BS: Atheists

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Apr 13 - 04:59 PM

This multiplication of "atheists" threads, has me confused. Somebody from an atheist perspective posted a very thoughtful message yesterday or the day before. I wanted to respond to it, but now I can't find it. The writer acknowledged that there are some religious people who fail to comply with the authoritarianism and doctrinaire positions that the writer sees as essential to religion. I get the impression that this writer doesn't see these nonconformist people as "really" religious. I was impressed by blandiver's "Atheism is a celebration of human inventiveness" post (above), although that's not the one I was looking for.

I wonder if we're using the wrong criteria to differentiate people. I'm a very religious Catholic, but it seems to me that I have far more in common with many atheists and agnostics, than I have with fundamentalist believers or what I call "absolutists" (whether or not those absolutists believe in a god).

As I look at the spectrum of people, I see some people who are what I would call "constructive." These are generally non-ideological people who think their own thoughts and don't tie themselves too tightly to any one ideology. They generally are open to a wide variety of schools of thought. They may believe in a god, or they may not. If they do believe, they see things within the context of a belief system - they use their belief system, traditions, and mythology as tools for exploring what they encounter. "Constructive" people who don't believe in a god aren't likely to use such tools - although I think most "constructive" nonbelievers tend to be respectful of rituals and mythologies and belief systems. Maybe "philosophical" would be a better word for this group. "Contemplative" would also fit, but that word has religious implications - and I think this group is not necessarily religious or irreligious.

On the other end of the spectrum are what I would call "destructive" people. These are the people who seem to be driven to attack, to destroy, to tear down. On the religious side, one prominent example would be the "Rev." Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church, with their virulent anti-homosexuality. But there are many others, who seem hell-bent to destroy everything in their path - and they claim to have God on their side. And yes, there are certainly destructive people who are nonbelievers - they simply don't have a God they can call upon as an ally. "Destructive" people, both believers and nonbelievers, seem to me to be strongly ideology-driven.

And then there's the group in the center - I think I'd call them "defensive" people. They tend to be more comfortable with an ideology than they are with their own thoughts, but the ideologies they choose can sometimes be quite positive. They tend to be more fearful than the constructive or destructive types. They tend to follow gurus - either religious or non-religious leaders. I think the followers of Dawkins and Billy Graham and Pope John Paul II fall into this category. These can be very good, very functional people - but don't expect them to spend much time doing original thinking. These are the people in the middle, but I don't think it would be fair to call them "mediocre." Sometimes, these people can go far beyond mediocrity. But they feel more comfortable when they have a leader to follow. These people tend to be better employees than the "constructive" ones.

Now, I don't think there are clear lines dividing these three groups, but I think my general characterizations are fairly accurate.

And there lies my answer to the poster, whoever she/he was and wherever he/she posted. I may be a Catholic and my Catholic faith may play a big part in my life, but my religious beliefs must conform with who I am - I cannot be ideological. I have to think my own thoughts and make my own decisions. The Catholic Church is broad enough to allow me to do that. It's not always comfortable, but the fact of the matter is that my existence as a "freethinker" was encouraged during my 16 years of Catholic education - including 8 years in a seminary. Still, I feel more at home with most Unitarians, than I do with most Catholics.

So, that's my theory.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Apr 13 - 05:30 PM

""I consider myself a non-theist. I believe there is a spiritual or transcendent dimension to the universe and, while I have no idea exactly what its nature is, I seriously doubt it has much to do with the idea of "God" as espoused by western theistic religions. I have an affinity for Eastern non-theistic religions like Buddhism and Taoism, though I'm not a practitioner of either. This probably makes me just religious enough to disqualify myself from membership in The Dickie Dawkins Rabid Atheist Club.""

I could subscribe to that BWL! Though I describe myself as a Theist, I cannot give any kind of form to that being, so it may be more akin to what Buddhism seems to suggest, or just a glimmer of a primal causation as Amos said.

One thing I can absolutely assert. Atheists don't bother me one jot.

Unfortunately for Pete's stated viewpoint, I am bothered, dissed and harassed frequently and persistently by evangelists knocking at my door to shove their views in my face.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Apr 13 - 05:31 PM

I think that there has been the assumptions on the part of some that Atheists are atheists and "Godbotherers" are "Godbotherers" and that only atheists understand science and that "Godbotherers" need to have their superstitions slapped out of them. I regret having bickered those people. I didn't set out to bicker but I surely did.

