BS: The God Delusion 2010

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 07:01 PM

Sorry, Steve.   Atheism conveys more of a degree of certainty than is justified.

By the way, if you think the human mind can in fact know if there is a God or gods--a subject on which by definition there is no proof-- I'd have to say your arrogance is quite striking.   Just as that of religious fundamentalists--to which your attitude is indeed the perfect flip-side.   

Which is not surprising. What a surprise you do not acknowledge it.

And it's also a blazingly clear reason why discourse with you is likely to be a black hole of time--just as it is with religious fundamentalists.    A conclusion I am likely to reach rather soon.

Reminds me of Henry Ford:   "You can have any color Ford you want, as long as it's black."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 07:06 PM

"No surprise, then, that Darwin and Einstein, for instance, were agnostics, not atheists."

Show us where either of these blokes ever showed their hand. You know, really said it, and not some tortuous interpretation of yours of out-of-context quotes!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 07:12 PM

Is then the difference down to atheists saying 'I require proof' and agnostics saying 'there cannot be any proof'?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Ebbie
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 07:18 PM

"Atheism was the only sense for millions of years until you believers, you Johnny-come-latelys, showed up! We did muddle through reasonably well even without you before that, remember. Better, probably." SS

It is quite likely that you are being hyperbolic but I feel like I want to respond to this statement anyhow.

By all accounts and judging by long-found relics, long before there was religion in the organized sense, certainly before Judaism Christianity, superstitious fear was rampant. Do you feel that blaming or crediting one's state of mind brought about the destruction of a village was a healthy state of affairs? Do you really think that casting nubile maidens into a volcano to appease the goddess who dwelt there was preferable to today's belief in a supreme deity?

Methnks life today has gotten much tamer and safer than that of a thousand years ago, give or take a thousand.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 07:19 PM

"Sorry, Steve.   Atheism conveys more of a degree of certainty than is justified.

By the way, if you think the human mind can in fact know if there is a God or gods--a subject on which by definition there is no proof-- I'd have to say your arrogance is quite striking.   Just as that of religious fundamentalists--to which your attitude is indeed the perfect flip-side.   

Which is not surprising. What a surprise you do not acknowledge it."

In your blind quest to shout me down, Ron, you fail to take the elementary step of actually reading what I've typed. Atheism conveys no certainty at all. No atheist worth his or her salt will ever tell you that there's definitely no God. He simply can't be disproven, any more thsn that cosmic teapot can be disproven, and we're honest about that. On the other hand, the religiosity that you're so keen to defend is absolutely riddled with the arrogance of fake certainty. Why, you even get little kids to parrot things like "Our Father, who art in heaven..." - no sign of equivocation there! Not much room for doubt! You have it arse about face. It's religion that's replete with unsupportable, irrational certainty. We atheists tell it like it almost certainly is. Get the "almost" there, Ron? As a religious man, you probably don't. Close your eyes and join your hands.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 07:23 PM

"Do you really think that casting nubile maidens into a volcano to appease the goddess who dwelt there was preferable to today's belief in a supreme deity?"

Depends on whether I was lurking in the volcano at the time...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 07:28 PM

The (or a) question is, has religion made us more civilised, or have we developed religion because we have got more civilised, or are the two unrelated?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 07:40 PM

"Is then the difference down to atheists saying 'I require proof' and agnostics saying 'there cannot be any proof'?"

I think that misses the severe scepticism of atheism. I can't pretend that we're sort of neutral observers who would be easily swayed one way or the other given the production of proof. We ask for proof knowing full well that it can't ever be delivered. It's our way of showing how irrational religious belief really is. But it isn't wicked and nasty to ask for evidence of God. Given all the problems that religion can cause in this world, it's a perfectly reasonable request. Atheists would readily back off if organised religion backed off, but we all know that that isn't going to happen, so we just have to keep on making the case. Agnosticism, on the other hand, is fence-sitting. An agnostic will tell you that there's no way of knowing whether God exists or not, but he will fail to give you the dismally-remote odds, taking into account the lack of evidence and the blatant breach of all the laws of physics that God requires. It isn't a very honest position, and, as I said, there are probably very few anyway, most of those who declare themselves thus being simply uninterested in religion (and some may think that "don't know" equals "insurance policy...")

