BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: autolycus
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 01:45 PM

And that's the point, Bill. They are attitudes. Not propositions.

And re your last post, right, it is not subjective to assert that distinction that you made. And it is not purely subjective to take logic to propositions to matters like that, just ss you said.

But thet use of logic is not appropriate for all subjects, and some of us are pointing out subjects where logical analysis aint the way to go. Like quality of life. Or taste preferences, to keep the argument simple.

If logical analysis is your only tool, then the quote comes to my mind,
"If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."


Amos , thanks for correction. Corrected pascal quote makes my point another way.

Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 10:25 AM

If God hasn't turned up then, have any great-great-grandmothers who have strange powers, or do we now think that Curdie and the Princess made it all up? :~)



But It did!! Ergo, non sequitur...



A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: GUEST,Mrr
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 10:19 AM

Intelligent women have always had powers strange to mehums (someone's term for Mere Humans, anybody remember whose?)! And intelligent OLD women, even scarier powers!

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: wysiwyg
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 10:12 AM

Ooh, good books all. I loved Curdie. How about the Golden Key, not to be confused with the Golden Compass?


Isn't it funny how DUMB a name can seem till you read the book, and how sweet it is once you have? I'll look into Golden Key, on your recommendation.

If God hasn't turned up then, have any great-great-grandmothers who have strange powers, or do we now think that Curdie and the Princess made it all up? :~)

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 10:04 AM

Oooo! LEt's have a squabble on that one: "Resolved--The number of sheep Bill has is relevant." Discuss.

Your remark about the book club was very funny, Rig. They would probably counter that it was a very, very good book.

Bill's love affair with the gods of Logic and Boolean Propositions is charming, but it overlooks the fact that real life is awkward, volatile, shape-shifting, and often balks at holding still for propositional logic. Logicians HAVE to eliminate a lot of material in order to make their propositions even manageable. Acheiving internal consistency in a set of logical propositions is definitely virtuous, don't get me wrong. But if one ignores the edges, you can end up making your vessel all ship-shape and Bristol-fashion only to discover it is sitting in the middle of the Sahara Forest.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 10:00 PM

I have to disagree with you, BillD--it is not irrelevant how many sheep you have. And the fact that there are 25 here and 25 there doesn't preclude the possibility that there are 10 somewhere else, meaning "lost"--which is why everyone is so upset--

I felt that that had to be said.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 09:56 PM

I am over "raving lunatics"--it's so 90's--

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 07:08 PM

Persnicketing is fun! And so are some raving lunatics...

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 06:46 PM

I don't know--if you turn out not to be some raving atheistic lunatic, I might end up feeling somewhat foolish. Also, when I am there, I have a small but noisy entourage. Plus, I am very persnickety about music--

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 04:27 PM

My comments about logic are similar to saying that it is irrelevant how many sheep you have and how intelligent they are or are not, 25 over here and 25 over there do NOT add up to 60. Math is what it is...and logic **APPLIES** to the internal coherence of claims, no matter what 'might' be final truth. Therefore, it is NOT subjective to assert this, except in so far as it is subjective to bother with the distinction. *wry grin*

   The only real point, therefore, is that one should be aware of what they assert, and to whom, and under what circumstances, lest one's assertion be shown to be **technically** invalid.

Folks who see this just fine when discussing the 'quality of life in Toledo', often cannot see why it also applies when it is applied to some 'tender' area, such as religious beliefs.

If I explain I just don't WISH to live in Toledo, or don't like rhubarb, I can get shrugs...if I explain that I don't WISH to have my 'soul saved', I often get arguments and sadness. (I grew up in Kansas, where it was close to dangerous in some places to admit that you were not a Christian.) As you see, I have reacted to those attitudes.)

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 04:13 PM

Well, PM me when you come to Charlottesville, we'll have coffee and talk about music...

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 04:12 PM

Well the last one makes a lot more sense, at least in English.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 03:55 PM

Sorry--it's "Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point. "
(The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing.)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 03:42 PM

La coeur a des raisons de laquel le mind ne saut pas. (Pascal?)


I regret to inform you that this translates as "The heart has some reasons from which the mind cannot jump." I think the original was "Le coeur a raisons que la raison ne connait pas."


