BS: New things about atheism

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 06:22 PM

282, you seem to be rather het up about something. Why not PM me about it? I prefer to be known neither as a liberal or a conservative, because they are both pretty useless labels...designed not to enlighten, but to condemn.

I do NOT regard science as a religion. I regard science's less self-aware and more vociferously close-minded aherents as being religious about science. Their attitude about it is religious. There's a difference. You can be religious about any damn thing you want to be religious about. My dog is religious about food... Food is not a religion. It's a material thing. Science is a material discipline based on observation of the material world, and using experimentation with and upon the material world. It works fine within its own perameters. I have no argument with science, and have never disbelieved IN science or the scientific method. I respect science entirely.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 05:49 PM

There is nothing so vain as the talking human brain.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 03:56 PM

Well, 282RA, if you don't understand what he means by spiritual, you are welcome to use the definitions I posted up thread to clarify the point. I think he'll allow them as close enough.


A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 03:14 PM

>>There are fundemental errors in the above, Little Hawk, that surprise me in you<<

Why? That's typical of him, if you ask me. He wants to turn science into another religion--no differently than a fundamentalist does--in order to promote some agenda he won't quite come out and cop to. He accuses you of some kind of dogmatism simply because you accept evolution for ther flimsiest of reasons: it fits what we have observed simply we built it out of what we have observed. How he calls this dogma is never explained--not by him at any rate.

Yet he has many times pronounced himself "spiritual" without ever offering any explanation or definition of the word. Yet it is you who are the blind believer and not him.

This has been his line since I've been here and yet somehow people here will vociferously defend him as a liberal thinker if you challenge him on it--as I have found out first hand.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 02:55 PM

No principle is absolutely beyond question, LH, and any scientist worth his salt will say so outright.

But when a sufficient amount of evidence accumulates to indicate something happened and little or no contrary or incompatible evidence survives, then in scientific terminology it is considered a fact. Even facts are not irreversible, but they have a very, very high order of probability of persisting as true. Gravitty -- the mutual attraction of masses -- is not a theory, and neither is evolution. In both cases the suppporting information is consistent enough to warrant considering them both "facts" That's just the way the word is used in science. A theory that attracts enough supporting data gets pormoted to fact-hood, and evolution has long since passed this test at the macro, micro and nano-levels.

If someday it turns out that the apparent mutual attraction of masses porportionate to the inverse of the distance between them, squared, turns out to have actually been caused by a transient belch from the innards of a cosmic-scale dragon who lives inside a black hole at the center of the Universe, and all the proofs line up around this new discovery, the fact will be re-worded to account for it.

Not much probability, though.

A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 02:51 PM

There are fundemental errors in the above, Little Hawk, that surprise me in you, I wouldn't have thought you'd stoop to such silly semantic arguments, even should you run out of sensible ones.

The definition of theory is NOT something which isn't known for certain, for starters. It's the same thing as Model, or Framework, or "way of putting all existing data into a coherent sentence humans can understand." You see colors because of electromagnetic theory. Gravity (as in, the theory of gravity) is a fundemental fact, not something we aren't sure is happening. Plate tectonics is the theory which explains earthquakes and volcanoes. 2+2=4 is an element of mathematical theory. Again, all scientists are discussing is how the theories work, not whether they are true or not. All of these, including evolution, and well-established facts of nature. Using Theory with evolution but not with anything else that is physical fact, is a propagandic trick of the anti-reality part of the religious right and I am surprised by you using it.

"When all the data point in the same direction it isn't a suggestion any more."

When people are already inclined to only look in one direction, it's surprising how all the evidence seems to point that way. They find exactly what they go looking for. The same is true of people who think the Bible is the literal word of God. They think that all the evidence points in the same direction too...they direction THEY want it to. ;-) Again - this just as much misuse of the word Evidence as of the word Theory, above, and it is beneath you, I would have thought. You know perfectly well that there are no scientific data, actual physical evidence, empirical data, facts, that are better explained by invoking the supernanatural (whether the biblical explanation or other) rather than the natural<.b> laws explained by physics, chemistry, and psychology.

Fossils are not equally well explained by the Biblical account of the Flood than by the paleoscientists' theories.