I generally agree with what you said Joe. I don't think that Atheism or Religion is in any way monolithic. I think most look at the information available and make up their own minds. I know liberal baptists and conservatives who profess much more "liberal" beliefs.

I do have a couple of nits to pick, not with the general ideas but with specific classifications.

I think Billy Graham is a special case. He certainly was more interested in salvation than on ideological battles but his ministry, personified and run by his son Franklin has veered into the realm of destructiveness in very disturbing ways. I have read that churches he sponsored in Africa as a "bulwark" against Islam are literally waging war and committing atrocities in the name of God.

I think that Dawkins is a special case as well. I don't know that he has followers as such but his tactics of saying that Christians (and all those who believe in any God) are suffering from a delusion and being hyper-condescending when talking about the religious and debating them is certainly not winning him any friends among believers and seems to me in two ways to be more offensive than defensive. And of course his recent comments about Islam are not excusable. IMHO He ought to use the same "scientific rigor" on everyone or simply keep his baseless opinions to himself.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Apr 13 - 05:48 PM

""Mr Dawkins, pushes his belief system (or his lack of one if you like). He does it world wide across many media. Is anyone on this forum insane enough to deny that? Yet there seems to be a strange logic poking through saying that since you believe that atheists in general don't push their views than none of them are. Ignorant stereotyping is an ugly think. But I am not sure it is bigotry. What is the word for that?""

Mr Dawkins is a scientist who has reached a conlusion based upon hard evidence and has formed opinions which he expresses.

He is fortunate enough to be well known and able to give voice to his opinions more widely than you or I.

Tell me Jack, do you believe (really BELIEVE) in free speech.

What is it that you object to, the fact that he expresses these opinions, or the fact that he can express them much more widely and reach more ears than you can?

When you see Richard Dawkins setting up a string of halls nationwide, and going on TV to advertise his "Church of the Wholly unbelieving", then you can shriek about him pushing his ideas and I'll stand at your side.

Think Billy Graham!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Janie
Date: 04 Apr 13 - 07:37 PM

I really liked your post Joe. And I also really appreciate and admire the honesty of your response to my query, Dan.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Apr 13 - 07:55 PM

"Mr Dawkins is a scientist who has reached a conlusion based upon hard evidence and has formed opinions which he expresses."

Mr. Dawkins is a zoologist who became famous writing popular critiques supposedly applying the fields of cosmology and psychology to religious belief.

He is entitled to free speech. He is entitled to sell his mean spirited pseudo science books. He is entitled rent lecture halls in the deep south and engage in "cage match" style "debates" with "creation scientists" but since he is not inviting people to fill stadiums and be saved he is not pushing his opinions?

OK.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 04 Apr 13 - 07:59 PM

Mr Dawkins, pushes his belief system (or his lack of one if you like). He does it world wide across many media. Is anyone on this forum insane enough to deny that? Yet there seems to be a strange logic poking through saying that since you believe that atheists in general don't push their views than none of them are. Ignorant stereotyping is an ugly think. But I am not sure it is bigotry. What is the word for that?

If you notice, over the years, Dawkins has become more strident or hard-nosed mainly in response to increased attempts by fundamentalists to hi-jack education systems in various jurisdictions in order to, eg, limit the teaching of evolution, or to give equal time to so-called "creation science" or "intelligent design".

We've had decades of "Dr Dino" , Woodmaroppe, Gish, and their ilk stridently "dissing" atheists at every opprotunity, usually with ill-thought out "jokes" and homilies such as the ones posted by OD at the beginning of this thread that go only to show how little understanding of atheism the maker of such has.

Atheists for years suffered these insults and put-downs without replying in kind, but trying to use logic, and knocking down the creationists' often deliberately disingenuous arguments with logic. This appears to have limited success....a loud voice and a snappy sound-bite seem to have more resonace with the public at large. So is it any wonder that after 3+ decades of "turning the other cheeck" a sub-set of atheists have become strident and vocal in turn?

