BS: True Test of an Atheist

Subject: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Slag
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 05:52 PM

Well, a survey was given and the same old teams have donned their uniforms and gear...AND they're off! And getting nowhere fast.

A couple of points got me to thinking. One is that agnostics and atheists seem to know as much or more about "religion" than adherents and believers. The other is that atheists and agnostics are drawn like moths to the flame whenever something about faith is posted. What would be my response if I were really a decided non-believer?

If I grew up not believing, I most likely would not respond at all. Why should I? I would not care what others thought or felt about the subject nor would I try to convince someone they were wrong or that I was correct in my thinking. There are so many things in the world that could capture my attention and so many other matters of timely importance that it most likely would not reach even the threshold of curiosity.

The other group would be those who have been raised under a "religious" influence. Theirs would be a more complex picture. You would have to consider matters such as: 1) Which religion(s) are they rejecting? 2) What aspect of the religion do they reject? 3) Are there any other psychological factors in their opposition? 4) Have they looked in depth at their religion or at all religion?

Not an exhaustive list to be sure but I would conclude this. It acounts for WHY atheists and agnostics have parity in knowledge or even surpass folks who purport to have religious convictions. After all, the unexamined life is not worth living! Right? But I still run up against the problem of "response" as with those who were unschooled in any religion and reject religion and God altogether. It seems to me that if someone has really ultimately decided to not believe, it would no longer be of any concern to them.

So why the morbid fascination with a discussion about faith or a survey about religion? If you truly do NOT believe why not just go your way and leave those who do to wallow in their collective imagination? Could it be that you really do have some part of your being that is not convinced that there are things beyond you knowledge that do or may have a real existence? That would put you in the agnostic boat and not in the atheist category. Or is it that you have a deep-seated hostility against God and or religion? Do you feel superior to those who believe and want to rub their noses in it? Why the seeming fascination?

And to the agnostics, why are you still looking? You should know by now that matters of faith are not really subject to pure logical thought. That is why it is called faith. The two can never truly intersect in a way that will allow reason to triumph over faith by proving one way or the other. Rational answer comes by why of the rigorous application of scientific thought(although I would argue here that modern theoretical physics has far exceeded religious thought in imagination and speculation as to the true, ultimate reality). So why don't you leave it alone?

And I would submit that this IS the true test that you are truly an atheist or an unbeliever: That you do not respond to matters of faith and religion. It does not leave you hot or cold but just dissinterested. Otherwise, you are maybe not being honest with yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:00 PM

Pshaw! People will debate anything in which they have an interest. Being an atheist does not mean one is not interested in religiosity, as a phenom.

A

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: gnu
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:01 PM

Thought provoking indeed. Well said and questioned, Slag.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:11 PM

Religion remains relevant to atheists because of the harm that it does, and the harm it reflects.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: John P
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:17 PM

When the laws of my country the world are completely free of religious influence I will stop worrying about it.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: gnu
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:18 PM

I recently saw on Larry King Live a "debate" between a Jesuit, Choprah, and the guy that wrote the recent book with Hawking.

The arguement of "logic", as an example, which asks, "Can God make a stone he cannot lift?", was countered by the Jesuit, and I paraprase, without quotes... how can the universe be created from nothing in a big bang? If there was nothing, nothing could be created.

Soooo, logic in itself neither confirms nor denies the existence of God OR the existance of God within the human mind. Perhaps humans need to define and REFINE their morality rather than debate it based on the "God" thing.

Anyway, it's all in Rapaire's mind. If he calves out, we no longer exist.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Slag
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:27 PM

Well Amos, Pshaw! tells me something about you but Yes! You are right. And that is the only other alternative I see, that would answer my question. As an element of the humanities, religion holds a certain facination as a phenomenon and an object of study. That was why my undergrad major at Cal State U. at Bakersfiled, was "Special Major, Religious Studies" under the Philosophy Department.

Why "Pshaw!" Isn't my question valid?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Slag
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:36 PM

Religion as a social force fairs about the same as many other human endeavors as to whether is causes harm or helps Mankind. Millions upon millions of people died in WWII under the banners of socialism, Russian and German versions but todays socialists would tell you that it was the leaders and adherents who were flawed, not the theory and that forms a mighty big debate. So too, religionists might rightly argue the same: it is the users and abusers of relgion who do the harm. I fail to see any validity in the wholesale dismaissal of religion as a force for good rather than evil. You might want to rephrase.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:42 PM

"So why the morbid fascination with a discussion about faith or a survey about religion?"
Atheists question - believers accept without question.
Religion is taught as a fact; believers swallow it wholesale, atheists look for a rationale.
The slogan of The Christian brothers is "give me a child of five and I will give you a believer for life."
Here in Ireland we have just become aware of a massive and long-term outbreak of clerical child abuse by Christins using their influence though their position in the church to carry out serial rapes of children. We want to know how they got away with it for so long and on such a scale - oh - and where was their god while all this was taking place?
No mystery, just open your newsaper.
Now let's here your theory.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:42 PM

If it's a big deal to other people, and shapes how they make decisions, then unless you're going to squirrel yourself away in isolation it helps to have some knowledge and understanding of others' beliefs, even if you don't share them, no matter what perspective you are coming from. True in democratic society, true for the mobile world we live in. For these reasons, I'd say "Pshaw" to your assertion, too.

I don't see value in being confrontational about differences in belief. That I'll happily ignore, if I can.

~ Becky in Long Beach

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:43 PM

I did notice one interesting thing in the survey results which no one else commented on:

While "Atheists/Agnostics" ranked high in their knowledge of religion, people who said their religion was "nothing in particular" ranked rather low.

One wonders, what is the difference between "atheists/agnostics" and "nothing in particular?" Well, my first guess is, the "atheists/agnostics" are people who are interested in religion (as a social phenomenon, or whatever), and the "nothing in particular" people who are not interested, and therefore don't even bother to adopt a label for themselves. Another possibility: the "nothing in particular" people believe in some kind of god, but they don't want to join any religious group. But that doesn't explain why they would rank so low in their knowlege of religion--or does it? I guess we are free to speculate.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,David E.
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:47 PM

Thank you for your post Slag. I do find it interesting that so many self proclaimed atheists still have all these demands that people be treated with what we recognize as Judeo-Christian values. If there really is no Creator or intelligent design then it must be survival of the fittest and no one would need to respect anyone, right? Or is that just too simple?

David E.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:50 PM

This is a pretty sterile discussion unless you consider ethics and codes of conduct, including humanist as well as religious belief.

Kitty

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: olddude
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:53 PM

I have heard this many times ... what laws can someone give me an example of a law that is based on religion? Laws are based on a code of moral and social conduct ... it so happens that they go hand in hand with religious doctrine ... but what ones would you like to get rid of .. the killing one or the stealing one or the cheating on taxes etc ..

I submit the same character defect that causes a pediphile priest to assult a child is the same character defect that causes a non believer that does the same. If you remove all religion .. it is what it still is .

In any event I wish mudcat had a separate category for religion bashing .. at least it wouldn't get cludder up in the stuff that makes me laugh or feel good. In any event, no disrespect intended on my part .. I am what I am ... sometimes I don't like me, other times I do ... I am human   but my faith tends to keep me in line somewhat

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 07:05 PM

Ah, OK, let me explain my moth to the flame response, in your terms (not explain in your terms, Ima gonna splain in my own terms, but the moth-flame analogy was yours). I see it more as a rearguard action, here in these By God Yewnited States.