Again, my conclusion that if there are supernatural forces they are not involved in nature is based on reason, and I am completely open to the idea that there may well BE supernatural forces/entities outside of nature, but I live in the natural world where there aren't any. I agree with you that it's a fun philosophical question, what is outside/beyond the time and space in which we do live, but there really is no need of that hypothesis within the natural world.
It may not be a Truth, but it's Reality, and I think it's time people learned to deal with it.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 02:25 PM

"Suggested is like saying evolution is a theory."

Correct. It is a theory. It may well be partially correct. It may well be partially in error. It may be largely in error. It may yet be succeeded by a more convincing scientific theory. There's been a lot of precedent for that sort of thing in the world of science, if you look at the past few hundred years. ;-) All you're doing is putting absolute faith in the present scientific orthodoxy...the way religious people put faith in religious orthodoxies.

"When all the data point in the same direction it isn't a suggestion any more."

When people are already inclined to only look in one direction, it's surprising how all the evidence seems to point that way. They find exactly what they go looking for. The same is true of people who think the Bible is the literal word of God. They think that all the evidence points in the same direction too...they direction THEY want it to. ;-)

You, like they, are an absolutist who thinks he knows THE ONE AND ONLY TRUTH, and that's all there is to it. You, like they, are probably quite wrong in that assumption.

I bet you that in a hundred years from now science will have greatly modified or even superseded the theory of evolution with a brand new one, and some self-important fellows like you will be quite sure that the new theory is "absolutely beyond question".

Why not admit that maybe you don't know for sure how human life developed on this planet, and that no one else does either? Would that hurt too much?

I admit that I don't know for sure, and it doesn't hurt a bit. I am not afraid to admit that I don't know. We have theories. We will continue to have theories. Lazy thinkers will continue to cling to those theories with the absolute faith of a religious fanatic. It has ever been so. People are deeply afraid to admit how little they know...so they just parrot stuff someone else, someone in authority, has told them with utter and absolute assurance. ("Daddy" must know best, right?)

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 01:49 PM

I think there is an inherent human need to plumb the mysteries of the viewpoint that is more than the body, that has a certain timelessness and meta-nature to it. Wouldn't it make more sense to wonder if there *were* anything other than nature, that would be timeless and all that? I mean now, rather than back when we initially evolved intelligence and noticed nature for the first time? Remember, that initial noticing *brought with it* the (mis)understanding that everything that *was* noticed, happened through the directed action of *something* (whence was born our ancient belief that some supernatural direction of nature must exist).

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 01:35 PM

Well, perhaps so, Frank. But an absence of all consideration of the spiritual side of things leaves you in a Camusian existential rut, sometimes. I think there is an inherent human need to plumb the mysteries of the viewpoint that is more than the body, that has a certain timelessness and meta-nature to it. If you don't like the word spiritual, which I can well understand given the amount of Victorian baggage it has been laden with, try some other word that describes where you go when your imagination catches fire.


A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Stringsinger
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 12:37 PM

The most important branch of philosophy in my opinion is Ethics. Epistemology is sometimes useful too.

But most philosophical meandering is the gerbil on the treadmill.

Science does answer questions that need to be answered.

"Spiritual" is one of those vague words that have so many different interpretations that a point of discussion goes nowhere. Its intimation is that it is non-material therefore in a reality-based scientific context, it doesn't exist.

Einstein had something to say about Spinoza's "god" which was more pantheistic than the monotheistic dictator that many worship today. Carl Sagan made the point that most "gods" today are too small. I don't think you have to believe in any god or spirit to appreciate with wonder the macrocosmic or the microcosmic world and it has no bearing on how the human species ethically should conduct themselves.

Einstein made it very clear that he did not believe in a personal god. He thought that naive.

In my opinion, floating around on an imaginary cloud of "spirituality" will not make for a peaceful or better world.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 09:25 PM

Suggested is like saying evolution is a theory. When all the data point in the same direction it isn't a suggestion any more.

I really think that having evolved the sensibilities we have, we have a duty to do sensible things, like appreciate beauty.

Ever read anything of the Navajo Way?

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 07:22 PM

The only purpose we can have that makes sense to me is to evolve an interesting destiny. That means a material destiny, a mental destiny, and yes, a spiritual destiny.

At present we seem, as a species, to have totallyy fucked up the first and third, and only managed to cvultivate a few small corners where the mental side seems to be making some sort of progress in spite of heavy counter efforts in other corners.

It wuld an interestin exercise, I think, to imagine an ideal scene physically for the whole planet including those living on it. Then, to envision an intellectual destiny worth pursuing--if we had the freedom to work out any problems, or intellectual frameworks, where should we go with that freedom?