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 03:18 PM

If I don't get the exact one I ordered, I'm sending it back--

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 02:11 PM

"...I haven't seen any gods, but the UPS truck has been down my street twice."


                      Maybe you've got one coming from Amazon.com...

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 01:56 PM

A) If you don't believe in unicorns, you're pretty much stuck in that same predicament that has been mentioned before.
B) "Atheism is a theism" is the aphaerestic epigram that amazed Amos--perhaps it "Amazes Amos Most". I forget what that one is called.
C) With due respect, logic is a funny thing--When some people say that logic validates God, and some say that logic invalidates God, I am inclined to wonder about the validity of logic and the logic of validity(I forget what that one is called, as well)
D) I am in Charlottesville on occasion, but never, ever talk about God when I am there. I do buy groceries, though. And coffee.
E)Being a bit later, I haven't seen any gods, but the UPS truck has been down my street twice.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: autolycus
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 01:07 PM

Warning. Interruption from another part of the conversation. :-)

Quote (which I wrote cos I never know if the italics thing will work or not


autolycus: This is among the hardest points to clarify in these discussions. What you have done is to first characterize my statement as if it were merely one in a list of subjective opinions about how to approach issues.
   It is not easy to explain why it is merely an attempt to do a meta-analysis of the very logical/linguistic structure of arguments in general. It in no way disproves any particular conclusions, but merely analyzes how well they manage to be both internally consistent and how well they avoid certain common rhetorical errors.

   Unquote.


Yes, Bill, I think there is a crux here.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't count yours quite as 'a subjective opinion' - it is your adding 'subjective' that may be part of the dispute. You are being objective abour logical analysis; from that viewpoint, you are not in deep subjectivity.

However, analyses of views in terms of their logicality is analysis from a standpoint (Aristotelian logic), not from a viewpoint outside debate looking in on the whole field, the impression its practitioners sometimes (wish to) convey.

I'm saying it is a standpoint, not a God-like place; that it is a standpoint as much open to discussion as any (and not in a lordly, beyond examination place); and that, given it is not master, I for one am not happy with it taking on the role of judge of all other positions (outside the limited area of logical analysis of that which is fit to be analysed.)

From my understanding, there are matters, levels of existence and experience, et cetera, that lie outside the realm of such analyses. Exactly what items are in that 'class' is no doubt also a field for discussion.

Mayne, using some upthread discussion, religious belief may be one of those areas. maybe the experience of great art is another.

Very very down=to=earth people like you and lots of scientists just will not (or seem not prepared to) engage outside of stuff like logic and the Western scientific method.(?)

La coeur a des raisons de laquel le mind ne saut pas. (Pascal?)

End of interruprion.




If memory serves, the author of the optimism/ pessimism quote is James Branch Cabell.


    Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Wesley S
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 12:51 PM

That explains it then.....

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 12:37 PM

? I guess not growing up in the States you miss all kinds of things - but I don't remember clapping for Tinkerbell...

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Wesley S
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 12:31 PM

I'll bet you didn't even clap to save Tinkerbelle when you watched "Peter Pan".

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 12:20 PM

Ooh, good books all. I loved Curdie. How about the Golden Key, not to be confused with the Golden Compass?

And what I should have said earlier (esprit de l'escalier strikes again) is, if I say I don't believe in unicorns, does that mean that I have to believe in unicorns to say so?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: wysiwyg
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 12:07 PM

"At the Back of the North Wind" is even better.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 11:44 AM

I grew up on those two books. I am amazed to see them resurfacing.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: wysiwyg
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 11:14 AM

For an excellent non-Christian treatment of the spiritual gift of discernment, see or hear George MacDonald's 2-volume children's novels:

The Princess and the Goblin
The Princess and Curdie

Available at audiobooksforfree.com

Top recommendation.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 11:11 AM

I dunno--some ORganized SPirituality efforts present all the colors and bows, layers of wrapping, furbelows to the max, and then when you get through all that, you either can't open the box or it's empty when you do.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Wesley S
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 11:07 AM

"It's good to have spiritual gifts."

Yeah - but you really have to hunt around to find a good deal on spiritual wrapping paper and bows.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 10:34 AM

It's good to have spiritual gifts.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 10:34 AM

LOL!