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 07:51 PM

I don't think religion has made us either more or less civilised (and I have to suspend uncertainty for a minute about what "civilised" means). I suppose that religion will claim it gives us a moral code to live by, which in the end makes us more civilised, but I don't agree with that as I see lots of people living exceptionally fruitful and "moral" lives in spite of their lack of religion, and that, to me, is far more meritorious than relying on the crutch of religion to make you good. And then I think of the 20th century, the most brutal by a country mile of all centuries in human history, and I wonder how we can apply a religious overlay to all that...can't get my head round it really.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 08:13 PM

All fair comment, Prof, and I take your point about "civilised".. We haven't really improved much, overall.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 08:36 PM

Ron, I know you've said you're not a religious person, but you're the current one who's saying that gods are possible. What is the logic and evidence for your theory?

Please note that I'm not asking for scientific evidence, and that I think it's clear that lots of things exist that can't be described in a scientific way. I am a deeply spiritual person with a brain that requires things to make sense. Why does the idea of god make sense to you?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 08:53 PM

>>>Stop talking as if there's no alternative.

I have not talked that way at all. I have acknowledged a couple of time on this thread that not everyone may need the "crutches" that Christianity provides.

It is you the supposed "open minded" atheist who has been talking in absolutes. Since you clearly have not paid any attention at all to what I have said except to cherry pick criticisms, I'll not be wasting any more time reading your nonsense.

You are not on this thread to explore or convince or even for a lively discussion. All you are doing is meanly and illogically beating on believers, I will not feed your apparent addiction to bulling behavior.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 10:15 PM

So, Steve, how long have you had this serious problem with uncertainty?   Are you so uncomfortable in accepting a large degree of uncertainty that you are indeed off Mudcat the control freak you appear in this thread?   And if so, I wonder how your family and acquaintances deal with it.

The agnostic has no problem with a large degree of uncertainty.   You, on the other hand seem very ill at ease with anybody who does, and of course particularly anybody who believes the opposite of your view.

How's your blood pressure, by the way?

And just where did the persecution complex come from (threatened by the fact that religious broadcasts exist)?    Sorry, they do, but I assure you they can do you no harm as long as you are not subjected to actually listening to them.    Of course who knows what irreparable damage might be done to you if you actually did hear one.

Control freak with a persecution complex.   An interesting study.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 10:32 PM

The agnostic has no problem with a large degree of uncertainty.

Assuming from that that atheists have a lesser degree of uncertainty, would it be fair to assume a similar scale of uncertainty on the religious side of the graph? It would be interesting to know what sort of curve the graph would produce.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 11:33 PM

Ron,

There seems to be a bit of a range in the amount of skepticism inherent in both "Agnosticism" and "Atheism." I think that may negate the value in arguing about how any individual on this thread self labels. The applies especially to those unwilling themselves to discuss things calmly, rationally and without insult.


Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claimsâ€"especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claimsâ€"is unknown or unknowable.[1] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the similarities or differences between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief.

Thomas Henry Huxley, an English biologist, coined the word agnostic in 1869. However, earlier thinkers and written works have promoted agnostic points of view. They include Protagoras, a 5th-century BCE Greek philosopher,[2] and the Nasadiya Sukta creation myth in the Rig Veda, an ancient Hindu religious text.[3] Since Huxley coined the term, many other thinkers have written extensively about agnosticism.




Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]

The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god", which was applied with a negative connotation to those thought to reject the gods worshipped by the larger society. With the spread of freethought, skeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion, application of the term narrowed in scope. The first individuals to identify themselves as "atheist" appeared in the 18th century.[7]

Today, about 2.3% of the world's population describes itself as atheist, while a further 11.9% is described as nonreligious.[8] Between 64% and 65% of Japanese are atheists, agnostics, or do not believe in God.[9] In Europe, the estimated percentage of atheists, agnostics and other nonbelievers in a personal god ranges as low as single digits in Poland, Romania, Cyprus, and some other countries,[10] and up to 85% in Sweden (where 17% identify themselves as atheists), 80% in Denmark, 72% in Norway, and 60% in Finland.[9]

Atheists tend to lean toward skepticism regarding supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence. Atheists have offered several rationales for not believing in any deity. These include the problem of evil, the argument from inconsistent revelations, and the argument from nonbelief. Other arguments for atheism range from the philosophical to the social to the historical. Although some atheists have adopted secular philosophies,[11][12] there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.[13]

In Western culture, atheists are frequently assumed to be exclusively irreligious or unspiritual.[14] However, atheism also figures in certain religious and spiritual belief systems, such as Jainism, some forms of Buddhism that do not advocate belief in gods,[15] and Hinduism that holds atheism to be valid but difficult to follow spiritually.[16]

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 09:55 AM

I'm having a hard time seeing the difference between agnostics and believers. Either there are reasons to believe in something or there aren't. Any one who can say "I don't know" on this questions is really saying they believe -- or at least, from my point of view, they are guilty of the same irrationality that believers are.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 02:11 PM

Then John P, what is the source of your rationality? All of science is "I don't know" "But here is the best theory we have so far."

