BS: New things about atheism

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 12:55 AM

I don't revere the US flag but seeing it held high as people come together in grief or in gratitude is soul stirring to me.

I'm not a liturgical person but I suspect that people who are, people who respond to pomp and ritual and repetition, also have the same focused feeling.

When I am in Washington DC I get somewhat the same feeling, marred only by the acid knowledge that currently we have thugs in the White House. The feeling has to do with the hope and aspirations this country was born with and tried to bring to fruition.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Bee
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 09:16 PM

I wasn't sad to see the Red Ensign go. I like Britain, but saw no reason to keep the Union Jack on the Canadian flag - like wearing your grandmother's hat or something, sentimental and a little childish.

Although having to keep reminding Americans at sports events to carry it with the Leaf's pointy bits up is a pain. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 06:12 PM

That depends which religion you mean (about the child abuse). I prefer eastern religions like Buddhism on the whole. They're less aggressive and more reasonable than the Judeo-Christian-Muslim triumvirate.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Stringsinger
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 06:09 PM

LH, I agree with pretty much everything you've said. There are those of us Americans, though, who are trying to bring Democracy back to our country. The Grinch in the Executive branch stole it from us.

There are those of us who don't worship the flag. Some of us even burn it to make a statement. (Not me, but there are those who are angry at what our country has become).

Fortunately, America still has diversity in its idea of what America stands for. You can't tell that by our corporate-controlled news media today but we are there. We believe in the Constitution as a noble document that had a kind of idealism that is a good guide. We don't burn candles to it, however, nor do we pranam to the altar of political priests.

Speaking of priests and preachers, has anyone had the temerity to discuss "child abuse" in religion? It is rampant.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 06:07 PM

Yeah, me too.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 06:04 PM

There's nothing soul-stirring about the flag, LH. There is smething soul-stirring about the great democratic experriment it represents. I wish people both inside the country and outside would get back on track with that! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 06:01 PM

Yeah... ;-) But what is so soul-stirring about a bunch of danged red and white stripes, a blue square, and a sprinkling of white stars? Looks like a design for Dagwood's pajamas to me.

I don't find the Maple Leaf flag very stirring at all, Ebbie. I liked our previous flag, the Red Ensign, much better, but they replaced it with the Maple Leaf flag in the early 60's.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 05:55 PM

"very liberal," ? Doesn't seem to follow.

Little Hawk, if the USA had an acorn, say, on its flag we might not find it so soul-stirring, either. *G*

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

Oh, well, I think you guys worship your flag, Mrrzy. ;-) But it's a matter of opinion, isn't it? I've never seen a nation of people so obsessed with their damn flag as Americans are. Do you think we Canadians fixate on our national flag to that degree? Not a chance. We sort of like the fact that it's our flag, but that's about as far as it goes.

Believers kill non-believers. Doesn't matter much what they believe in. It's not the believing that's wrong, it's the habit of killing FOR their belief that's wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 03:35 PM

I'm trying very hard not to have to move. I like everything ELSE about living here - very liberal, very international, very educated, very diverse... so I am fighting a rearguard action instead to bring us back to the original american ideal - where the gubmint has no say in religion.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Leadfingers
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 01:05 PM

200 !!

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 12:18 PM

I think I'd move!

I lived in Virginia in my teens, between Staunton and Waynesboro, 28 miles from Charlottesville, in the early 50s. I remember that it seemed like everybody went to church- it didn't necessarily mean that everybody was good people (far from it!); it was just the thing one did, the seemly thing.

I don't know what the experiences were/are of people who don't go to church in Virginia. I was growing up in a family that went to church.

All that said, these days I love to visit Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland... There is a warmth there that has tremendous resonance.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 09:29 AM

Central Virginia, USA. Public school. Amazing to normal people, isn't it? And Charlottesville is a bastion of democratic thinkers in this sea of republicans. You should see our voting record, normally.