I was referring to Tillich's metaphysical proposition, which is the first definition of Goddyness I have seen which makes intutiive sense despite being semantically null. It is also a definition which would pull the rug out from under all the efforts to turn any sense of Goddyness into blathering moralization and social control, secret superiority, self-satisfied pomposity, emotional starve-and-binge personalities, and other merely human failings to which Its name is so often attached erroneously.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: wysiwyg
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 10:27 AM

Absolutely unrecognizable.

That's exactly what the spiritual gift of discernment is for.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 10:00 AM

Hey, I'll answer to male pronouns, if they are addressed to me!

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 09:39 AM

Yeah, actually, it did. But it was so different from the usual definiton used by organized adherents that no-one recognized it. It wouldn't answer to male pronouns, had no beard or visage, didn't care about weewees, was indifferent to morphemic abuse, and had no babies. Absolutely unrecognizable.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: wysiwyg
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 09:13 AM

Just checking if any gods turned up. Yes or no, folks? Did He wander in here yet?

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 09:01 AM

Atheism is a belief about God-which makes it a theism. Nonsense - atheism is the absence of beliefs about god. And it is a logically-drawn conclusion, not a dogmatic affirmation. If you have any DATA that contradict that hypothesis, we'd all love to see them.

And my research about drug use was just that - research - so again, what I wrote wasn't my BELIEF, it was a FINDING. A datum, if you will.

I don't shop at Whole Foods. Are you a local here? I'd love to meet you! Imagine the talks we could have at Greenberry's!

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 01:15 AM

My word!! An epigram that turns on an aphaeresis!! How could I have been so blind!! Remarkable!! And here on Mudcat, of all places!!!



:D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 11:05 PM

M. Ted:

Unfortunately,. your statement, while cosmically meaningful at some level, perhaps, is meaningless in the semantic terms it uses. Being itself MUST exist, for anything at all to exist, if that particular cosmology is to be accepted at all. So the proposition of Tillich's is semantically nul. Apparently, God-according-to-Tillich is substantively nul, and therefore all is well in the screwy world of metacosmics.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 08:38 PM

Mrzzy, I think i'll leave you to the mercies of Nickhere--but only after I finish my thought about Tillich, who said , "God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him."

It would follow therefore, that to argue that God does not exist afirms him. Which pretty much makes you a Christian Evangelist, Mrrzy--ready for your first communion? Don't worry, most evangelicals believe the wine is only symbolic of, well, you know...

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 08:18 PM

It does no such thing. The proposition that "evidence available provides no or little support for the existence of God as proposed in CHristian tradition" is a statement about a hypothesis, not a statement about God, and not a theism.

It is very different from the proposition "God does not exist" or "God is dead" or others which pre-postulate a meaning to the word.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 08:09 PM

Would it help to point out, as Darwinism relates to abortion, that the most feeble minded individuals are prone to go to church, and less apt to get an abortion so...?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 08:07 PM

Was it you that wrote this, or are my eyes even worse than I thought--"Yes, indeed. I wrote a paper on drug use (not abuse, that is recreational drug use that doesn't lead to addiction) and found that the only real consistency in people who become addicted is a history of alternating spoiling and neglect...""

Atheism is a belief about God-which makes it a theism, when it comes down to it. Paul Tillich had something to say about fervant

As for Charlottesville, just tell me when you usually go to "Whole Foods" and I'll go to Harris Teeter instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 08:04 PM

You are talking around the counter-argument, Nick, deviously.

A person, in the full sense of the word, is one who is born to a human mother.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 08:00 PM

My take is, if you live to be old, your life has been fulfilled... but I grew up in an ancestor-worshiping society, not a child-centered one as here. Premature death = death before you're old, in that case. One of the points of human life is to live to be old. This isn't Darwinian, FYI.

Science may well never eradicate disease, but we'll give it a run for its money!

And I'm not worried about overpopulation; I'm worried about distribution of resources.