On the other hand...

Those who believe they believe in God but without passion in the heart, without anguish of mind, without uncertainty, without doubt, and even at times without despair, believe only in the idea of God, and not in God himself. --Madeleine L'Engle

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 02:28 PM

A poignant moment in my own reaction came about when I realized that my bedfast and diminishing, deeply devout mother facing the moment of her own death was afraid.

I drove away from my paents' home devastated and railing at 'God', saying She believes in you - You had better be there!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 02:41 PM

Ebbie,

My Grandmother died at peace.

I still railed a bit.

But they played "In the Garden" and "Softly and Tenderly" at her funeral by her request. I felt much much better.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 05:29 PM

Then John P, what is the source of your rationality? All of science is "I don't know" "But here is the best theory we have so far."

Simple. In either a scientific sense or a non-scientific sense, I've never been given any reason to so much as entertain the possibility that gods exist. There is no real theory that supports the idea, so it's not a question of "the best theory we have so far", but rather, "why would anyone believe such a thing?" It is, of course, impossible to prove a negative, but there should be a least some evidence -- scientific or otherwise -- or logic behind a proposal for it to even be on the table. The possibility of there actually being a god is so remote that I'm comfortable saying there is no realistic chance.

From the standpoint of saying either "this is possible" or "the chances of this are so remote that we may as well say it doesn't exist", there is no difference between an agnostic and a believer.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 06:08 PM

I suspect that the majority of self proclaimed 'believers' are actually agnostics just going through the motions. Unprovable, I know, but almost everyone has a bit of common sense somewhere that knows full well that something with no supporting evidence whatsoever is not likely to exist. 'Faith' seems to be no more than hope, in many cases.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 08:57 AM

It seems to me that Agnostics sit on the fence a bit it is easy to go one way or the other depending on the circumstance

It is funny how Christian parents all over will be sending out their children to knock on doors dressed as vampires, little devils and suchlike. I don't deny children having fun at all but it seems hypocritical to believe one minute in God and then sending children out trick or treating looking like the something from the cast of Thriller.

That reminds me must have some treats ready, I don't want a floury doorstep.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 12:22 PM

Ron Davies says: :And just where did the persecution complex come from (threatened by the fact that religious broadcasts exist)?    Sorry, they do, but I assure you they can do you no harm as long as you are not subjected to actually listening to them.    Of course who knows what irreparable damage might be done to you if you actually did hear one."

Ron, you beg the question, how is religion harmful to the non-believer? Atheism is the new "Gay" or in more terms of Civil Rights, the new "black".

And there are plenty of religious nut-jobs out there who attack atheism and sometimes with violence. The Pope recently went on about the evils of atheism and this is harmful since he occupies an "exalted" position among some believers.

You don't think that atheists suffer harm at the hands of religious people? Declare yourself an atheist in public and see how far you get.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 12:27 PM

Ebbie says, "Methnks life today has gotten much tamer and safer than that of a thousand years ago, give or take a thousand."

Not sure about this when we have nuclear weapons that could annihilate the world as we know it. They haven't been tamed yet.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 02:21 PM

>>Not sure about this when we have nuclear weapons that could annihilate the world as we know it.<<

I am sure that they are one of the factors that have made things tamer.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 02:41 PM

At best that is enforcing order by means of fear. It is immoral and very wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 02:50 PM

They didn't make the weapons to create more peace. It was a side effect at best.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 07:32 PM

"Atheists tend to lean toward skepticism regarding supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence. Atheists have offered several rationales for not believing in any deity. These include the problem of evil, the argument from inconsistent revelations, and the argument from nonbelief. Other arguments for atheism range from the philosophical to the social to the historical. Although some atheists have adopted secular philosophies,[11][12] there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.[13]"