And finally to figure out what a genuine spiritual destiny, uncluttered by arbitrary figments or authoritarian overlays, would be like.

Somewhere in the process would evolve the remedy for the physical, emotional, intellectual and spiritual causes of stupidity and neurosis.

I think this makes a very interesting road map, if it could ever build up a consensus.


A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 07:05 PM

"Little Hawk, we did not become human *for a reason* - it just happened. That has been determined through genomics."

It has most certainly not been determined. It has been suggested.

"A more sensible question philosophical question in my mind could be, now that we ARE here, what should we do? And the answer to that is up to us to determine - it isn't handed down by some supernatural entity or force. Personally, I vote for "be kind and appreciate beauty" along with "don't neglect your responsibilities while pursuing your freedoms" or something like that."

Sounds good to me. I'll go along with that.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 06:28 PM

Now, I am a lenient employer of words...I believe left to their own devices they will flourish and produce maximum productivity, mostly, unless you get unlucky and employ some of those lower-class words who are positively semiotically promiscuous.

But I have well-drawn limits, yo know, so they all know where the line in the cognosphere is drawn.

Soul means, very simply,   You   before you started trucking with identities.

Spiritual means relating to that.

Simple, and once you make things clear, why those little words go out and do their best for you.

A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 02:38 PM

Little Hawk, we did not become human *for a reason* - it just happened. That has been determined through genomics.

A more sensible question philosophical question in my mind could be, now that we ARE here, what should we do? And the answer to that is up to us to determine - it isn't handed down by some supernatural entity or force. Personally, I vote for "be kind and appreciate beauty" along with "don't neglect your responsibilities while pursuing your freedoms" or something like that.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Bee
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 02:09 PM

Amos, that's exactly how I feel about the word 'spiritual'. 'Soul' is another word that lounges about getting in the way, eating more than its fair share of people's mental and emotional resources, and never really gets anything done.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 01:25 PM

I would assume you would want a clear definition before you put a word to work for you. Otherwise, why, it could take its pay and then run off and mean just about anything. Why, anybody you like could come along and tell it what to mean, and it would set about meaning it!!

No, sir, prudent business practice requires a clear contract, where that word sigs up for the meaning you mean it to have. Then you know you're safe. And, you've got legal recourse if things go wrong between you.


A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 01:16 PM

The reason I won't call myself "spiritual" is because the word has no meaning.

Most Americans look at it from a Christianized viewpoint. To them, spirituality is synonymous with "transcendant morality." But I see no evidence that being "spiritual" makes you automatically moral much less transcendant.

You could be highly spiritual AND highly immoral.

I simply think there is level of reality we cannot perceive by our present experience except under certain extraordinary circumstances. I think there is some form of reincarnation but I have no idea how it really works or precisely what is reincarnated.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 01:03 PM

I haven't even had even one philosophical question EVER that's been answered by science. ;-) I've had other questions that have been answered by science (plenty of them), but not the philosophical ones.

Okay, Mrrzy, tell me then. From your scientific point of view. Why are we here?

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 01:01 PM

LOL, Mrz!

The idea is actually quite germane.   The purely materialistic version of atheism has no answer, because the question comes from outside the box of its boundaries.

However there is plenty of play for spiritual atheism -- the belief in a very large population of spiritual beings, at play in the frame of limitation known as the physical universe, but not of it. "Here", under these conditions, could easily be an evolved average of illusion, for example, gradually subscribed to more and more adhesively, the way kids gradually agree to all kinds of rules and entities and forces that they dream up in a sandbox game.

The answer to why there is a "here" here then becomes, "because we said so".

A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 12:54 PM

LOL! Because it is there?

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 11:42 AM

A far more interesting question, also very UNanswered, is "Why is "here" here?".



A

(Some wiseguy is going to answer by saying "Hear, hear!" I just know it.)

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 11:36 AM

So come on, give me *one* nice philosophical question that hasn't been answered by science. We *do* know "why" we're here - it just happened that way, nobody "intended" it to happen. I do understand people like Joe Offer who WISH there were a reason, but I don't get people who still think there HAS TO BE a reason.
Before the evolution of human intelligence, what was the meaning of life? And why would the evolution of human intelligence change that?