For years we've put up with the religious viewpoint being the "default". Even in the (much less religious than the USA)UK, the BBC's "Thought For The Day" still ALWAYS features a religious presenter...Christian, Muslin, Jew, Hindu, Jain etc but NEVER an atheist and their programe "Beyond Belief" discusses religious issues with a panel made up of people from these religions, but again, as far as I know, never an atheist.

So in the last few years the fact that some atheists are at long last getting a "voice" in the media should be a welcome addition to the debate. The fact that several of those people have had to become strident and controversial merely to be heard at all shouldn't be a surprise.

Lookin gat the threads here on BS, I notice maybe 1 started by an atheist, and that started off trying to conduct a serious debate. I notice 4-5 started by religious people, all poking fun at or disrespecting atheists and atheism. In fact, the hatred and bile towards coming from some of the "religious" on here would, were I an uncommitted observer, I'm afraid drive me towards the atheist camp.

The religious have promulgated their views strongly for centuries, yet when atheists start to promulgate theirs strongly for not much over a decade, many "religionists" seem to feel so threatened by it that it seems they can't handle it at all in a sensible manner.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Apr 13 - 07:59 PM

Now, Jack, don't get it in your head that I agreewith Dawkins, Graham, or John Paul II. All are/were ideologues, although generally I think they all are/were nice people. I have the feeling that if I were locked in a room with any or all of them, I would have to work really, really hard to be polite. And you're right - Franklin Graham comes closer to my description of "destructive."

As for Bee-dubya-ell, I agree with him almost all the time. He's one of several Mudcatters that I have absolute respect for.

-Joe-

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

"Now, Jack, don't get it in your head that I agreewith Dawkins, Graham, or John Paul II"

I never tried to say that. Sorry if I gave that impression. I was comment on whether I agreed that they an their current followers were current.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Apr 13 - 08:10 PM

Hi, Rob -
I think I've noticed an increase in stridency in Dawkins, so I'd agree with you on that. I think that what might have happened to him, is that he attempted to do battle with the fundamentalists on their terms. And if you do that, you lose.

I found that out the hard way. I tried to do battle with fundamentalist Catholics, to prove my perspective right and to win them over to my side (or at least to get them to stop writing letters of complaint to the bishop about me). I found that if I expressed my think in their terms, I ended up with the same angry, doctrinaire tone that they had.

If you're able to see things with at least a good dose of doubt, and you tend to see issues from a variety of perspectives, you can't carry on a discussion with a fundamentalist. They are incapable of seeing anything from more than one perspective.

So, Richard Dawkins, who once had something to say that made sense to me, has become doctrinaire and angry in his presentations.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 04 Apr 13 - 08:15 PM

Thanks Janie, I had a lot of things happen lately and they are all bad, no biggies just common life stuff. Then I get frustrated and punch but I tend to punch hard. Probably all the training :-) Very bad behavior, need to chill out more.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 13 - 08:37 PM

So, Richard Dawkins, who once had something to say that made sense to me, has become doctrinaire and angry in his presentations.

Really? So how has he changed, in your opinion? I haven't really noticed anything different. As for doctrinaire, Richard Dawkins, along with other genuine atheists, never speaks of his convictions in terms of certainties. Your word seems misplaced to me. The whole point of atheism, as he would no doubt agree, is that we have no evidence for the existence of God, that everything in the realms of evidence and sane intuition suggests that he does not exist, yet we cannot be certain. If you're telling me that he's so doctrinaire that he's shuffled along from 6.9 to 7.0 on his certainty scale, then I'm parting company with him. I think that the real situation is that it's his opponents who have changed and that he has remained steadfastly the same. Opposition from church leaders and sundry scared and animated believers (there's a shining example of one of those on these threads) has increased significantly as his message has become disseminated, and their ever more shrill voices, set against which he finds himself having to defend against more forcefully in consequence, may be giving the illusion that it's him who's changed. I'm afraid that falling into the trap of alleging that we atheists are getting more and more angry is a sign of religion getting very worried. Most of us are ice-cool. After all, we have, literally, nothing to get worked up about.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Apr 13 - 08:42 PM

I have a confession - no not the rc type of confession.

It's I don't like tapioca.

While that does not likely seem related to the topic, it is.