This is such a bunch of cobblers I don't know where to begin. We don't "tend to lean", we utterly reject supernatural claims, for exactly the reason you quote, that we ask for but get no evidence (and that such claims are childish and insult the intelligence). We don't "not believe in deities", so we don't develop rationales. The deities are your problem, not ours. The problems of evil/inconsistent revelations, etc., are entirely issues for believers to grapple with, not atheists. They are irrelevant to us. There is no use for those arguments in atheism. All we want believers to do is produce evidence. The dismal lack of evidence for God is all we need. We don't adopt atheistic philosophies because none are possible, and, to reword the last sentence in the quote, there is no ideology or set of behaviours to which any atheists adhere. None of this is to say that we don't find it interesting to argue with believers - after all, we see the damage and the intellectual stunting that religion perpetrates, and we have just as valid a right to take a view on these things as anyone else. At the end of the day all the arguments are easy because they boil down to one simple thing: show us your evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 08:00 PM

So, Steve, how long have you had this serious problem with uncertainty?   Are you so uncomfortable in accepting a large degree of uncertainty that you are indeed off Mudcat the control freak you appear in this thread?   And if so, I wonder how your family and acquaintances deal with it.

"The agnostic has no problem with a large degree of uncertainty.   You, on the other hand seem very ill at ease with anybody who does, and of course particularly anybody who believes the opposite of your view.

How's your blood pressure, by the way?

And just where did the persecution complex come from (threatened by the fact that religious broadcasts exist)?    Sorry, they do, but I assure you they can do you no harm as long as you are not subjected to actually listening to them.    Of course who knows what irreparable damage might be done to you if you actually did hear one.

Control freak with a persecution complex.   An interesting study."

Poor Ron. What a terrible, awful, bitter, vitriolic and utterly childish post. Please leave it in place, oh moderators, to stand forever as testament to Ron's bilious frustration.

...................................................................

However. Ahem. I truly don't have a problem with anyone wishing to label themselves agnostic, but I will (if they want) give 'em a damn good squabbling. I'm not talking about that vast number of apathetic almost-ex-believers, the lapsed majority, who don't give a monkey's bloody mickey for religion one way or the other but who, if pressed, may demur in the final analysis from calling themselves atheists (religion, unfortunately, has, in a quite unjustified manner, forced people not of its persuasion to waste their time rationalising their demurral). I happen to think that such apathy is totally justified and meritorious and I applaud it for putting religion into the place it truly deserves. But I'm not really talking about them, even though they probably form the vast majority of "agnostics." I'm talking about the few who actually profess to have thought it all through but still claim not to know and that they can probably never know. I find it very odd that they seem to have suspended belief in the laws of physics and to still have lent credence to the possibility of a being who is far more complex and inexplicable than the things he was invented to explain. Now I can't know that that isn't true, either, and neither (he admits cheerfully) can Dawkins, but we *can* weigh up the odds, and the odds just have to be vanishingly small (or long?? - I'm not a betting man). Agnosticism is either an intellectual sidetrack or it's intellectual dishonesty. It also gives succour to believers, in just the same way as Nick bloody Clegg and his right-wing morons give succour to the Tories. That doesn't annoy me but it is very disappointing to see in intelligent people. Watch out there, agnostic - there's a believer round every corner waiting to put his arm round your shoulder!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 08:37 PM

"Please note that I'm not asking for scientific evidence, and that I think it's clear that lots of things exist that can't be described in a scientific way."

I don't know. I've recently come round to thinking that it's valid to ask for scientific evidence. If we allow believers off the hook of needing to provide scientific evidence we're sort of letting them put the argument entirely on their terms. I've never seen a single phenomenon that science couldn't either already explain or which science, plausibly, will one day not be able to explain within the known laws of physics (in other words, I've never seen magic). I don't see why we shouldn't hold believers to the same stricture (but I suppose I'm a hard man...)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 08:43 PM

>>This is such a bunch of cobblers I don't know where to begin. We don't "tend to lean", we utterly reject supernatural claims, for exactly the reason you quote, that we ask for but get no evidence (and that such claims are childish and insult the intelligence). We don't "not believe in deities", so we don't develop rationales.<<

I am so proud to share a forum with the self-appointed pope of the Atheist Church.

Why don't you show a shred of humility and speak for yourself. If you can't do that, I think you need to show us a few tens of millions of sworn affidavits from your fellow atheist attesting that you are entitled to speak for them.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 09:02 PM

Actually, I wish I was better read, so I do tend to end up speaking for myself. As I've said before (it's the nature of the beast that I keep having to say things that don't appear to register with you), I've been posting about atheism on all manner of websites for donkeys' years and I've yet to have an atheist pop up and tell me to shut up. Well, there's always josep I suppose but he's enjoyably different to the rest anyway. Struggle on, Jack.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 09:05 PM

If you measure agreement by whether or not people tell you to shut up. I can see where your cognitive problem lies.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 09:07 PM