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 02:39 PM

Mrrzy, as I said, the number of philosophical questions I have about life is simply endless. I find that my spiritual studies help me to answer them more effectively than most other lines of investigation, science included.

You say, "Why are we here? We know that. If you're thinking How did we get here? We know that too."

Oh yeah???????? Really? ;-) My goodness!

I don't think most of us have any idea why we're here...although we do have numerous interesting theories about it. I don't think most of us have any idea how humans got here in the first place either...but we do have interesting theories about that too. Evolution is just one of them, and it happens to be the most popular one right now. It may yet be replaced by a more popular one. Wait and see. ;-)

In totally prosaic terms, I am here because my mother and father conceived me through a sexual act and I was born here. Was that what you meant? If so...(yawn)...yeah, I know that, but that's not what I have questions about.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 02:29 PM

What questions do you still have after reading what you know about reality, though? You said earlier "I find that none of them [human creeds] has all the answers. " - I didn't want to assume that I knew the questions. If you're thinking Why are we here? We know that. If you're thinking How did we get here? We know that too. So I am still wondering what you don't know, given the state of knowledge today...

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 02:19 PM

Huh??? There must be a million questions I would like answers to. Like anyone else, Mrrzy, I am curious and I want to know as things as I can about life, existence, the world around me, and so. There are a great many things I don't know. I have questions regarding all of them.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 12:48 PM

Little Hawk?

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:39 PM

"Thanks, pal, but the Buddha teaches us not to succumb to the temptation to abhor."

          How can the Buddha teach. I thought he was addicted to some ancient superstition or another.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 03:13 PM

IF he has an answer to that question, does that disqualify him?

:D

A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 01:58 PM

Little Hawk, to what questions are you still seeking answers?

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 08:50 PM

Thanks, pal, but the Buddha teaches us not to succumb to the temptation to abhor.

A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 05:17 PM

You are so right, Amos. I can see how one day you may actually merit an honorary promotion to the Order of Shatner...

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 04:23 PM

Well, Bee, how's this for a hypothesis: Spirituality IS the universal solvent because it (the spiritual part of the human makeup) is the source of (a) live communication/understanding and (b) all ability to intend or put forth a decision about how things will go. In this respect, all problems are essentially an insufficiency of spirituality, whereby people become stimulus-response entities rather than understanding, communicating, intending and acting. Huh?

That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 04:15 PM

And who says I do?

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Stringsinger
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 01:50 PM

LH, not at all. No chip from me. You can believe whatever you want. It's your right to believe in unicorns if you want to.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 01:36 PM

I get if from a lifetime of personal experience...as a free thinker who does not belong to any group, cult, religion, or political party...but is willing to take a look at all the possibilities. I question every human custom. I question every creed. I find some good in most, if not all of them...I find that none of them has all the answers. The members of almost any group (religious or otherwise) tend to be a bit chauvinistic about other groups in the same field of interest. I question that also. I have a natural tendency to resist being pressured to conform to other people's expectations.

Of course there are different interpretations of words like "spiritual" or "spirit". I was just giving you my interpretation of it, that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Bee
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 12:20 PM

"The highest form of spirituality is that which leads a person to look deeply into and question everything...every form of conventionality and lazy thinking...not just the conventionality and lazy thinking found in organized religion. Spirituality asks the great questions and the small ones. It questions every "rule" and re-examines it. It questions every role and re-examines it. It looks beyond the surface. It questions self as well as questioning others. It unites all the disciplines...science, philosophy, art, commerc. It does not divide and separate...(you don't look suddenly shaplier? Heh!)...it unifies the apparent opposites." - Little Hawk

From where do you get this broad definition of 'spirituality'? Spirit and spiritual are examples of words with multiple definitions, including ones which conclude that they describe imaginary concepts. The above makes it sound like the Universal Solvent.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 11:59 AM

Grr! Snarl!   I think I see a chip showing on your shoulder...

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Stringsinger
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 11:45 AM

RE-integration of consciousness is what atheists and freethinkers are all about.
Their consciouness is predicated on reality, not some metaphysical mist.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 11:41 AM

Absolutely. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 11:17 AM

The highest form of spirituality is that which leads a person to look deeply into and question everything...every form of conventionality and lazy thinking...not just the conventionality and lazy thinking found in organized religion. Spirituality asks the great questions and the small ones. It questions every "rule" and re-examines it. It questions every role and re-examines it. It looks beyond the surface. It questions self as well as questioning others. It unites all the disciplines...science, philosophy, art, commerc. It does not divide and separate...(you don't look suddenly shaplier? Heh!)...it unifies the apparent opposites.