While I don't like tapioca (mainly because of texture, but, as a child it reminded me of fish eggs), I know others see things differently and like tapioca. But, I have learned to put these differences aside, and I do not judge people on the basis of whether they like tapioca or not.

While I know some pretty evil people probably like tapioca, I also know it has little bearing on whether they are good people, or not, in other aspects of their lives. I have learned to put these differences aside, and move on.

Now that I have that confession off my mind, I remain a bit uncertain about rhubarb....

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: olddude
Date: 04 Apr 13 - 08:51 PM

tapioca !!! well that is next to Jell-O so that we can completely agree with :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Apr 13 - 08:52 PM

Mr. Naylor, I don't like absolutism, dogma, stridency from either side. I am sure that Mr. Dawkins condescending, insulting opposition to creationism, by stooping to the level of the creationists and school board grabbers he decreases the credibility of science. He should have stuck to the "knocking down the creationists' often deliberately disingenuous arguments with logic."

Our public radio has "this I believe" not "Thought For The Day" they often have Atheists expressing their beliefs. So maybe America is not as fundamentalist as many UK atheists think.

I am opposed to creationists and school board grabbers as much as you are. That is one reason I do not like Mr. Dawkins methods.

As far as this goes it is hard to know where to start.

"I notice maybe 1 started by an atheist, and that started off trying to conduct a serious debate. I notice 4-5 started by religious people, all poking fun at or disrespecting atheists and atheism."

I started two of them. One with an article by an atheist saying that three or four neo-atheists were becoming dogmatic. The other was a serious article about the demonstrated Islamophobia of that same small group. How you generalize that to all atheists how you call it poking fun of or disrespecting atheists and atheism is beyond my ability to reason.

The Heaven and Hell thread was about Heaven and Hell, the Atheists were not invited to come an mock those ideas.   So if it became about them, that is on them. The are Atheists really Atheists was a question about the definition of "atheist."

Are you sure that the atheists on those threads did not contribute their own share of the rancor?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 13 - 08:52 PM

I haven't eaten a baby in years....

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 13 - 09:34 PM

Whether or not you like tapioca is no more than a matter of taste. I will eat everything on the planet except for apple sauce, which is utterly disgustingly sour, slimy and sloppy. That I hate apple sauce is a matter of taste, not of evidence. Now if you believe in God and you're a friend of mine (I have many such), it is very unlikely that either he or I will bring the matter to the fore. Actually, it's the same with my atheistic mates. There isn't an awful lot to discuss so we hardly ever do. I cannot respect my believer-friend's belief. I'd be an idiot to respect someone's delusion. It would serve me well to avoid telling him that I think that, in one small corner of his existence, he bears a delusion. That's quite a bit different, by the way, from saying that he's a deluded man, which he isn't. Any man who likes a good pint and with whom I can talk football is not a deluded man. But I do respect his right to hold his belief and I also respect his conviction in holding it. I don't really care that you hate tapioca. If you come to my house I won't serve you tapioca. I don't care if you believe in God. I won't bring it up if you don't. But don't tell me that you know tapioca is vile and no-one should eat it. Don't tell me that your belief is true and that I'm a charlatan for not getting my kids christened (that has actually happened to me). It isn't for me to tell you you should be an atheist. If you bring it up, I'll tell you that my convictions are based on nothing more than evidence, and that my bar for what counts as evidence is set quite high. That's all. No evangelising this end.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Apr 13 - 09:59 PM

This is a piece I wrote some time ago. I don't remember if I have posted it here before, but if so, here it is again. I have posted some of the information before, such as the course I took in college on "The Bible as Literature."

Okay, so, in the interest of full disclosure, where am I coming from?

My family was not particularly religiously oriented. Which is to say, although we did go to church from time to time, we didn't go that often, and we didn't belong to any particular church. My father never said much about religion. My mother was a bit of a questioner and seeker, and she read a fair amount about Eastern religion and philosophy. Standard sermons bored her spitless.

When I was about ten or so, I did attend a two week "summer Bible school" at a church a few blocks from where I lived. My sisters and I wanted to go mostly because a lot of other kids in the neighborhood were going, and getting us out of the house would give mom a few hours of peace and quiet. There, I learned to recite the Lord's Prayer and the 23rd Psalm and a few things like that. I believed in God (a vague sort of presence) about the same way I (a precocious ten-year-old) had previously believed in Santa Claus (a somewhat more specific image, perhaps).

