to call science so called science and bemoans the number of documentaries versus the number of religious programmes on the telly.

I fail to make the connection? is he saying that religion is a branch of science or even that science is a religion? A bit like comparing the number of comedies with the number of news programmes.

In any event, if you are interested in using the telly to explore religion, I suggest the many religious channels available on free view. 10 mins of watching any of them will be enough. Little wonder that snips from them are used on comedy quizzes to let people have a good laugh.   

You see, if the buggers are allowed to turn religious equality into their preferred religious privilege, it won't be the pragmatic thoughtful Joe Offers of this world running the show, it will be pete and his mates teaching children that dinosaur bones were put there by god yo tax our brains and that instead of advances in medical science, we should use prayer more.

Fook 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: John P
Date: 05 Apr 13 - 10:41 PM

Well, I have to say that I "stick my head above the parapet" when it comes to our government passing laws that are based on religion. But I don't think it's because I'm an atheist; I also speak out about gay rights, gender equality, fair employment, and socialism. I just don't like it when people impose themselves on others. I think most of us just want to be left alone. But we aren't, so we have to push back in order to not get trampled. A strict reading of the Constitution would be nice, but most of the Supreme Court Justices are religious ideologues and radical corporatists.

America will finally be the land of the free on the day that all laws based on religion, unilateral morality, inequality of any kind, money, and belief (as opposed to reason) are taken off the books. Instead, they keep passing more. Why can't they just leave us alone?

This is not to be taken as an indictment of religion. I have many religious friends and most of them also don't want people taking power over other people in these ways. The problem isn't religion -- it's the people who want to control others. Some of them use a religious theme to achieve this, some use money, some use socialism, some use physical force. There are people of good heart that are religious, atheist, capitalist, socialist, etc, etc. And there are people who are NOT of good heart who come from every group. When we draw conclusions about members of any group because there are people of bad heart who are also members of that group, we start to become people of bad heart ourselves.

The reason that power-hungry religious people get into positions where they can impose their beliefs on other people is because lots of otherwise good-hearted people vote for them on religious grounds. I would like it if everyone who claims to be religious turned away from any politician who wanted to pass laws based on religion. I would like it if everyone who talks about the Land of the Free stood up for real freedom, every time.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Apr 13 - 09:24 PM

But Stringsinger, if a person who chooses to be religious is able to see things from a variety of perspectives, then he's not much of an ideologue, is he? There are lots of people who practice religious traditions, who don't espouse any particular ideology. Religion is not necessarily ideological - it can also be philosophical.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 05 Apr 13 - 08:25 PM

Many of the most irritating (and dangerous) people in the world are those who define themselves by a single belief, whether it be Atheism,
Christianity, Judaism, or any other religion, heterosexuality, homosexuality, race,or whatever.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Apr 13 - 06:04 PM

John P, you are the way I imagine most atheists to be.

I can't imagine someone with your attitude going out of their way to mock a question about "Heaven and Hell" to say that

(Hell is)"that you foot is itching like crazy, or that you're on your last clean shirt"

or that (Heaven) is a sip of scotch.

Apparently some people "occasionally feel the need to stick their heads above the parapet." to say such things and they try to bring the idea of atheism into conversation so that they can pretend to be defending it.

I don't think that going out of ones way to mock people reflects anyone's views but the mocker's. I don't think that one will find a consensus among atheists that the wish to be "defended" in this way. I think that many do not agree with the parapet analogy.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 05 Apr 13 - 06:03 PM

final final, I also get appalled at some of the political threads. A mudcat member like Bearded Bruce (sorry to name names) just has different political views. The guy gets crushed for just having an opposite viewpoint. now he and I do not have the same views but I can respect what he believes politically,. We need to think in this community and try to make it a community of friends not adversaries.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 05 Apr 13 - 05:41 PM