You see, what I consider the worst enemy of humanity is the *harm* that is done under the umbrella of religion. Cannot recall who said that for good people to do evil takes religion, but what I think is closer to another unattributably (by my memory, try Google if you're curious) quote, that people who will believe absurdities will commit atrocities.

I *know* that Hitler wasn't a statistically normal Catholic, but without Christianity (and Islam but irrelevently here) already teaching to hate Jews, would almost my entire maternal extended family have been mass-murdered only for their *perceived* beliefs (their family was actually secular, candles on the Christmas tree and all), along with tens of millions of other people, so effortlessly?

I repeat: what I fight is the harm.

I know the terrorists who've been slaughtering Americans wholesale overseas since at least Nov. 1979, when some teenagers took over the Tehran embassy trying to commit martyrdom/suicide but the Marines couldn't believe what was happening, through the bombing of all those planes and embassies *long* before Sep. 11 2001, and who've been doing it ever since with no end in sight, weren't average moslems either.

In fact, the individual ones who blew up the Beirut embassy (the first time), killing my pacifist atheist WWII-consciencious-objector father along with 60-odd others, mere weeks before my college graduation ceremony, were Ayatollah-loving, Syrian-trained, moslem Lebanese.

I don't have a problem with Iranians, or with Syrians, or with Lebanese, but without their faith and Dad's *perceived* Christianity, that bombing, the first of its kind, would not have been *motivatable* (at least, not nearly as easily). (As an American it was always assumed Dad was a Protestant, and in fact his family's Quaker -- in fact one of our most beloved cousins, Cousin Mather (Lippincott) just died, you may have heard of him -- nonetheless Dad he always answered "none" to the question of what his religion was.

And where I grew up, in the largest city of barely-post-colonial west Africa, there were roughly equal proportions of (I didn't know they were Sunni but they were) Moslems, Catholics, and animists who didn't consider their various beliefs to be a religion per se, and I had some Jewish relatives. So at home, the moslems would all pray on their little carpets, all at the same time, no matter what else was going on like they were your taxi driver, and on Sundays the christians ate their god. Then when we touristed the girls all covered their heads for mosques, males covered theirs for synagogues if we were in Europe, and throughout the animists could believe, and argue about since there were so many different tribes, way more than 6 impossible things before breakfast. So basically you end up seeing that all these various beliefs are equally worthy of respect, to wit, equally silly, you might say... if it weren't for the harm they can do.

I was occasionally asked "est-tu croyante" meaning kind of Do you believe, but No was always an acceptable answer. I miss *that* kind of tolerance...

Again, what I fight is the harm that only belief in the completely unverifiable can do with the minds of the credulous. I do it mostly to protect the minds of the credulous, in a "teach a man to fish" kind of philosophy, since by getting people to think for themselves means you end up with people who won't be led into incredible nastininess *without good reason* - and "My shaman/priest/imam/rabbi is better than your SPIR" wouldn't be good enough.

Faith, defined by Mark Twain as believing what you know ain't so or something similar, can do so much harm when harnessed by bigots to the believers, that many of us, not only those whose mom happens to be a Holocaust survivor and whose father was blown up by islamic terrorists, have stopped putting up with the whole shebang. I work on one smalal piece of the puzzle: getting really smart people to question their rationales, and to know how to think critically (which is why I so enjoy teaching experimental methodology, but wow, this is getting to be a really long post so I'll shut up now...)

It's The Harm.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 07:07 PM

Oops.)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Slag
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 07:08 PM

Jim Carroll lumps all religions as the same, paints them all the same with one broad stroke and dismisses followers and adherents as mindless morons and lemmings. Thank you for your most critical and in-depth analysis, Jim! Don't you see any complexity? Why the hostility? Do you think believers don't questions and struggle with matters of faith and reason? Have you never read the life of Martin Luther? for one? It is a huge and diverse field and virtually every culture in the world is somehow rooted in religion.

That is the part that interests me in my question: Why the antagonism? Why the hostility against? Think of it this way. As a parent, you care for your kids. You try to direct them in paths that will be beneficial to them. You correct them. You can be angry with them or happy for them but you are CONNECTED to them. If you see someone's child, other than your own, your connection is only at what you might call a moral level. You don't correct them unless their act has been egregious. If they are well behaved stranger-children you ignore them for the most part. They are really of no concern to you. So I would think it would be with matters of religion. No big deal, no concern, unless you are REALLY CONNECTED to it in some manner and that is my contention, otherwise it wouldn't matter and this thread would die a speedy death.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 07:11 PM

The Pshaw, my good friend, was only directed against the implied notion that IF one were an atheist THEN one would not discuss religion. As a proposition, that strikes me as bunkum (that's how we spell it ovah heah). The rest of your rhetoric is pleasant and charming as always.


A

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: John P
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 07:17 PM

Well, homosexual marriage is still widely illegal, mostly based on the religious convictions of lawmakers. Any laws about what can and can't be done on Sundays are certainly based on religion. Laws about nudity, drugs, prostitution, and polygamy probably all have some basis in religious belief. There are school boards all over the country, most notably in Texas and Kansas, who are dictating that religion be taught in schools. They have required that "Intelligent Design" to be taught as a theory alongside the theory of evolution. In Texas, they are requiring text book authors to paint a prettier picture of the Christian foundation of the country. People are allowed to send kids to religious schools where they are taught to believe -- and be proud of it -- things that aren't possible. I think that's part of why the Republicans are able to convince so many people to believe their crap.

It's not law, in fact it's illegal, but no one who is not a religious person will ever achieve high political office in the U.S. This is a wide-spread and generally unquestioned bias that plays itself out in the way our laws are made.

If you get out of the United States or Europe, many countries have very stringent religious laws. Even in Europe, there is a push on to make insulting someone's religion illegal.

So, yes, lawmaking is heavily informed by religious belief.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 07:39 PM

"how can the universe be created from nothing in a big bang? If there was nothing, nothing could be created."

Well your problem with this is just semantics - just what meaning you ascribe to the words in a particular context.

What the cutting edge of scientific speculation now says is that

"in THIS universe that we can detect with our senses, there WAS nothing. Energy flux in dimensions we cannot detect leaked though into the dimensions we CAN detect now, and created the Big Bang - all that follows is purely the effect of the natural laws, based on mathematics so complex, we struggle to untangle it slowly, bit by bit - including the delusions of the resultant thought processes that there MUST have been some magic sky fairy that created it."

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Slag
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 07:42 PM

FS, it is ALL magic. That ANYTHING exists is the miracle, and yet, here we are!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Paul Burke
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 08:00 PM

Slag- a totally uncomprehending pillock.

I think that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: olddude
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 08:03 PM

Textbook selection in Texas like all states is dictated by the elected school board representatives. I am the first to scream foul at some of their antics however, they were elected by their people Nuff said. Most everything you cited is based on social conduct of accepted behavior which just happens to go hand in hand with most religious teaching. I suppose in some cultures it is ok to steal but for a society to succeed it needs moral values of some kind or chaos occurs. Laws are based to preserve order. The Sunday "blue laws' were rule unconstitutional a long time ago.

In other countries sure, but take away their religion and you still have the thuds doing what they do .. your argument doesn't hold.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 08:05 PM

"I do find it interesting that so many self proclaimed atheists still have all these demands that people be treated with what we recognize as Judeo-Christian values"

Except the humanistic values were already there, before Religion came along and stole them for itself, to pretend that Religion owned everything.