In my first freshman philosophy course at the University of Washington, among many other things, we examined the various philosophers' arguments for and against the existence of God, or a "Prime Mover." This turned me into a hard-charging atheist. In later years, I mellowed a bit when it finally sank in that there is an incredible amount about the Universe (or "Creation," if anyone insists) that we don't know and probably never will know. But I definitely didn't become a believer. Agnostic, perhaps, but not a believer.

I know quite a bit about the Bible. Early on, when I was an English major at the University of Washington, I had room for an English elective in my class schedule. As I said, I'm not particularly religious, but just for kicks, I signed up for "The Bible as Literature." The father of a girl I went to high school with was teaching the course.

Professor Paul Trueblood made it quite plain from the start that this was a course in the Bible as a work of literature—and we would not—repeat, not—be discussing it as a religious text. We read the Bible as if it were an anthology of short stories, novelettes, essays, and poetry. We didn't skip around, reading a verse here and a verse there, we read it in whole chunks, right through, the way you read any literary work.

There were a few people in the class who tried to initiate religious interpretations and discussions. When this happened, Prof. Trueblood gently but firmly steered the discussion back to the literary aspects of whatever we had just read.

Having taken this course made me something of a reef on which a number of proselytizing Christian soul-savers foundered. When they would quote a verse or two from the Bible in an effort to prove the point they were trying to make, I was well equipped to interrupt them and say, "But that's not what that verse means. You're taking it out of context." At which point, I would lecture them on what the passage was really saying.

I was dangerous! I knew too much about the Bible!

Interesting to note that a few months after I told one of my tormentors that I had taken the "Bible as Literature" course in the U. of W. English Department, the fundamentalist church he belonged to filed suit against the University in an attempt to get the course removed from the catalog, claiming that the University was "teaching religion." The state Supreme Court eventually ruled that Prof Paul Trueblood, and subsequently, Prof. David C. Fowler, had scrupulously avoided religious discussion in class and that it qualified as a straightforward literature course. The fundamentalist church lost, and the course listing stayed in the catalog.

Taking this course also set me in good stead for discussions with clergy of various denominations, and I've enjoyed a number of good, interesting discussions and debates with them.

Thirty-six years ago, I married a woman who had been raised in the Lutheran Church (one of the more liberal branches). She was, and is, involved in a number of church activities. Although she was raised in the church and has been involved with it one way or another all her life, it seems our beliefs are very much alike. I tagged along with her to church, and also became active in church activities. So much so that I served for some six years as a member of the church council. And she and I find that we are not the only ones in our particular church who believe pretty much as we do. No one is dogmatic. And pretty much everyone is willing to question and discuss. I don't know anyone in the church who maintains that the Bible is the "inerrant Word of God." As Pastor Shannon said once, "The Bible is not The Boy Scout Manual. You're not necessarily going to find answers here. You're going to find questions!" She's cool!

Do I believe in God? Well, I certainly don't believe in the Cranky Old Man in the nightshirt and beard sitting up on Arturus 12 who hurls thunderbolts at sinners, marks the fall of every sparrow in His ledger book, and keeps a list of who's naughty and nice.

Do I "believe" in science? Yes. I've always been something of a science nut. I'm quite interested in all aspects of astronomy and cosmology, including the possibility, expounded by the latest speculations in String Theory, of parallel universes and multiple dimensions. Fascinating stuff! I believe the "theory" of evolution is the most reasonable explanation for how we all got here, and other biological phenomena. I am not in the least flummoxed when a scientist says, "I don't know." Or when a scientist says, "What we believed up until now is not quite accurate. In the light of new data. . . ." If scientists don't know, then who does!?? Certainly not someone (even if he or she does have a cable television show!) with no evidence whatsoever, who attributes all phenomena to a SuperSpook beyond the clouds whose will he or she claims to know.

But do I eschew all possibility of there being a spiritual dimension to Life, the Universe, and Everything? No. There may very well be.

I find it perfectly acceptable to say, "I don't know."

Or, as Iris Dement puts it, "Let the Mystery Be."