Humanity's specialty is "violating the natural order of things" - agriculture, domestication, vaccinations, etc. That is natural to us... we are ruining our gene pool anyway, and have been for millennia, by protecting the weak, making glasses and canes and wheelchairs, having kids while diabetics or albino, and so on - we are hardly being Darwinian when we are being kind. But I'd still prefer a human society that takes care of people (defined as having been born already). If it comes to a crunch between the "rights" of a fetus against the "rights" of a woman, I'd vote for the woman every time. No unwanted pregnancies! No unwanted children! (I have a fantasy where a pregnant woman could legally register a fetus as "wanted" - then (a)she has to wear bright Baby On Board clothing so people know she's being considered, for legal purposes, 2 people; (b) she can get in trouble for behaviors that are known to damage fetuses; (c) somebody who assaults her and causes a miscarriage is then guilty of infanticide; (d)if she miscarries she can have a funeral. This allows for early miscarriage of embryos, which is so very common, not to be an issue, no pun intended. It also allows for abortion of unwanted pregnancies, especially in the first trimester. Later abortions could still be chosen if there was something wrong with the fetus such that a "wrongful birth" would otherwise occur. I haven't thought it all the way through, but that's the approach I'd like to see taken. Coupled with, of course, and pun intended, enough education that women would know if they were pregnant, had access to contraception, and used it.)

But when you get into the patronage of research, now, you're getting somewhere. Have you read State of Fear? Crichton goes into a whole thing about how funding should be as blind as design. Yes indeedy. But I'd rather have science than superstition, even if it isn't the best science we could have come up with.

How would preventing abortions help the pension crisis? Or do you mean making them illegal (now, they are just unobtainable in most states)?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 07:39 PM

Mrrzzy: No, what I think Bee means is that lots of embryos never become people"

Maybe that's what she means, I'd say she is using the word 'people' in a very loose way. People is the plural of person, and 'person' is an individual human being (Collins English Dictionary). On pro-choice criteria, many adults are not 'people' either. Who gets to decide who's a person and who's not?
Perhaps she, or you could explain to me when you believe the unborn human in the womb becomes a human?

Mrrzy; "And if only rich people benefit from science, that is a failing in society, not in science"

I think one needs to take into account more the context and environment in which most scientific research takes place. Whether done in university, but especially when done by private companies - who often fund university research anyway through grants etc., - scientific R&D is mostly conducted through patronage. And we must ask who are the patrons and what is their purpose in promoting the R&D they do? Science does not occur in a vaccuum. Do any scientists reject R&D money even though they know the results are unlikely to be used for the benefit of the populace at large? Then scientists themselves are part of the problem.

"The point here is to keep people from dying in ways that are preventable - like diseases and accidents - not to keep people from dying at all"

It's a losing battle though. Scientific research and support from NGOs might have helped eradicate smallpox, and I'm all in favour of that, but since then a host of new diseases have appeared on the scene. People are also living longer, long enough to get illnesses they would never have been troubled by in the past.
While science has contributed to our knowledge of the spread of disease etc., what has made the real difference has been more basic - better sanitation and diet principally. Headline-grabbing surgical breakthroughs and new genome mapping techniques (for example) are there too, but compared to the former, are of far less impact overall.

Science will never eradicate disease, I think that old 'hubris' has been replaced by the more realistic assessment that science is only tinkering around on the edges of a system it has a far from perfect grasp on. A typical case in point is the antibiotics example. Hailed as the wonder drug for a while it seemed all our ills were cured. That turned out to be only because scientists hadn't counted on bacterias' ability to evolve and adapt at such speed (which should have been a basic realisation). Science seems to suffer often from the Frankenstein approach - the desire to gain new knowledge is rarely tempered by the more sober thought that the new knowledge may turn out to be a pandora's box. And only of late are scientists beginning to realise they usually cannot forsee all probabale outcomes of their interventions.

But that still does not explain why so much time and energy is spent on curing disease and helping people live longer (at great cost) when another key concern of these latter day Malthusian economists is the over-population of the earth. Why not just encourage people to die off and that problem could be solved? Wouldn't the resources be better spent in ensuring every new human life was protected as much as possible, to introduce 'new blood' into the world? Young energetic and productive people who don't have all the ailments and handicaps of the ageing fogies. This would also comply neatly with the Darwinism you espoused above. Why should science be helping the (albeit wealthy) diseased and infirm of this planet if this is violating the natural order of things?

Once again it seems to me this kind of 'science' is tearing itself in two opposite and contradictory ways, setting istelf contradictory goals.