Little Hawk - "Believers in communism were killing non-believers in communism, Mrrzy." - sure. But again, it wasn't atheists killing believers in gods *just for* believing in those gods. I repeat, I know of 0, no, documented cases where an atheist killed a believer only for believing.

Also, and this isn't just for you, but when *I* say Religion, I do not mean any world view or ethos or something like The American Way, in your example. I mean a system regulating worship of a deity or their prophet(s). Even those of us red-blooded Amurricans, no matter how patriotic, do not *worship* the Flag, or the Bill of Rights. I admire the Bill of Rights greatly; I do not worship it.

Lessee - begging the question - when I say Worship I mean Pay homage to in the expectation of getting something out of it, like salvation, eternal life, life after death, better weather, what have you.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 10:54 PM

Mrrzy, if I knew where you live I have forgotten it, but it seems to me that it must be in the American south. That is the only region even remotely like what you describe. I live in the American west- first in Oregon and now in Alaska. I have to say that I have NEVER heard of anyone acting or reacting as you say they do.

"As in, when my kid joins a public school chorus, he sings hymns and psalms and gospel, but nothing about, say, Emmet Till or something actually educational. There are a lot of ways to teach 4-part harmony - they don't need to be singing Praise Jesus to learn that."

Huh? In the West children are not even ALLOWED to sing psalms and hymns in public schools. So where are your children that that is what they sing? If you enrolled them in a parochial school that bespeaks a fierce aggressiveness that is bound to bring grief and contention to you, and to them.

In the west, I don't know - and have never known - people who kept my daughter from playing with theirs because she didn't go to church. And she was little a generation ago, when one might safely expect a more aggressively devout community.Where the heck do you live? It seems to me - and freely admitting that I don't know this to be true - that you may be perceived as doing your own version of proselytizing.

I know many religious people- and many of them are good, wholesome people. I know many non-religious people - and many of them are good, wholesome people. In my experience you tend to get back what you give.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 08:50 PM

Believers in communism were killing non-believers in communism, Mrrzy. As simple as that. Communism WAS, in fact, a state religion...but just not a religion based on a deity, that's all. It was a religion based on a set of beliefs about society and humanity. It's usually about core beliefs that people make war on other people...or it's about money, land, and resources...or all of those things wrapped up together.

The core beliefs do not necessarily have to be beliefs about God. Americans have a state religion all their own. It is called "The American Way". Its sacred symbols are the flag, the US dollar, the Liberty Bell, the Pyramid and the All-seeing Eye (and some other masonic symbols), the Fasces, the American Eagle, the Statue of Liberty, the Washington monument, the White House and Congress, the Constitution, and a long tradition of battles and heroes. In the name of this state religion, taught in every American primary school, Americans have gone forth for generations and fought wars all over the globe and extended corporate control over societies and resources all over the place. They have unwittingly caused suffering to uncountable millions of non-Americans in the process. Like Communism, the American Way is a state political religion. Unlike Communism, it also often claims to represent God's will and to indeed be the finest example of God's plan on this Earth. That is a profoundly disturbing phenomenon to those of us who don't buy it.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Stringsinger
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 08:38 PM

In science, there is a problem with the word "creation". Evolution is not creation but a genetic process. If there were a designer who made the evolutionary "mistakes" along the way, he might be fired for incompetency. :)

Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin and Hitler are used to justify the argument that atheism is somehow "evil". It could be argued I think that Communism has a religious component. It's a dogma not unlike many of the religious dogmas. Stalin, however, perverted Communism to suit his own ends. Hitler was not an atheist and stated that atheists should be killed.

I think the point is valid that no one view has a monopoly on dictatorship which in my view is more of a psychological disturbance than a legitimate "world view".

"In God We Trust" on our currency is a recent development procured by a minister. It did not appear at the inception of our coinage or paper.

