BS: Atheists

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: 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: 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 - 01:33 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Ed T
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 03:03 PM

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

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 09:55 PM

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

Bifocals are handy for seeing screens and the action.

Sounds like a lovely day.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best

~Michael~

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

Hello Sailor!

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

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

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

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

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

Hello Sailor!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

To sum up:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

akenaton LOL

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

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

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

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

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


"i regard evolutionism as a faith position"

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

BTY, a perspective on alcohol:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How condescending, how like Dawkins.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Evolutionism", "Dawkinistic dogma". Sheesh!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you believe that Mary produced a virgin birth?

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

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

Do you believe in Satan?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

" I've never read anything by Dawkins,"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He said it was a grievous wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BrendanB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't think so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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