"Jim Carroll lumps all religions as the same, paints them all the same with one broad stroke and dismisses followers and adherents as mindless morons and lemmings. Thank you for your most critical and in-depth analysis, Jim!"

Well the negation response to this is along the line of the old arguments of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. If there are no angels, then the answer is simple - none....

To the non-believer in any religion, all religions ARE merely offshoots of the same basic belief, the only argument being which one is supreme over all the others! Because since almost every religion claims that it IS the Supreme one and all others are merely 'mistaken beliefs' and 'you should come over to their side'.

"Do you think believers don't questions and struggle with matters of faith and reason? Have you never read the life of Martin Luther?"

I was raised a Lutheran and well schooled in the subtleties and history of the RC church from day one. What he was searching for was not that God did not exist (he was never an agnostic!), but that his own particular invisible magical sky fairy that spoke in his ear had said that he was the only one right and everyone from the Pope down was wrong, that they 'had lost the true path'.

What causes me to fall about in laughter is the widespread strongly held delusion by many Americans - just read Yahoo Answers for a while - that some how Catholics are not Christians.... thereby showing that many US Protestants are raised in total ignorance of the history of their 'Protestant' Faith. What are they 'protesting' about? The original Protestants were protesting that oh, here we go again, the RC had 'lost the true path'....

Ignorance is not bliss for a 'believer', but ignorance by your followers is definitely bliss for a dictator, religious or secular...

Religious Intolerance is inevitably caused by the bigoted delusion that only one approved set of religious beliefs is 'correct' - the atheist simply says - it's all just made up by people, no divine inspiration is possible, because there is no magic sky fairy, so none is correct ....

Religious Tolerance is thus only a wimpy cop out, because if you say that others may also be correct, then you admit that no path is 'Supreme' and thus no others can be correct....

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: olddude
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 08:14 PM

the Constitution has a separation of church and state. Any law that is based solely on religion would and can be challenged and would be ruled unconstitutional. Laws are setup to maintain order in a society, laws can be changed and many should. That we why we elect law makers. You assume that no one who isn't religious could not be elected. Wrong but it doesn't hurt I agree. However there are many members of congress that have varied faiths or no faith at all ... there are many gay people in congress also. The gay marriage stuff someday will be challenged up to the Supreme court and then it will be settled. I know lots of people who are opposed not because of their religion or lack their of , but because they are bigots period and hate gay people. And it is very sad also.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Janie
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 08:33 PM

What Amos said....

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jeri
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 08:40 PM

Just because a person doesn't believe in a deity doesn't mean we don't enjoy talking about beliefs--ours, yours, or anyone's. I find the belief that we should be exempted from all discussions on religion to be, well, defensive and pretty weird.

Mrrzy, I don't expect you'll get a lot of intelligent comments on your post as most people at Mudcat these days aren't terribly fond of reading, let alone trying to understand what a person writes. I don't always agree with you, but I found your post to be an exceptional piece of writing, honest and enlightening. It helps me know you a little bit better. Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,David E.
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 08:57 PM

"humanistic values were already there, before Religion came along and stole them for itself..."

I'm rather skeptical about that.

David E.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 09:02 PM

I was JUST about to post that Mrrzy's post was well worth reading, no matter what your preference.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 09:28 PM

The true test of an atheist, I suspect, is death and clearly discovering whether he/she is right or wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 10:01 PM

"The true test of an atheist, I suspect, is death and clearly discovering whether he/she is right or wrong?"

But if the atheist is also a non-spiritualist, and believes that the human personality (and all the ideas that it creates, including magical sky fairy religions and various forms of eternal life) is just the inevitable emergent behavior of the hardware (brain circuitry), then they also believe in just oblivion when the hardware shuts down, so your comment is meaningless and from their viewpoint nonsensical - only someone who 'has faith' in the very things the atheist non-spiritualists do not can even think this .... :-)

In other words 'there is nothing to discover'.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jeri
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 10:09 PM

I think the whole concept of a "true test" of any individual's beliefs is pretty stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 10:27 PM

Yep Jeri - after all we get bogged down in defining 'True' long before we try to agree just what a 'test' is , what to 'test', how to 'test'

... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 10:46 PM

As I have said many times, it ain't fair....atheists and skeptics, if they are right, don't get to thumb their noses and say "I TOLD you so!"

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 11:46 PM

Can't we all just get along? :-)

(For those who are not LOLCat fans, "Basement cat", the/a black one, and generally portrayed as the personification of evil.) (or is that catification?) (For example...

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 02:09 AM

Foolestroupe: "...But if the atheist is also a non-spiritualist, and believes that the human personality (and all the ideas that it creates, including magical sky fairy religions and various forms of eternal life)...?

I guess I could have picked a number of posts, to comment on, but there is something in this one, that pops out...and has a lot to do with people's concept of 'religion' verses 'truth'.

In the beginning, God created man after his own image....and ever since, man has been trying to return the favor!

Maybe, the whole of everything, is bigger than your imagination.

As to 'the true test' (thread topic, lest we forget), I guess you could shut up the argument, in your own head.....if you can. Who's arguing? Probably your sense of reality, versus the way you want it to be!.....Then, one of the 'voices' will still be with you, and one won't...when you 'die'....Being as energy cannot be created nor destroyed, what about conscious energy?....Is yours an unattached island, in a sea of nothing??
Don't drown!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Gervase
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 02:56 AM

Perhaps the true test of a libertarian would be to ignore the actions of oppressive states and ideologies; to simply shrug and walk on by when, say, neo-nazis are on the rise, or when tyrannical regimes repress their populations.
Perhaps the true test of a good person and a humanitarian would be to ignore the manifest injustices and suffering in the world.
I'm an atheist and I find religion fascinating. The good and ill that have been done in its name I carry in my genes, from the vespers of Monteverdi to the pogroms of the Ukraine. It's too big a subject to be ignored.
So the argument of the original post doesn't hold water for me.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 03:55 AM

"Thank you for your most critical and in-depth analysis, Jim!"
And thank you for ignoring the single greatest harm perpetrated against our children by Christians sheltering under god's umbrella, certainly in my lifetime - it confirms the hypocricy that appears to go with many religions.
My non-belief in a god is my own business, just as the faith of others is theirs, and I am more than happy to keep it that way. But when religious belief infects the everyday lives of all, believer or non-believer, to the extent that it has with the systematic and long-term rape and abuse of children, and the cover up of same by officers of a universal Christian church, then it becomes the business of us all.
I ask again - if there is a god, where was he/she when the children were being raped by his/her representitives on Earth, and where is he/she now when all but a few scapegoats continue to avoid having to face their crimes as the criminals they are?
"Jim Carroll lumps all religions as the same"
I make no distinction between the Christian savages who serially raped children and those who strap themselves up with bombs and go off to slaughter in the name of Allah, except, of course, the latter show more than a little more committment and courage than do their Christian counterparts who continue to take sanctuary behind their vestments and the power of their holy church.
Why am I interested in matters religious? Because I have witnessed its malign influence; from afar as a member of the general public, and up close on a personal level, with the effect upon my family and friends.
You want your religious views and practices respected - then keep them to yourself as a private matter and stay out of our lives - oh, and don't start crass threads such as this one.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 04:34 AM

Oldude wants to know of a law based on religion. try buying a pack of screws from B&Q after 4.00pm on a Sunday.

The original post was thought provoking but misses the point that if agnostic / atheist / irreligious people are what they say, why do they get hot & bothered over religion?