Dogma is dogma and it belongs in the dogma house. And it deserves a leash law. (Separation of Church and State)

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 06:07 PM

Again, my issue is not with religion. My issue is with denial of reality when it conflicts with faith, instead of adjusting your faith to fit reality. As in, calling evolution a theory but not gravity or plate tectonics. As in, putting In God We Trust on our money and our schools. As in, when my kid joins a public school chorus, he sings hymns and psalms and gospel, but nothing about, say, Emmet Till or something actually educational. There are a lot of ways to teach 4-part harmony - they don't need to be singing Praise Jesus to learn that.

And Amos' point is extremely well-taken, M. Ted - Stalin was not murdering people in the name of atheism. In the name of communism, which is atheistic, sure. But not in the name of atheism. I can't think of one single atheist who killed one single human being just for believing in something supernatural. But I can think of loads of believers who have killed believers in something different.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 04:09 PM

"While I sympathize with your difficulties with the Bush administration and its pandering to the "Christian" lobby, Mrzzy, I hardly see that religion itself is the problem here."

       The way I think religion is the problem here is like this: people who I know who go to church, and with whom I have to do business, will happily screw you to death on Friday, then go down to the church and roll around on the floor until god forgives them.
       And then on Monday morning they emerge back in public to gleefully screw somebody else.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 03:43 PM

SOUL

For the soul is the beginning of all things.
It is the soul that lends all things movement.

             Plotinus

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 01:35 PM

Are religionists sick?
Are Atheists sick?

You are only as sick as your secrets!











thats why there are few sick souls on mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 01:33 PM

I have nothing against religion as a private set of convictions, and I do not know who was beleaguering Mrrzy with the shades of Pol Pot and the like, but it brings up a very important distinction.

The mad militants with large armies are dangerous NOT because they do not have a religion but because they have no sense of ethics.

The failure of ethics is a failure in human rationality and imagination, not a failing in worship or dogma.

It is the abuse of an inherent human potential to think through courses of action and sort them on the basis of the widest benefit.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with religious belief.

A

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

Mass murder has been a legitimate social institution ever since war and dictators and oppressors of all sorts came into being. People who fight wars and who oppress others will always cynically use religion (or the hatred of religion) as am emotional motivator for their troops. That is not an indictment of religion itself, it's an indictment of war and oppression.

Religion is just one of many common excuses used to camouflage an unholy desire to rob and destroy people. Other common excuses often used are "patriotism", "defence", "manifest destiny", the "white man's burden", economics, race, etc...

While I sympathize with your difficulties with the Bush administration and its pandering to the "Christian" lobby, Mrzzy, I hardly see that religion itself is the problem here.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: M.Ted
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 11:23 AM

Mrzzy, Communism (of the Marxist/Leninist/Maoist variety) is an avowedly atheist social philosophy--many millions of people were murdered in the name of Communism. Did "atheism", and the rejection of Christian moral and ethical values that comes with it, make it possible for Stalin and company to make mass murder a legitimate social institution?