There are two sorts of people whom I find annoying in the extreme. One is the hard-charging fundamentalist Christian who, even though I go to church, he or she considers my church not "Christian" enough, and winds up hell-bent on saving my soul. That's when I rip them apart with the fact that, invariably, I know more about the Bible than they do. After they've given it the old college try, they wander off with their tail between their legs and mutter something about they will "pray for me." I find them pompous and full of the Sin of Pride. Talk about "holier than thou!!"

The other is the hard-charging, dedicated atheist who, come hell or high water, is going to save my soul from those brain-washing, mind-stealing Christians. SCIENCE, by God, says there IS no such thing as God (science says no such thing!!), and they will argue until Sunday breakfast over the issue, then nail your shoes to the floor in case you were planning to go to church.

Each is as bad as the other, and each is basing his or her beliefs as much on faith as the other (although the atheist will have a foaming-at-the-mouth fit at the word "faith.").

They don't know how alike they really are!

Neither of them KNOWS. NOBODY knows for sure.

But each will stomp, scream, throw things, and insist vociferously that they are absolute right.

As far as I'm concerned, "A pox on both their houses!"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 04 Apr 13 - 10:28 PM

Just to be clear Steve, football is played with an odd shaped ball and lots of pads and a helmet. Now soccer is played with shorts and a round ball :-)

If you come to my house for dinner I promise you won't have to pray .. and the beer is cold

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 04 Apr 13 - 10:34 PM

I think what you're describing there, olddude, isn't "football", which OF COURSE is played with a round ball, but "Cissy Rugby"! Pads and helmets indeed!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 04 Apr 13 - 10:53 PM

Well LOL you are getting close, I mean real football like Pittsburgh Steelers :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Apr 13 - 12:59 AM

Ed T., I was brought up to believe that tapioca was healthy for me, and all those other Jello-made puddings weren't (puddings not made by Jello are rare in the U.S.). So, I put a dollop of marmalade on my tapioca, and think I'm adding years to my life.

Works for me.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Apr 13 - 01:21 AM

Ed T: "I have a confession - no not the rc type of confession.
It's I don't like tapioca.
While that does not likely seem related to the topic, it is.
While I don't like tapioca (mainly because of texture, but, as a child it reminded me of fish eggs), I know others see things differently and like tapioca. But, I have learned to put these differences aside, and I do not judge people on the basis of whether they like tapioca or not."

More profound than many might see at first....STEVE, ARE you listening???

Maybe your childhood with Catholicism, reminds you of something you don't like, either!!! Does it mean you'll stop eating???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Apr 13 - 01:41 AM

A drift ~~ but one that has arisen naturally. I have always taken occasion when offered to denounce the now commonly made distinction between "football" and "rugby", when they are properly speaking called "Association football" and "Rugby football"; so the word "football" should in fact subsume them both [+ other forms like "American", "Gaelic", "Ozzie Rules", &c].

I suppose it too late now to beg and appeal for a return to the usages "rugger" & "soccer" to make the necessary distinction. But, unless & until that happens, the confusions and controversies inherent in the preceding posts will persist.

~M~

Worth a thread of its own, I think; so about to start one.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 05 Apr 13 - 07:40 AM

Football is football is occasionally called soccer to remind us of its origins as association football. Sheffield Wednesday for instance has been a football club since 1867. If you need to have a term to distinguish it from American football, this is because you are American and I shall try to take that into consideration. If you need to have a term to distinguish it from rugby it is because you are weird and beyond help.

Right.

Dawkins.

When you observe and write up a hypothesis based on your observations you have every right to get pissed off when people dismiss your research on the basis of it contradicting fairy stories.

If he appears strident and forth right it doesn't help when people call his work pseudo science. If you compare it to superstition you run the risk of trying to give substance to said superstition. Which if memory serves me right, denies faith.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: olddude
Date: 05 Apr 13 - 09:07 AM

the only contradicting fairy stories I have in my life is the game of cricket, probably cause I don't understand it. I looked at a rule book once and it looked like the Oxford Dictionary. Lots of rules, but I may change my mind when I finally figure out what a googly is. Does look interesting .

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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: GUEST,olddude
Date: 05 Apr 13 - 05:13 PM

completely agree with you Pete

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 - 05:41 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.