Probably because having an imaginary friend seems to give some people the right to exert their moral codes on others. We have Bishops scrutinising laws and voting on them in The House of Lords, public money spent on schools based on faith and charitable status for organisations that preach charity whilst ... I could go on.

In a fit of agreeing with Jim Carroll, I found no problem with the "Jim Carroll lumps all religions as the same." I do, it's easier that way.

Mind you as I have always said, if we didn't have religion, we would end up inventing it. (Which of course we did...)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:09 AM

The original post is just well-written, patronising tosh. Atheists discuss religion because religion is a big part of this planet. It's the default position even in countries that are allegedly secular. Religion influences billions of people and that is not unimportant and easy to dismiss. Outrages such as the indoctrination of millions of children in schools and families, almost from birth, are rife. We have to look at religious icons wherever we go. The mindset of that post is the same as the one that emerged in that survey thread: get out of my bloody thread, was the basic message, unless you want to join in with the rest of us cosy band of believers. The poster here betrays the usual believer attitude to atheists: we're just an irritating, argumentative and, er, slightly threatening bunch. Hows about we put this the other way round. If believers are so secure in their faith, and really do embrace the certainties that their prayers contain, why bother arguing with us atheists at all? Laugh us off! Er, not so easy, is it?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:11 AM

"Probably because having an imaginary friend seems to give some people the right to exert their moral codes on others."
Sums it up perfickly for me!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:36 AM

Mrrzy

It's The Harm.

I Ain't Afraid

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:40 AM

Atheists with sound "moral codes" are living proof, surely, that moral codes don't come from religion. In fact, what an admission of failure it is to say that your moral code comes from your religion.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 06:03 AM

Moral code...

if ants and termites don't work together and sacrifice themselves for the good of the community, the community doesn't survive.

Technically, the genes don't get to use living creatures as hosts.

I suppose that to say altruism is hard wired into us is, to those grasping at facts to support belief; proof of intelligent design. If so, I hate to tell you this, but we weren't built in his image, chromosomes were...   And I for one wouldn't buy one a drink with a view to losing all my money by marrying it....

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 06:21 AM

"they also believe in just oblivion when the hardware shuts down"

Not necessarily true, even if there were no God, in the religious sense.

While the physical hardware shuts down from our perspective, I suspect there are other possibilities that could evolve from the human energy. Some of these one could speculate on, others are likely beyond our current knowledge. We really do not know, now do we?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 06:22 AM

"Intelligent design" always strikes me as a most inapposite phrase when I think of, say, childbirth. "Unintelligent design" seems to me to fit the case much better. I mean, what sort of Loving God would have designed his Creations with the inconvenient necessity of constant pissing and shitting? Surely he could have done better than that, with just a bit of intelligent thought? It's a design fault which should have been corrected as he created more and more models before culminating in this one ~ that's what one would have expected in any other area of design: we don't still have to use a cranking handle to start our cars, do we?

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Slag
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 06:37 AM

You may have noted in the original post that the word "religion" is set apart in quotes. I also made a distinction between adherents to a religion and believers. I also left believers as a vague, general term. I asked a QUESTION which was related to the other thread about a religious survey which caused me to wonder as I did? And quite contrary to many of your perceptions of me about what you THINK you know about my beliefs I am not a big supporter of organized religion. I have a very narrow view of religion. I am in agreement with the writer of James. To him, true religion is the caring for widows and orphans within the Christian community and without as Christ demonstrated who a person's neighbor is in the story of the Good Samaritan. All the horrendous acts that Mrrzy listed and all the awful acts he could have listed are, to my way of thinking, horrible abuses of the religions involved and the doctrines of peace espoused by many of them.

Whether it is a religious movement or a political movement there seem to always be those who will corrupt the intent or goal of either for their own evil purposes. And there always seems to be a mindless cadre that will follow the corrupt to oblivion while never catching on to the truth about either or seeking out answers for themselves. It doesn't mean there is no God nor does it prove there is a God. It is, perhaps, a true picture of the state of Man and an indicator of how far we have to go.

I could argue from a Christian perspective that God shares your concerns and understands your criticisms as He voiced similar concerns over those who were supposed to be His people. I believe God hates most all the same evils you hate but not those who perpetrate the same. I can argue this from scripture but somehow, I don't get the impression that many are willing to endure such, here and now. Closed systems of understanding our world and the folks in it are intolerable, be they political or religious or some other specie. Shame to the person who allows someone else to do their thinking for them. Not only is the unexamined life not worth living, it is downright dangerous to those about.

Religion can be a response to a spiritual awakening or epiphany or it can be a cop-out. It can be a way for making business contacts or it can be a means of fleecing people. It can be a pathway of psychoses as in the Jones Town incident or it can be a political tool. Is it any wonder why religion cannot be ignored?

Guest David E. (whose given name means, in the Hebrew "Beloved") thinks that humanism was already in place before religion but doesn't bother to demonstrate how he knows this. It is an unsubstantiated claim. Humanism as it is understood today as a movement began in the 1800's AD that is. I think religion, in the general term has been around a little longer than that. I would hold that Mankind and religion grew up together and that religion, his ability to question that which he did not understand, was the impetus for all that has followed. Earliest man is always found in proximity with those things which are considered religious.

To address Foolestroupe's list of concerns:

My response to Jim Carroll's statement was to the point and logical. He made a blanket declaration against "religion" based on narrow and anecdotal information at best and regardless of the ABUSES of religion it still does not touch in any meaningful way the phenomenon of religion or faith or belief in a supreme deity or many deities nor does it address any object of many Far Eastern religions. And yet how many of you looked at his post and unquestioningly agreed with him? I find THAT scary.

And to which Foolestroupe somehow discerns that I must be talking about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Which, you will note is NOT an ARGUMENT. It is, rather, a question. Even if this were an attempt to set up a straw man argument, it is a non sequitur to what has gone before. But just for fun, I'd like to answer anyway. If the entire universe could fit inside the seminal infinitesimal that preceded the "Big Bang", why all of them AND none of them!

"To the non-believer in any religion, all religions ARE merely offshoots of the same basic belief, the only argument being which one is supreme over all the others! Because since almost every religion claims that it IS the Supreme one and all others are merely 'mistaken beliefs' and 'you should come over to their side'."

Again it is the informal fallacy of the hasty generalization. You do a great disservice to many religions that do NOT believe in ONE supreme being. You do a historical disservice to many polytheistic religions. You need to check out Sufism, Baha'i, Rosicrucian and some other religions I could name. They are NOT all the same and their followers would be the first to tell you so.

"I was raised a Lutheran and well schooled in the subtleties and history of the RC church from day one. What he was searching for was not that God did not exist (he was never an agnostic!), but that his own particular invisible magical sky fairy that spoke in his ear had said that he was the only one right and everyone from the Pope down was wrong, that they 'had lost the true path'."

I'm sure many Lutherans would be dismayed at your portrayal of their faith. I never said he was agnostic, YOU did. It is so much easier to shoot down a lame argument of your own design, isn't it? And you were studying Roman Catholicism and it's subtleties? I thought you were raised Lutheran!! (yes facetious, sort of). Nor did Martin Luther believe in magical sky fairies. I have read his life story from different authors and no one mentioned sky fairies. I know he did learn Greek, Hebrew and Latin and the discrepancies between what he read and what the Roman Catholic Church was putting forth at the time cause him to QUESTION the church and later to seek to REFORM the same. You see, you need to get your facts straight before you launch out with an "argument" otherwise, you look kind of foolish to the honest inquirer.