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 11:12 AM

OK, this came to me in a pm signed Mrrzy, although it was addressed to me, not written by me. I'm responding here out of fear that others have similarly misunderstood what I meant. Italics are theirs. Plain text is mine. Again, I hope I get all the italicizing done right.
So...you don't regard an officially atheist military dictatorship type of administration with a gigantic atheist army and governmental apparatus at its command as dangerous, Mrzzy????? Sure, any military dictatorship is dangerous, as is any gigantic army and governmental apparatus. What I was saying was there were very few of them, especially compared to the number of military dictatorships nad governmental apparati which are *not* atheistic.
Mao and Stalin and Pol Pot did not act alone as a handful of individuals. They had millions of compliant and often fanatical followers, faithful atheist (or who said they were out of fear) political party machines, armies, propaganda ministers. They killed anyone who was openly religious or different in any way from their party line. Right - they were terrible and I'm not defending them. There were, nonetheless, fewer of them than there are theistic mass murderers for cause. Remember the Crusades? The Nazis? Ever lost anyone to Al Quaeda, or Hezbollah, or the United States Gubmint's jackbooted thugs? The trick is, atheists are much harder to rally behind unreasonable causes than are the faithful, who have already given themselves over to another authority.
What the fuck is it? You think that only "religious" people who don't share your bitter dislike of organized religion are capable of doing great evil things in this world?????? No. I think that all the evil done in the name of religion requires religion to justify it, whereas none of the good does. And I am not against organized religion; I am against discarding reality to cling to mythology.
Take the damn knee jerk chip off your shoulder for a change and try to be half objective, Mrzzy. Hey, I *earned* that chip (*G*). And I *am* objective - I am dealing with data and reality, not myth and superstition. There are good people and bad people among both the religious and the non-religious, always have been, and always will be. Religion in itself is not the problem in this world. It is people who MISUSE religion to hurt people who are the problem, and people who MISUSE anti-religion to hurt people are just as much the problem. People who won't leave other people ALONE in peace to be who they are, are the problem. Right - why won't they leave me to be an atheist in peace? Instead, I am forced, and my children are forced, to act as if faith were reasonable. (Which it isn't - it's faith. If it were reasonable, it wouldn't require faith, it could be demonstrated.) The questions here isn't, do you go to church; it's what church do you go to. Parents who won't let their kids play with mine when they find out the answer is None. And so on.
Until you stop pissing on religious people as though they were "all the same" (which they sure as hell are not), don't expect anyone else to stop pissing on you. You don't deserve what you aren't willing to extend: mutual respect and tolerance...until you extend it to people yourself. But that is exactly my point! The faith-based here (and I have said over and over again that this is a US -and middle eastern- issue - Canadians and Europeans don't have this problem. But we do) will not respect any non-faith view. Until they do, I am forced to fight back, with argument and data, because I don't believe that punching them in the nose would be a good answer.
And, I might remind you, I belong to no organized religion myself, don't wish to or need to, but, boy does it disgust me to hear the sort of chauvinistic hateful crap that some people come up with around subjects like religion. You think you're better than all religious people? You think you're smarter than all religious people? You think they should all be brought up to your higher level of awareness and "saved" from their sad life of illusions by you? If so, you've got hell of a lot of nerve. Well, there is something here - I do think that questioning data is a good thing, but once the data have withstood the questioning, I think it's unintelligent to then discard the data because it conflicts with your beautiful theory. Beautiful theories are supposed to be slain by ugly facts, not invulnerable to them because the theory was written down in some holy book. Remember - all these holy books were written by humans.
Some of the finest people I have ever known in my life were deeply religious people. And some of the wisest too. They can be found in any religion, not just in Christianity. They can also be found quite readily among the non-religious. I know that. That's why I fully respect both ways of being, and I don't make the mistake of consigning one of them to a sort of figurative "hell" which is what you appear to be doing, as far as I can see. Sure, there can be wise fools, and wise sages, in and out of various religions. However, faith is not reasonable, and I don't see why I should have to pretend it is, especially with my children's education at stake.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: GUEST,Bardan
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 06:12 AM

What I mean is the argument of the believers seems to be that that nothing happens without a cause so the universe can't have always been there or just happened spontaneously. It must have been caused/created by God. Who has always existed or maybe just sprang into being spontaneously.

I've just realised I'm pretty much repeating a previous post, but what the hell, it's a good enough point to bear repeating.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: GUEST,Bardan
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 06:00 AM

Erm, no. There was a whole massive party system backing up those dictators. It was a lot more than 3 or 5 people. Now, you could argue that it wasn't really about religion. That they were simply people who weren't sufficiently controlled for the party's tastes, who resisted and were therefore seen as a threat. But they were killed by large organised systems involving lots of people.

In connection with the 'uncaused causer' idea, again it's mainly a peculiarity of the semitic religions to encourage a straight line view of time with a beginning and an end. The old systems in Europe and Eastern thought as a whole seem far more into a cyclical model. I think I'm right in saying that some scientists still believe in a big bang going to big crunch and starting up again sort of idea.