Interesting also how my real atheist friends all have mutual respect. We talk about music, we talk about watches. I would take a bullet for them. Then there are others here that like to insult and use their "fairy tale friends and such. I love the how enlighten they are when in fact exercising my right of free speech, they are in a very dark place in my honest opinion and I do have nothing but sadness for them as their only joy is to lash out at other. anyway to each their own .. I am done with this thread

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 05 Apr 13 - 05:18 PM

What I also find of interest is the strong attempt to silence the religious. I suspect the term "Freedom of Speech" is not allowed to be applied to them because many atheists do not agree. Certainly seems that way here. You come back with and argument saying you take offense to the constant bombing of faith, and they come back with "freedom of speech, well I think freedom of speech applies to everyone. But I am just silly that way

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 05 Apr 13 - 05:13 PM

completely agree with you Pete

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Apr 13 - 04:59 PM

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

don t - the church must be very evangelistic down your way.all i get calling is the watchtower.they came ages ago and i discussed with them.i agreed to them coming back but i,ve not seen them since.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Apr 13 - 11:37 AM

Well, I just found this thread, and I think some of the jokes are funny.

-Lifelong out atheist

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 13 - 11:06 AM

Sure, John, but as responsible citizens of this world we have to keep at least half an eye on what many misguided and irresponsible believers are imposing on many other people. It ill behoves us to remain permanently silent. I know that isn't exactly what you were saying, but it sort of explains why atheists of the type you describe (which is nearly all of 'em) occasionally feel the need to stick their heads above the parapet.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: John P
Date: 05 Apr 13 - 10:09 AM

I've been reading parts of all these atheism threads and have suddenly realized one of the things that bothers me about them: The reality is that, while I'm an atheist, it doesn't have any real impact on my life. I don't think about, talk about, or really care about it very much. Almost everyone I know is an atheist, and it's just not something that anyone is concerned about. We don't sit around comparing atheist ideas, we don't read atheist writings, we don't make judgements about other people based on whether or not they are atheists. It is just not a factor in day-to-day life. I pay more attention to my little toe than I do to my atheism, in that I clean and trim my toe from time to time. I certainly don't define myself as an atheist, except for the extremely rare occasions when I get into a religious conversation on Mudcat.

All the "atheists are this" or "atheists are that" or "this is what atheists believe" is a bunch of bigoted bullshit, whether it's being written by religious folks or by other atheists. It seems to be assuming that we can reach conclusions about individuals based on the fact that they are a member of a group. It makes as much sense as saying all black folks are lazy, all women are too emotional to be positions of authority, or all gay people are perverts.

Atheists don't believe in gods. Period. And, for a lot of us, the whole question just isn't very important.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Stringsinger
Date: 05 Apr 13 - 09:56 AM

Religious folks are all ideologues since their belief system trumps any evidence to the contrary of that. Everything that religious folks accuse atheists of doing, they do themselves.
I do agree however that there are some atheists who are ideologues. When they become adamant about stuff such as does Hitchens or Harris, then they are no less ideologues than those they criticize. Dennett and Dawkins avoid that trap because they are genuinely open to new ideas, discovery and exploration. If you haven't read them then you wouldn't know that.

The Creationists are indeed delusional because their ideas run contrary to what science shows us for example having humans ride dinosaurs. I like to separate the actions of people from what they put out there to believe. If I see hostility, victimhood claimed by religious people,
particularly Christians who are in the majority in the U.S., name calling, phony umbrage by those whose faith is flimsy because it can't stand criticism then I know that we are in the land of hypocrisy.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: olddude
Date: 05 Apr 13 - 09:35 AM

No thanks, I like things the way they are .. clearly you think you are in a better place in life ... good for you

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 05 Apr 13 - 09:26 AM

You need a few more hundred years of culture before you can begin to appreciate cricket. If you had bothered remaining a colony you may have stood a chance but you blew it in Boston Harbour.

Stick to rounders and running at each other wearing padding, there's a good chap.