>>>
This is such a bunch of cobblers I don't know where to begin. We don't "tend to lean", we utterly reject supernatural claims, for exactly the reason you quote, that we ask for but get no evidence (and that such claims are childish and insult the intelligence). We don't "not believe in deities", so we don't develop rationales. The deities are your problem, not ours. The problems of evil/inconsistent revelations, etc., are entirely issues for believers to grapple with, not atheists. They are irrelevant to us. There is no use for those arguments in atheism. All we want believers to do is produce evidence. The dismal lack of evidence for God is all we need. We don't adopt atheistic philosophies because none are possible, and, to reword the last sentence in the quote, there is no ideology or set of behaviours to which any atheists adhere. None of this is to say that we don't find it interesting to argue with believers - after all, we see the damage and the intellectual stunting that religion perpetrates, and we have just as valid a right to take a view on these things as anyone else. At the end of the day all the arguments are easy because they boil down to one simple thing: show us your evidence. <<<

If the above is your idea of speaking for yourself, you need some pronoun lessons.

You really are loony.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 09:51 PM

I think Steve is entitled to assume he's not the only atheist on earth, Jack..

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 10:20 PM

Can we stop making unfounded assumptions about the inner emotional state of Steve? Please stick to the topic and leave the armchair analysis for people who want you to interact with them that way. It's way too easy to say "you're crazy so I don't have to pay attention to what you say." It makes you (that's Jack and Ron) very unpleasant to be in a conversation with.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 08:59 AM

Don't worry about 'em, John. In real life I'm the most affable, cheerful, harmonica-playing bloke you could ever wish to meet. I enjoy these threads (being a bit of a pervert I suppose) because they always end with these Christians, their specious arguments totally exhausted, huffing, puffing and stooping to childish insults. Jack insults me now in just every post. I hope Jesus isn't watching him. Tee hee.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 09:33 AM

just about, huh.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 09:54 AM

Hey Jack, it's my risk if I seem to be speaking not just for myself. Content yourself with the thought that we both know I'm definitely not speaking for you.

Loony? Nice one, Jack. Keep 'em coming. They make you look really good, honest.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 10:00 AM

>>I think Steve is entitled to assume he's not the only atheist on earth, Jack.<<

It is also safe to assume his use of the pronoun, "we" when referring to all atheists is unfounded. There is no way for him to know what all atheist think. Intense irony is added to this by his assertion that Atheists are not organized.

So disorganized Atheists who are no coordinating with each other and without joining groups are some how telling him how they feel. I am sorry to disagree with you but that is loony behavior.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 10:06 AM

His test of whether all Atheists agree with him is whether or not Atheists have told him to show up. Yet he has also argued that true atheists are disinterested.

I think this says it all.

Tee hee.

If you care about him, get him some help.

Or at least stop enabling.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 10:32 AM

Deliberate misrepresentation spiced with disingenuousness there from Jack. It is perfectly possible for atheists to all think more or less the same way yet not be be organised into groups. I know loads of atheists round here and I don't think any of them are in atheistic groups of any kind. The central point about atheists is that there isn't much to what they think on this topic anyway. It's a bit like Darwin's big idea: you can sum it up in a sentence. I'm sure there's lots of waffle around the edges, and it's all very interesting, but there's one big idea: the likelihood of the existence of a being who breaks all the laws of nature, who is far more complex than the complexities he's supposed to be there to explain, and for whom there is no evidence, is infinitesimally small. I can see other ways of expressing it, and there may be differing shades of perspective, but I have a shrewd suspicion that that's about it for most atheists. They may join clubs, they may not. They may go out in big Christian-hunting posses for all know, but I've never seen 'em. There's no big atheist conspiracy going on. Just a bit of free speech, that's all. We don't need big groups but I'm sure they're out there for those of gregarious nature. You can collect stamps on your own or you can gang up with hundreds of others of like mind. Less of the dark side, please. There isn't one.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 10:39 AM

"His test of whether all Atheists agree with him is whether or not Atheists have told him to show up."

You mean shut up I assume. Not so. I talk to atheists quite a lot (face to face) as it happens. You do get a feel for the consensus, you know (if you listen).

"Yet he has also argued that true atheists are disinterested."

Huh? Where did this come from?? A quote would be useful. As you probably can't see your computer screen for smoke I won't hold my breath.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 11:13 AM

My arguments are not exhausted Steve Shaw, You have not even read my arguments.

John P, Smokey, any one else on this thread.

Before you defend the sanity of his behavior read what he has said.