"What causes me to fall about in laughter is the widespread strongly held delusion by many Americans - just read Yahoo Answers for a while - that some how Catholics are not Christians.... thereby showing that many US Protestants are raised in total ignorance of the history of their 'Protestant' Faith. What are they 'protesting' about? The original Protestants were protesting that oh, here we go again, the RC had 'lost the true path'...."

This next comment assumes that "many Americans" are delusional and you cite that most learned and prestigious institute of higher education "Yahoo Answers" to substantiate all that follows: "that some how Catholics are not Christians". You don't say WHY anyone might hold this view but you do tend to imply that the reverse is true, that Catholics (Roman?) are true Christians. Now if YOU are an atheist this is a most extraordinary statement! How can you tell? You are an unbeliever! Nonetheless, you conclude from the article that "many US Protestants are raised in total ignorance of the history of their 'Protestant' Faith." How so? Luther was not a Protestant but a Reformer. For his efforts the Bishop of Roman tried to have him silenced by that age old, tried and true Christian method: murder. You know, the same one that was used against, uh, Christ! His protege, Philip Melanchthon was more responsible for the German Protestant movement. Nowhere did Luther or Melanchthon say that Catholic people were not Christian but everywhere that the Church was not correct in it's teachings in all things. And yet you would have us believe that Yahoo has the inside story. Where are your FACTS?

"Ignorance is not bliss for a 'believer', but ignorance by your followers is definitely bliss for a dictator, religious or secular"

Finally a point upon which we may agree. I'm certainly glad YOU are not ignorant, my friend.

"Religious Intolerance is inevitably caused by the bigoted delusion that only one approved set of religious beliefs is 'correct' - the atheist simply says - it's all just made up by people, no divine inspiration is possible, because there is no magic sky fairy, so none is correct .... "

Shall we discuss bigoted delusion? Could it be delusional and bigoted to assume that everyone's religion teaches that all other religions are wrong? Could it possibly be that you do not speak for ALL atheists? Isn't that bigoted? And that religionists and believers knowingly "made up" religions and "God"? Isn't THAT bigoted? And somehow (and you don't say how) you just know there is no divine inspiration because there is no sky fairy? By the way I am really curious about this "Sky Fairy" religion. I've never come across it in my studies. Could you sarcastically be using that as a substitute for deity? History and most of the world is wrong but you, the enlightened one KNOW there is no God. And that is a FACT?

"Religious Tolerance is thus only a wimpy cop out, because if you say that others may also be correct, then you admit that no path is 'Supreme' and thus no others can be correct.... "

And this is your stunning conclusion. First, nothing was made mention about religious tolerance or intolerance. But that aside your "ergo" your conclusion is, that if one were to admit that someone else in some aspect of their beliefs were correct then no other path is "Supreme" (whatever that may mean) and then your second conclusion "thus no others can be correct..." I'm really having a hard time following you logic here. Thus you are defining religion as a "path" to the divine? The breadth and scope of your understanding of religion simply amazes me. Had I know that, I could have foregone 7 years of intensive study. Oh well, you live and you learn. And how does it follow that no others can be correct. Do you mean inside knowledge on the pathway to the divine(s)? Or do you mean having God in your pocket, so to speak?

Well, at any rate, thanks for clearing all that up for us. And I hope none of you will fault me too much for MY sarcasm (I expect yours) but so much that passes here, unquestioned as logic , just isn't so. I could go on but I bet you are kinda tired of it by now. I know I am. I'll check back with you all later.

But hey! I really am learning what and why atheists and agnostics are so concerned about religion. Many valid points have been made and for that I thank you all.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 06:38 AM

"Being as energy cannot be created nor destroyed, what about conscious energy?"

This displays a misunderstanding of Science, a layman's mungling of terms that have precise meanings in Science and often are assigned various sorts of semantic gibberish by the scientifically untrained.

"energy cannot be created nor destroyed" - it however can be converted endlessly from one manifestation to another.

"what about conscious energy" - there is no such thing! (manifestion of energy) as "conscious energy". There is something scientifically vague we call (a state of) 'consciousness', which is the observed emergent result of complex electrical currents in the neurons. When that current flow stops, so does the consciousness -> oblivion.

The 'energy' doesn't 'go anywhere', because what happens is that the source of the energy (chemical reactions) just stops when the organism ceases to function ...


"Is yours an unattached island, in a sea of nothing"

This reminds me of a Star Trek episode plot .... a nice piece of entertaining fiction (and may even provide some warm comfy feelings to many), but has no basis in currently known scientific fact...

... a nice touchy feelie idea that "one's consciousness (you mean some sort of Alien Energy Field, Spock?) merges with all the other ones floating around in empty space"

... Beam me up Scotty!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 06:47 AM

"While the physical hardware shuts down from our perspective, I suspect there are other possibilities that could evolve from the human energy. Some of these one could speculate on, others are likely beyond our current knowledge. We really do not know, now do we? "

Yep, that that sort of belief is defined as 'magic'.... since it is already defined as being beyond the capabilities of 'Science' - a 'belief system' based on clear observations and 'easily' reproducible results. One can thus speculate in this way endlessly, and it is difficult to refute any of it, because any refutation is of itself merely more speculation ... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 07:20 AM

"Could it be delusional and bigoted to assume that everyone's religion teaches that all other religions are wrong?"

Well the biggest ones certainly seem to. Witness the common references to infidels and one true faith, etc. But it would be a fairly unwise generalisation to make.

"Could it possibly be that you do not speak for ALL atheists? Isn't that bigoted?"

No. Atheism is not a creed. It isn't complicated. The Pope may well not speak for all Catholics, but then Catholicism is riddled with all sorts of complicated rules and doctrines. Atheism is simple. There may be differences in the ways atheists like to say things, but it is much easier to speak, as an atheist, for all atheists that it would be for someone adhering to a huge body of dogma. Over the years I must have posted thousands of posts about my atheism all over the place, but not once has any atheist come back at me to complain that I wasn't speaking for them.

"And that religionists and believers knowingly "made up" religions and "God"? Isn't THAT bigoted?"

No. It's self-evident, that's why. An invisible being who breaks all the laws of physics, whom there's no evidence for and who can't be explained must have been invented. As an atheist I can't prove that he isn't there but I've concluded, rationally I think, that the chances of his existence are vanishingly small. So it isn't "bigoted" to say he was knowingly invented. It's an eminently reasonable (though perhaps not a particularly diplomatic) thing to say.   

"By the way I am really curious about this "Sky Fairy" religion. I've never come across it in my studies. Could you sarcastically be using that as a substitute for deity? History and most of the world is wrong but you, the enlightened one KNOW there is no God. And that is a FACT?"

Well you call it God and we call it the sky fairy. As I don't think fairies exist and I equally don't think God exists (note: I don't know he doesn't so we're not actually in the realms of fact here) it's not an unreasonable soubriquet to my mind, though again not diplomatic.

Oddly, I never feel like being diplomatic about religion.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Slag
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 07:25 AM

Excellent Steve! And your name isn't even Foolestroupe! I'm sure he'll appreciate the assist.

Simple, yep. I see your point... but, alas, to bed. It will be new world tomorrow and I will see how it all looks then! Night all!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 07:47 AM

Slag, I basically agree with your opinion of what 'real religion' is, mostly, which is why I am so disappointed with what many hypocrites claim ...