In all the debates here I see people trying to divide and separate: "My way good...your way bad. My way right...your way wrong." That, ultimately, does not lead anywhere useful. It just leads to division and warfare (on some level or another).

Clearly, then, the highest goal of agnosticism is the complete re-integration of consciousness. This of course will put the agnostics out of a job, but it will be worth it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 11:02 AM

Amos, you're right...that IS all that's wanted in most of those churches and organizations... "an amiable perpetuation of surface. Follow the forms, perpetuate the nouns, hand off the metaphors as fact, and never mind the probing questions."


It's also all that's wanted in political parties, corporations, the military, and large organizations of every type throughout society. ;-) Ever notice that? The rank and file of the members are expected to be full of enthusiasm, loyal, ill-informed, and barely aware of what's really going on. The less they know, the less likely they are to question authority.

The funny thing about non-theists is they seem to only be inclined to notice that kind of phenomenon when it's found happening in "religion". This is a case of finding perfidy wherever you look for it, and not finding it wherever you don't.

A self-fulfilling prophecy?

The highest form of spirituality is that which leads a person to look deeply into and question everything...every form of conventionality and lazy thinking...not just the conventionality and lazy thinking found in organized religion. Spirituality asks the great questions and the small ones. It questions every "rule" and re-examines it. It questions every role and re-examines it. It looks beyond the surface. It questions self as well as questioning others. It unites all the disciplines...science, philosophy, art, commerc. It does not divide and separate...(you don't look suddenly shaplier? Heh!)...it unifies the apparent opposites.

In all the debates here I see people trying to divide and separate: "My way good...your way bad. My way right...your way wrong." That, ultimately, does not lead anywhere useful. It just leads to division and warfare (on some level or another).

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 10:41 AM

Actually, many of us "neo-atheists" as Dionne put it, actually do delve below the shiny surface to the hidden depths of this metaphor... that is why we are so annoying to the believers!

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 10:16 AM

"They, like most conventional churchgoers, barely scratch the surface."

            Still, it seems like there should be something to be gained by looking into it.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 01:38 PM

...which is understandable, because in many sects all that is wanted from parishioners is an amiable perpetuation of surface. Follow the forms, perpetuate the nouns, hand off the metaphors as fact, and never mind the probing questions.

Not all religions are like this of course, but the ones that are the most organized seem to have the most invested in not letting their rituals be shaken by deeper questions or discussion.

A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 12:46 PM

Yeah, I bet... ;-)

It's as easy to point out the inconsistencies of conventional religion as it is to point out that wet paint can stick to your clothes...but the slaggers never even bother to take a serious look at the deeper levels of spiritual philosopy that are found underlying most conventional religions. They don't look beyond the metaphors and the outer symbols. They, like most conventional churchgoers, barely scratch the surface.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 10:45 AM

"One new thing about atheism seems to be that people are actually noticing the writers like Harris and Dawkins - if EJ Dionne is writing an *answer* to the atheists, then he's heard the question at least, and that is great news."


          Daniel Dennett is another writer worth reading--"Breaking the Spell." But it can get to be kind of slow slogging.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 04:25 PM

refresh

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Apr 07 - 10:00 PM

I remember the "sorry, eh?" episode too, Bee!

Americans are, in general and certainly in the gubmint, kinda nuts about their flag. I was speaking for myself and my family, Little Hawk; my dad, having been brought up Quaker, wouldn't let me pledge allegiance to the flag the 2 school years I was in the US system, so the fact that they wouldn't have let me say Under God didn't even come up. I have not gone so far as to forbid my kids from saying the pledge but they skip the Under God part.

One new thing about atheism seems to be that people are actually noticing the writers like Harris and Dawkins - if EJ Dionne is writing an *answer* to the atheists, then he's heard the question at least, and that is great news.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 03:25 PM

Well, Bee, I just find the Red Ensign more aesthetically appealing. It's got a deeper, stronger red in it, and a better combination of colors. It also has symbols for the English, the Scots, the French, and the Irish, which is pretty neat. The new flag looks like a gas station logo to me.

"Maple Leaf Gas - Fill'er up right here, eh?"

Still, it could be worse. They could've put a set of moose antlers on it, after all... ;-)