>>>Don't worry about 'em, John. In real life I'm the most affable, cheerful, harmonica-playing bloke you could ever wish to meet. I enjoy these threads (being a bit of a pervert I suppose) because they always end with these Christians, their specious arguments totally exhausted, huffing, puffing and stooping to childish insults. Jack insults me now in just every post. I hope Jesus isn't watching him. Tee hee. <<<

>>>In real life I'm the most affable, cheerful, harmonica-playing bloke you could ever wish to meet.<<<

Has he been affable or cheerful here? Why is he not showing his affable side here? Why the difference? Why is he being the opposite here?

>>>I enjoy these threads (being a bit of a pervert I suppose<<<

He is admitting to less than sincere motives.

>>because they always end with these Christians, their specious arguments totally exhausted, huffing, puffing and stooping to childish insults.<<<

He, unlike the rest of you has ignored all arguments "specious" or not.

He is acting crazy and I am saying so. That is not childish. It is the truth. I seriously hope that he goes and gets himself some counseling.

>>>Jack insults me now in just every post. I hope Jesus isn't watching him. Tee hee. <<

This has been his tone since post one. Saying things to other people (not me) things like "Your God didn't help you with your spelling." and such in quest to defend what? Logic?

He doesn't use logic or ask reasonable questions as you all have done.

I think the "Tee hee" says it all.

Have you come to this thread to bait and to harass and to rant until others lose patience then to say "tee hee" when they do? Do you think that saying "tee hee" in this context is a sane and reasonable thing to do? Does that reflect your character or position?

If you identify your self as and Atheist he claims to be speaking for you. He also claims that he is only speaking for himself. Then he uses the pronoun "we". When confronted on that, when asked where he gets the authority, he says that he has ranted on lots of "Atheist forums" and no "Atheist" has told him to shut up.

Isn't that loony on the face of it?

First of all, if what he has ranted about atheism is true, that there is no movement, that there is no organization, who would feel that they have the authority to tell him to "shut up" on behalf of atheists? Secondly "Shut up" is his choice of words. "Shut up" is a pretty rude turn of phrase in any circle. So his logic is basically that he can speak generally for the entire group of unorganized unaffiliated Atheists as long as they do not cross the line of rude behavior to tell him to stop. Finally, he is apparently doing this for an audience. On this thread his audience is you. He apparently sees himself as a warrior fighting for Atheism by whatever means is the most fun for him, (hence the "Tee hee") and the bragging about his other "conquests" "I enjoy these threads (being a bit of a pervert I suppose) because they always end with these Christians, their specious arguments totally exhausted, huffing, puffing and stooping to childish insults."

The question is do you enjoy or agree with what he has brought to these threads? He is telling us that you're not telling him to "shut up" means that you agree with him. Atheism is supposed to be a rational point of view. How can it be defended by irrational ranting?

If you want Steve Shaw to continue to wink at you, to claim to speak for you, and to say "Tee hee." Just keep doing what you are doing. By his own statements, he is going to continue to do this until you tell him to shut up.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 11:58 AM

Yawn . . . .

I know! Let's talk about theism and the reverse!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 12:28 PM

>>Yawn . . . .

I know! Let's talk about theism and the reverse! <<

If there is something that has not been covered I would be happy to.

But please note that he plans to bait insult and rant until you tell him to shut up.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 01:23 PM

Well, at least we have consensus. Neither beleivers nor atheists have any rational reason to believe in deity. So, the atheists don't, but the believers do anyway, because they have faith.

Also, some atheists and some believers take these data personally. But the atheists make more sense, even if only to those who don't rely on faith to reach conclusions.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 04:05 PM

Quoth Jack: "'Shut up' is a pretty rude turn of phrase in any circle."

Note that I haven't told anyone to shut up. Jack, old boy, considering all you've said about me in this and that other thread, I find your apparent total lack of irony in typing that sentence to be enormously touching.

May I ask in passing if all Christians are like you? Scary... Tee hee!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 04:18 PM

I told you he wasn't reading other people's posts.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 04:21 PM

>>Neither beleivers nor atheists have any rational reason to believe in deity.<<

I am sorry, but we do not have consensus on this point. I believe the benefit I derive from believing to be a very rational reason for belief.

>>But the atheists make more sense,<<
No consensus here either I can point to an Atheist or two on this thread who hasn't made much sense at all.

>>even if only to those who don't rely on faith to reach conclusions. <<

That's a bit circular isn't it? You are just saying that the people start with the same assumptions are likely to reach the same conclusions.