I was being a little satirical too - didn't expect that you wanted a real factual documented position. :-)

In the church I was brought up in, we DID spend weeks on basic theology and the history of theological things that led to the current day including the merges and schisms of the Lutheran Church - I have forgotten most of that now! - the pastor was quite elucidatory about the areas I mentioned ... Martin WAS a reformer, but Politics as exercised by real world Princes (of which the Pope was just another! what with running around with armies and all that!) took over and steered his legacy in directions that he had no control over. He did love a good drink (go away Conrad!), nosh up and sing session, and many other 'mortal things'.

I studied many other 'paths' - for instance I found that Buddhism was more a tool of social control - many of its 'wisdoms' seemed to be such useful tools as 'respect your elders', etc. I am aware of various pantheisms too. But, I live in a culture that is mainly swamped by a Monotheistic dominated religious base (and I believe that you do too). Hence I am surrounded by ""Religious Tolerance is thus only a wimpy cop out, because if you say that others may also be correct, then you admit that no path is 'Supreme' and thus no others can be correct.... "" ..

"defining religion as a "path" to the divine?" - well I have been swamped with this all the time during my life... and endlessly told that the current flavor of the ranter is the 'only path' by people knocking on my door ... :-0


"Had I know that, I could have foregone 7 years of intensive study."

It only took me about 30 years to get there, mate... :-) I'll accept donations if you found it 'helpful' ... :-P


"And how does it follow that no others can be correct. Do you mean inside knowledge on the pathway to the divine(s)? Or do you mean having God in your pocket, so to speak?"

If a 'Supreme Deity' has revealed 'the only absolute path to salvation' - as I am constantly brainwashed here, and am informed that it is even stronger in the USA - daily mass incantations of 'for God and Country', etc... then logically ANY other contrary idea is heresy, and must be evil and destroyed.... :-)

"do you mean having God in your pocket, so to speak"

Well many of these ranters claim that they do - AND he speaks direct to them and them only, personally I think they've got SOMETHING in their pocket ... :-P


"You don't say WHY anyone might hold this view but you do tend to imply that the reverse is true, that Catholics (Roman?) are true Christians."

Well I see this and similar 'madcap' questions pop up all the time in the R&S section - you CAN take the logical reverse concept if you want (I didn't say that - you inferred it!) - my point is that you can't HAVE Protestants, WITHOUT the original that they are protesting against - what with Peter of Rome and all that baggage... :-) In other words they want to reject/deny their own documented historical path to where they are today... as if that gives them some sort of 'moral superiority'.

I'm only 'concerned with religion' because I was brainwashed with it when little (no choice) and also so much of society is saturated with the 'magic sky fairies' thinking (and he will destroy his 'empire' and take all the good bunnies to live with him in fluffy cotton wool for ever and ever and ever!), and it seriously interferes with much of the functioning of society, including insisting on a level of ignorance in scientific matters (people and dinosaurs living together, denying 'evolution' or as least as the bigoted misunderstand it!, etc), pushing the USA (and all of its politically subjugated minions!) to become eventually one of the most backward nations on earth, once all the foreign scientists go home ... :-)

Me, I've recently become a follower of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Religion. It's perfectly logical, I understand it's origins, and it makes just as much sense as any other 'religion' - i.e. matter of 'faith and belief'... :-) And now I too 'have found religion'! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 07:52 AM

Actually, I'm NOT an Atheist.

I'm a 'non-spiritualist'.

And apparently that hurts too many heads who can't get around that, so many think I'm just an Atheist...

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Fergie
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 08:05 AM

The test of an athiest is in my opinion very simple;
would an athiest change her/his fundamental belief when confronted with objective proof for the existance of a "diety"?

Believers must accept that there is not a scintilla of objective evidence of any kind, that a diety exists.

Fergus

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 09:50 AM

And I suppose if someone was to declare that they were a Paganist would they be accused of Devil worship and Witchcraft or Atheism?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 10:25 AM

I typed most of this twelve hours ago. When I tried to post it, Mudcat was shut down. Good thing I save it....or not.

I wanted to say something about the very thoughtful posts from Mrrzy and Slag (original post and others), but what I wanted to say has already been said. Posts like those are the reason I have so much respect for you.



But other people have other statements that I disagree with:

• Atheists question - believers accept without question.
  Religion is taught as a fact; believers swallow it wholesale, atheists look for a rationale.
  
• The true test of an atheist, I suspect, is death and clearly discovering whether he/she is right or wrong?
  
• Religious Tolerance is thus only a wimpy cop out, because if you say that others may also be correct, then you admit that no path is 'Supreme' and thus no others can be correct....

All of these statements view religion from what I would call an absolutist perspective of religious belief. This perspective assumes that religion is acceptance and adherence to of a code of religious "truths" (doctrines) and a moral code, and often involving obedience to some sort of religious authority. This may hold true as a definition of fundamentalist religious faith, but even fundamentalism is more complex than that. Interestingly, fundamentalists and anti-religious atheists seem to share this absolutist perspective of religious faith. This perspective is almost obsessed with dualism - what's right and what's wrong, what's true and what's false, what's black and what's white, and so on.

But many deeply religious people are not like that at all. Even St. Paul allows for lack of certitude (and perhaps even doubt) in the famous "through a glass darkly" verse, 1 Corinthinans 13:12). For some people, religious faith is an exploration of the questions of life and of what is beyond, with hope of achieving perspectives without absolute answers. For others, religious faith is an expression of who they are and what is deep inside them, with very little emphasis on information or doctrine - Islam is a good example of this, and so are Polish Catholics and many other ethnic Catholic groups. Mystics go beyond doctrine and simply seek union with the divine.

Here at Mudcat, it is well-nigh impossible to carry on a discussion of religious issues because the anti-religious absolutists always feel compelled to jump in and say how wrong religion is, never stopping to think that "right and wrong" may not be the question. That's what happened in the thread on the U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey - although I note that even a reputable organization like the Pew trust, seems to emphasize information as a necessary aspect of religious faith.

So, anyhow, the question persists: how can we have the freedom to carry on a discussion of a religious topic without always getting bogged down in a "right-and-wrong" argument? Most other forums are dominated by the absolutists on both sides of any issue - isn't it possible for us to find a way do a more open discussion, rather than squabbling about right and wrong all the time?

Another thing that stops a lot of discussion here, is the constant dwelling on what's wrong with religious faith. Jim Carroll's comments are a good example, as are those of Fionn. What they say is the absolute truth - there is much that is evil that is done in the name of religion. But a good many religious people deplore that evil just as much as Jim and Fionn do. The trouble with religions groups, is that they are human institutions. In every human institution, we have to deal with some people who are evil, many who are mediocre, and some that are extraordinarily good. It is the good and the evil people who have the greatest effect. Now, we can dwell on the evil side of things and paralyze ourselves, or we can do our best to combat the evil while still carrying on with the good side of life. But Jim and Fionn, I think it's unfair of you to insist that vast numbers of religious people condone the evil that takes place in their churches - that just doesn't happen.