"Death at the end of a fulfilled life is not tragic; premature death is"

And what is a 'fulfilled' life? Who defines it and why? When is death 'premature'? Surely being deliberately killed before you're even born is the most premature and easily avoidable / preventable death of all?

And if the pensiosn crisis is already on you in the US, maybe it's a good time to rethink the abortion stance?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 06:55 PM

I actually love living in Charlottesville, so I am as confused as you. What ideas about drug use? What belief in god?

Could you tell me please, where what I say inmplies, or states, that atheism is a "mindless dogma" - Then we can have more facts to shout at each other - arguing's more fun that way. I'm quoting Larry Niven here, not being serious...

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 06:45 PM

What have we been through? You don't really seem to know much about what people believe--and you have a bad habit of combining unsubstantiatable overgeneralizations with insults--not logic, not science. Not even good Atheism, which was a respectable tradition, til you got a hold of it.

That is what I object to--not your belief in God, not your ideas about drug use, not your apparent dislike for the Charlottesville area.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 06:32 PM

From what you say, lots of people die naturally while they're still at the embryo stage. Surely with all the natural mishaps that occur that only makes the ones that do make it even more precious? Surely what they need is all our humanity and help, not our murderous intervention? - No, what I think Bee means is that lots of embryos never become people, and that is the way that nature works - you always have more than can survive so that those that do, will be the strongest. That doesn't make the ones who are not going to survive precious - it makes them expendable, and needing to be expended to keep the species going. The wolf keep the caribou strong, in other words.

And if only rich people benefit from science, that is a failing in society, not in science. The point here is to keep people from dying in ways that are preventable - like diseases and accidents - not to keep people from dying at all. Death at the end of a fulfilled life is not tragic; premature death is.

And here in the good ole USA, the pension crisis is already upon us...

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 06:08 PM

Bee - " Embryos are a common product of unprotected human sexual intercourse. They seldom survive, which is a good thing or there's be sixty billion of us instead of six"

I still find it difficult to get my head round atheistic 'reasoning' here. From what you say, lots of people die naturally while they're still at the embryo stage. Surely with all the natural mishaps that occur that only makes the ones that do make it even more precious? Surely what they need is all our humanity and help, not our murderous intervention?

Then another oddity - atheists keep on going on about all the progress and benefits science will bring. All those embryos who are sacrificed in embryonic research etc., in the quest for knowledge that might save someone or another, all this is good we are told, if we can save even one life! Science will bring us benefits, extend our livespans, improve the quality of our lives.... Sounds wonderful. But scientific research doesn't come cheap and experience has shown that the only ones who'll benefit from cutting edge science and medicine - with a few exceptions - will be the well-off who can afford it. Only recently have big pharmaceuticals caved into pressure to allow generic drug manufacture, arguing their R&D investment must be compensated for. Fair point, but it shows money and not so much altruism, to be at the base of their operations.

I seem to hear a contradictory message, too - "it's a good thing there's abortion and spontaneous abortions or there'd be too many of us on this planet. But it's also a good thing there's scientific progress or there'd be too many people dying on this planet from disease etc.," ???????

I should add that a drastically falling birthrate is one of the biggest demographic, economic and social problems facing western society these days. There's a recognition that Europe, for example, is only managing to maintain a healthy aged v young population balance through immigration and the children born to immigrants. There's a realisation that there will for example, be a pensions crisis in 30 years or so unless enough younger people can be found to work, pay taxes and support the social welfare net. Maybe we've been pulling the carpet out from under our own feet?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 06:05 PM

Nonsense (to the mindless dogma comment). Conclusions are drawn from data; beliefs form from nothing. We've been through this one before. It is not dogmatic to believe what has been demonstrated.

If people thought like me, i wouldn't have to teach them, now, would I (*BG*)?

And, nobody is making you read my posts, either. We've been through that before too.

M.Ted, why do you repeat old, discarded arguments? Nothing new to say? You know perfectly well that intelligent conclusions drawn from data are anything but mindless. Trying to get my goat? Heard the joke about the railway tie?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 05:12 PM

One question, Mrzzy, why don't you just get a job teaching somewhere that people think more like you do? That way, we wouldn't have to listen to all this complaining.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 05:06 PM

It other words, Mrzzy, you're saying atheism is just another mindless dogma. No big surprise here.