As far as I'm concerned, the idea of matter/the universe/ whatever always being there is no more ridiculous than the idea of it being created out of nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 11:30 PM

Yes, millions of people whether they had faith or not, by about 3-5 atheists. In contrast to similar millions who had a different faith or none, by millions of believers.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 06:31 PM

"Believers" far more often have murdered other believers (whose belief differs in some way from their own) than they have murdered atheists. Catholics murder Protestants, and vice versa. Sunnis murder Shiites. Jews and Muslims murder one another. The slaughter of believers BY believers is far more common than the slaughter of atheists by believers.

As for the slaughter of believers by atheists!!!...just go to grotesque examples of that like Mao's China, Stalin's Russia, and Pol Pot's Cambodia, and the numbers of believers slain by the official atheists in power goes into the millions.

No one has a monopoly on either virtue or victimhood when it comes to this subject, neither the believers nor the atheists. Both are capable of good works, bad works, and terrible atrocities.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 04:55 PM

Little Hawk - if we really get global warming, wonder how many frileux atheist americans will move north? Yikes!

Well-put, Stringsinger (love your handle, btw).

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Stringsinger
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 03:54 PM

M.Ted, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Richard Dawkins presents that view eloquently in his book "The God Delusion" and in his dealing with "believers" he always points out that he respects those believers as people ahead of their beliefs.

I think that most atheists are pretty broad-minded on this issue. I have not heard of any atheist murdering any "believer" because of their belief but there have been incidents of "believers" murdering atheists because of theirs.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 02:49 PM

Well, I find fundamentalists darned annoying too, so I get where you're coming from. I don't have to deal with that much in Canada. We have never had a government which pushed that kind of attitude.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 09:09 AM

I respect *thinking* people. I have a hard time respecting the foolish, especially the determinedly and deliberately foolish. And when they thrust their foolishness into my life and that of my children (we are in the US, remember) *and* require me to act as if it weren't foolish, then it is too dangerous to respect.
It's the harm. I keep saying that. It's the harm. Look at what it's doing to our school system... look at what it's doing to international relations...
If I weren't so lazy I'd emigrate. But I *like* the rich living of the States - so I'd rather fight the foolishness and stay here.
Hey - maybe I'm not all that lazy after all!

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 10:15 PM

Who says you need to respect foolishness? Just respect people in a general sense, that's all, and pardon them their foolishness. We are ALL foolish in some respect or another. Hang around someone, anyone long enough and you will see that they are foolish in some respects. I guarantee it. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 10:00 PM

But *why* should we respect foolishness?

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: M.Ted
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 09:57 PM

I meant there to be a smiley face after that question. My point in all of this is not a religious or philosophical point--I want people to remember that they need to respect one another, even when they don't put much stock in one another's beliefs.

I

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 09:32 PM

Now I get the drift of your argument. I guess if I was in the USA right now I would worry about this a lot more than I do.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: 282RA
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 07:38 PM

>>Ah! So you feel that someone is trying to force God down your throat, do you? Well, then, I can see why you're bothered about it.<<

Yeah, he's in the Oval Office.

>>I don't see why I should act as if such beliefs were reasonable, when they aren't. I think they should be treated as the silliness they are. One of my friends thought a long time ago that the only way towards a secular society would be through ridicule, but I didn't think he was right.<<

Ridicule is not my bag. I just don't believe that people trying to legislate their god beliefs into my life should be spared an unpleasant jab of truth. Surely they expect resistance from people who don't agree with them but you'd never guess it from that bullshit "we're-so-persecuted" act they put on.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 06:44 PM

It is because our direct experience is that without a "mover", there is no motion.

This is basic stuff Mrzzy--why haven't you worked it out already?

Ummm - if everything has a cause, then there cannot be a first cause, is basic logic. I worked that one out a long time ago.

What you seem to be arguing is analogous to Because there is time, there must have been a time before time. Does not make sense to me at all.