So, acknowledging the bad side of things, couldn't it be possible to carry on at least some religious discussions without dwelling on evil? There is evil everywhere, and it can stop us dead in our tracks if we let it. I prefer not to do that.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: theleveller
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 11:08 AM

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." Stephen Hawking

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: olddude
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 11:47 AM

Steamin
suggest you go to Walmart they are open till 10 in every state that I know of .. got lots of screws thats what I do. Store hours are set by the owners and my local hardware ma and paw store ain't open on Sunday. I suspect cause they work 6 other days .. Blue laws in the past were ruled unconstitutional and it wasn't because of "church" it was the theory that people back then worked 6 days a week and they thought it good for society in general for a working person to have a day with their families and spend family time. Didn't work out too well. There is no law in the States based solely on religion. When was the last time you were arrested for not attending service?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 11:49 AM

Part of the question raised by this thread is, essentially, "Why do so many atheists display not just interest or concern about religion and the religious, but an undertone (at least) of hostility to religion and the religious?"

Having spent some time in examining my own attitudes and those of certain other atheists about that question, I believe a good part of the answer is "reciprocation".

I discovered early in life that many, many religious bodies and religious persons are hostile toward anyone they can characterize (correctly or incorrectly) as atheists; and conversely, that anyone who expresses "wrong" concepts is, ipso facto, to be so characterized as that hated enemy, an atheist, even though those concepts do not exclusively pertain to atheism.

So, reciprocate: Since you threaten or attack me, on specious grounds, I'll tend to hate or attack you. Or at least see you as ridiculous.

q.e.d.

None of which, of course, deals with the actual subject at issue.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mr Red
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 12:08 PM

One is that agnostics and atheists seem to know as much or more about "religion" than adherents and believers.

Athiests "Know" and the religious "Believe".

But not necessarily the same data.

Mr Red (Moth)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: olddude
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 12:16 PM

Uncle Dave brings up a good point. I have heard people who claim the love of Christ say things that appalled me about gays about people of non faith ... you hear it on TV with some Preachers talking like those of no faith are right there next to Hitler or something ... One thing I know for certain in this life is hate spawns hate which spawns more hate and so it goes ... Again what ever happened to live and let live. Free will is so important, the right to choose ones path in this life without interference from any other person or group .. For me, my faith makes sense, I don't want to go through life thinking cosmic accident and I have had too many things happen to me that made me believe in my faith ... and yet I too challenge it all the time and one should .. the challenge only makes my faith stronger. However those who choose a different path that doesn't conflict with me in any manner at all. As long as they do not infringe on my rights. All too often I have seen and heard way too many messages of hate against other groups who choose different. That is why there is such a difference between faith and religion I think. I could never do that nor anyone I know who believes in God

I suspect Uncle Dave hit it on the head here

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,999
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 12:37 PM

General Herbert Norman Schwarzkopf said (words to the effect) when asked about forgiving those who were responsible for the destruction and death of September 11: It is God`s province to forgive them. It is OUR job to arrange the meeting.

Possibly one difference is that atheists do not blame or praise God,
G-d, god for things that go wrong or right. The common area for so-called TV Evangelists, some Imams, some Rabbis (etc) seems to be that they speak for their heavenly leader and one can`t help wondering how the Boss talks to THEM.

Also, possibly atheists in order to get away from childhood teachings actually study various of the world`s holy books and in the course of doing so find holes. And when they do, they rightfully get POed. The Bible was edited, usually for the benefit of the various churches. I suspect so to were other so-called holy books. The Book of Mormon: `It was revealed.` Yeah, right.

Even a cursory glance at the schisms in Christianity, Islam and Judaism attest to the shakiness of the whole structure. For those who believe, good for you. For those who don`t, may the same good fall on you, too.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 12:40 PM

Ok, Olddude, although we don't have Walmart here in the UK, (we do in a way, they own Asda.) Some things you can buy, and smaller private street corner shops have a cop out but large department shops can only open so many hours and have browse but can't reach the checkout hour before they officially open. One place (Ikea) the lady told me she wasn't allowed by law (!) to talk to me before the tills open....

I too have joined a religion!!! I do work for the government and on their monitoring forms want to know my religion. I went on the internet to find a religion (true this..) and signed up to The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, just like foolstroupe did.

We are fellow Pastafarians!! Right on bro!!!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 12:55 PM

"Athiests "Know" and the religious "Believe"."

Really? Show me an atheist who "knows." I've never met one in spite of years mixing in atheistic circles. Tosh!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 01:11 PM

Joe, you said "even a reputable organization like the Pew trust, seems to emphasize information as a necessary aspect of religious faith". The point of that "religious knowledge" survey was to look at just that -- information -- without any judgement as to what's necessary to faith. Stephen Prothero's book, "Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know – And Doesn't" does make that such literacy is important in American life. There was no good data, however, and that's what the survey was meant to correct. I don't think either Pew or Prothero judged it as a "necessary aspect of religious faith".

From the Preface to the report:

"...we also decided that, no matter what the results, we would not give the public an 'A,' an 'F' or any other grade because we have no objective way of determining how much the public should know about religion. Moreover, we could have designed harder questions, or easier ones. As it happens, through a combination of good survey design and good luck, the results were an almost perfect bell curve in which the average score was exactly half of the 32 possible correct answers, and very few people got all questions right or all questions wrong. Readers can decide for themselves whether this justifies Prothero's conclusion or not."

~ Becky in Long Beach
(who's going to copy some of this to the other thread!)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 01:11 PM

"...anti-religious absolutists always feel compelled to jump in and say how wrong religion is"

Ignoring the faintly pejorative tone of that, that isn't what happens. Taking issue with some of the nasty things that goes on among some clerics is not saying how wrong religion is. Making cogent arguments against the existence of God is also not saying how wrong religion is. I happen to think that all religion is predicated on a deluded belief, but that doesn't mean that everything ever done in religion's name is wrong. There are religious people who have done a damn sight more good in this world than I ever have, but good things don't need religion in order to get done and never have. As for jumping in, that is not fair. There is no rule as far as I know that says certain topics should be a closed book to certain factions. I've never touched a flute in my life but I've just posted something in a flute thread on another forum. No-one's telling me to bugger off and stop jumping in. This is the internet, and we're not a dedicated-to-worship website or a prayer meeting. Nearly every thread I've ever posted anywhere that's lasted more than a few posts has been sidetracked. It's the nature of the beast. Cheer up and live with it.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 01:43 PM

I think militant atheism in more an 'attitude' than a position about 'knowing' anything. Most intelligent atheists realize that "you can't prove a negative", so the militant ones are usually just against what they see as problems in religion....they have no more evidence than a vacillating agnostic.

...and Fergus posted above.."The test of an athiest is in my opinion very simple; would an athiest change her/his fundamental belief when confronted with objective proof for the existance of a "diety"?

I think most would...but they would demand a pretty strong 'proof'....like the clouds parting and glowing letters apperaing in the sky in all languages saying" "I TOLD you to stop that stuff!"...or maybe the same message beamed into everyone's head all at once. After all, an all-powerful diety would have no problems with that...hmmm?

To me, the strangest claim of certain religions is that an all-powerful Creator issued, to a weak, fallible people, commands about our behavior...once...under strange circumstances....to ONE individual..then expected the billions who followed to make sense of all the varied interpretations.
Any creator who CARED about being followed and/or worshiped should be aware that we would need many, many reminders, and that "free will" was a two-pronged 'gift'.

(and no...floods & earthquakes are NOT 'signs from God', no matter what certain religious leaders, like Pat Robertson, say.)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 01:54 PM

Atheists don't seek or acquire or need evidence. You've got that slightly arse about face. It isn't atheists who make hugely improbable assertions then sit back and say all we need is faith. I like the rest of your post though. Atheists who do little except bang on about dirty clerics or suicide bombers give the rest of us a bad name (of course, there is an appropriate context for banging on about such things). The core atheist arguments are very simple and they don't need religions to have bad men to make them more sound.