282, that is exactly my issue. I don't see why I should act as if such beliefs were reasonable, when they aren't. I think they should be treated as the silliness they are. One of my friends thought a long time ago that the only way towards a secular society would be through ridicule, but I didn't think he was right.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 05:20 PM

Ah! So you feel that someone is trying to force God down your throat, do you? Well, then, I can see why you're bothered about it.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: M.Ted
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 05:17 PM

Vertigo, yes--and I feel like the man who knew to much as well--

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: 282RA
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 05:16 PM

>>What a vain seeking! ;-) Why don't you do something more useful, like try and invent a better mousetrap? Or wash the car. Anything.<<

As you're so fond of pointing out--we're all into our own thing and none is better than the others.

>>I'll tell you something, 282. I don't seek to define God or deny it either. Such seeking is utterly futile, as I'm sure you would agree. I don't mind speculating about the Infinite and our place in the Infinite though, and I don't have to belong to some organized religion to do that, do I? No. And I don't. Nor do I have any objection to those who do. That's their business, not mine. And their definition of God is their business too.<<

It's my business once they try to force it on me in the public setting.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 03:45 PM

You must have experience an acute sense of vertigo.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: M.Ted
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 03:35 PM

Buckminster Fuller once pointed out that, more than 400 years after we discovered that it wasn't true, we still talk about the sun rising and setting.

Several days ago, I was standing on the edge of a lacrosse field, with the sun at the horizon and a half moon shining directly above me--I realized that, at that moment,that, given that the sun , apparently at the horizon, was actually "up" , I was standing at a 90° angle to it--literally sideways. I became suddenly nauseous--

There are some things that it is better not to understand.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 03:25 PM

LOL, Ted!! A good physicist is a sure sign of a mis-spent childhood, eh?


A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: M.Ted
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 03:23 PM

Amos--you are right--but you don't go far enough--iwhat you say also precludes definitive "scientific knowledge"--

AR--I wasn't there, so I can't tell you anything about the Big Bang, just something I pulled out of the air as an easy to understand example first cause--Amos' pool game is really better, partly because pool is a much more reputable occupation than physics--I have know a lot of physicists, and they can be very dangerous, both to themselves and others--

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

"I do not seek to define god or to deny it,I seek only to destroy any argument that attempts either."

What a vain seeking! ;-) Why don't you do something more useful, like try and invent a better mousetrap? Or wash the car. Anything.

I'll tell you something, 282. I don't seek to define God or deny it either. Such seeking is utterly futile, as I'm sure you would agree. I don't mind speculating about the Infinite and our place in the Infinite though, and I don't have to belong to some organized religion to do that, do I? No. And I don't. Nor do I have any objection to those who do. That's their business, not mine. And their definition of God is their business too.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 01:13 PM

As I said the pool ball metaphor is weak on the fact that it is drawn inside the universe in which chain causality obtains. But the point of it though is that the poolballs are missing a whole other scene outside their frame of experience and reference.

We are seriously addicted to space-time sensory patterns of viewing and it is a bit of a shame, as it clamps down on the imagination and on the ability to envision links and patterns other than "normal" ones, which makes it ridiculous to discuss the notion of some infinite spiritual power with any clarity or real meaning.

A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 01:09 PM

>>It is a bit presumptuous to assume that our small minds, and the meager tools that they've created are able to perceive the nature of the totality, much less to understand it.<<

Yet you offer the Big Bang as proof of an uncaused cause as though there can be no arguing it.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 01:07 PM

>>I don't think you have the slightest idea what I believe in, 282. Why don't you tell me how you define the word "God", and we'll see if I believe in anything that meets your definition. ;-)<<

One more time: I do not seek to define god or to deny it, I seek only to destroy any argument that attempts either.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 01:05 PM

>>St. Tommy says"Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act."<<

Haha! This actually refutes your uncaused cause. Nothing can be in motion except something external to it put it in motion. That's standard causality which does not allow for a first cause.