I'm waiting for someone to chime in and tell us that God works in mysterious ways.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 01:59 PM

Joe Offer, That was a really good, well thought out post!..as was the one from Slag!!

Foolestroup: "...energy cannot be created nor destroyed" - it however can be converted endlessly from one manifestation to another...."

If you would have CAREFULLY read my post, I said the Same thing, (you phrased it, "it however can be converted endlessly from one manifestation to another"....

Then I posed the question, based on that premise, that the very 'life force', is just that...to which you disagreed!?!

Also, you got into ""what about conscious energy" - there is no such thing! (manifestion of energy) as "conscious energy". There is something scientifically vague we call (a state of) 'consciousness', which is the observed emergent result of complex electrical currents in the neurons. When that current flow stops, so does the consciousness -> oblivion.
..."

Those things, of which you speak, PROCESS, not CREATE energy. You've effectively contradicted yourself, but at least it SOUNDED impressive, as if you knew what you were talking about....It's a common mistake...I forgive you..that being said, you might want to re-examine your thoughts on the matter! (wink)

Jim Carroll: "Why am I interested in matters religious? Because I have witnessed its malign influence; from afar as a member of the general public, and up close on a personal level, with the effect upon my family and friends."

(Jim, My following is not argumentative in nature to you, so when you read it, try not to project a hostile difference, or contention)

I think it was in one of your (I could be wrong, about yours) posts, that you also mentioned, the quote, about, 'Give me a child under five and he'll be (something), all his life" (something to that effect, I scrolled back, and couldn't find it, nonetheless, its somewhere, there).
That quote is most often quoted by Roman Catholics...I've heard it before, and coupled with your other quote(which I cut and pasted), and the tone of other posts you've posted, it sounds to me that you have a deep hurt, and/or disillusion with the Catholic Church, possibly something you grew out of, but still carry the scars, in the form of (a)hostility...which I can understand. Plus all the bad PR that the church has accrued, with all the child abuse scandals, tend to re-reinforce your personal bitterness. (Safe to say?) Then the CC puts a thing on your head, that to hear about Jesus/God/anything 'religious', outside of the CC is a 'heresy'..because the CC is the ONLY 'true representative' of the 'correct' teachings of Jesus, and they are the ONLY true church...correct? The reason that I'm inquiring, is because in your posts, there comes through a DEFINITE anger, and closed mind on the issue...Which, I can empathize with, ok?.......Let me know if I'm correct, so far, ok?
I have NO intention of 'jumping your case'...'or getting in your face'.....However, as my mom used to say, "Try not to run from something(Bad), but rather, to GO to something good, but let go of the hurt"......It does not do a lot of good, to kill a poisonous snake that bit you...if the venom, is still in you.
Hopefully this was received, in the right intention, that I sent it.

Regards,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 02:10 PM

Thank you for reading my long-ass post, many of you.

It is hard to discuss the whole faith/god/religion thang (as we say here) without the inevitable fallout from all the evil that happens and is happening and will happen again in its name.

O and thank you much for the link to I Ain't Afraid, too. I don't see how they can remain unafraid of the mosques/churches/temples/gods, given their fear of what is best taught there. I mean, it would be a lot harder to teach anywhere else. Not to mention that if you rise above the god/religion/faith thing, why would you then have to search for yet another higher power? Couldn't you just relax?

The obverse, of course, is that all the *good* that people can do through community effort can be done by good people without religion/faith/gods, all it takes is community spirit. Look at the masses of people who went to Obama's inauguration or the midnight release of the latest Harry Potter book. Wouldn't it be nice to see all those people united for something like, oh, say, poverty?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 02:21 PM

"You've got that slightly arse about face..."

No, that was the point of my post. They have 'no more than an agnostic' is intended to say that they have none, and 'usually' don't try to claim any.

'Proof' is just not relevant when belief is the issue.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 02:47 PM

"Yep, that that sort of belief is defined as 'magic'.... since it is already defined as being beyond the capabilities of 'Science' "

I submit that this may be a current science, but likely not the last science word on that, for eternity that is, as you seem to be putting forward.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 03:23 PM

Three laws of progress by The science fiction writer Arthur C Clarke, who wrote '2001: A Space Odyssey':


First law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

Second law: The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

Third law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 03:38 PM

Not going to have time for this - off to Sligo tomorrow.
"Another thing that stops a lot of discussion here, is the constant dwelling on what's wrong with religious faith."
There is nothing whatever 'wrong' with religious faith; it is the imposition of the 'laws' of that faith that does the damage. Religion should be a private choice, but once it gains any sorty of credance and influence in society, that ceases to be the case; the church holding the reins quickly sees to that.
People should be free to believe what they wish to believe, but not force those beliefs on others, nor to take advantage of the power that sometimes come with the the status any given religion may achieve, brings with it (the root of many of todays problems here in Ireland).
I was accused earlier of basing my stance on "narrow and anecdotal information".
All knowledge of and opinions on religion is based on such information; society tends to lock up people who claim to have spoken directly to god.
I find it impossible to separate religion and the church - they are the self-appointed carriers of 'the word' and we all know, to our cost, that they are capable of allthe evils going.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:16 PM

"We are fellow Pastafarians!! Right on bro!!!"

Now brothers, the sauce for today is ... what? a schism already?

Oh no!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:19 PM

QUOTE
"Also, you got into ""what about conscious energy" - there is no such thing! (manifestion of energy) as "conscious energy". There is something scientifically vague we call (a state of) 'consciousness', which is the observed emergent result of complex electrical currents in the neurons. When that current flow stops, so does the consciousness -> oblivion.
..."

Those things, of which you speak, PROCESS, not CREATE energy. You've effectively contradicted yourself, but at least it SOUNDED impressive, as if you knew what you were talking about....It's a common mistake...I forgive you..that being said, you might want to re-examine your thoughts on the matter! (wink)"
UNQUOTE

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Slag
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:26 PM

I have some specific comments which I hope to get out later. However:

Religion and politics, those perennial favorites, cover the entire arena of human activity. To address either category as a specific entirely misses what either category is about. To say you are against religion because group A does this and group B does that and then make a blanket dismissal of the "category" merely demostrates ignorance of the subject. The same is true for "politics". So then you begin to discuss a specific religion and that hits you wrong because it can often be offensive to others folks and other religious orders hence the "true path" vs all other paths comes into play and with out focus any calm, rational discussion evaporates into the ionosphere!

Clearly, if one religion advocates peace, soft answers, loving your enemies, going the extra mile, etc. it is fundamentally different from one that says "kill your enemies, your doing God a favor" or another that tells its adherents to turn their minds inward to discover truth. Religion, the ways people have of being religious and how they use religion and how religion uses people, in my opinion, is a fascinating topic, worthy of study. And again the same is virtually true of the political arena as well.

My thread title tended to narrow down the subject a little as Atheism indicates the rejection of the idea of one God. The reasons for rejecting this concept are also many and varied and the proof of that is in the above posts. A most lively discussion! Yes, the title is provocative, as I intended it to be. I think it is a little more inticing than "Tell Me Why You Are An Atheist" and a little shorter too. It also let's me tell you the questions that came to my mind on the other thread about the survey which, had I voiced it over there, would have been major thread drift. But Hey! The 'Cat never dissappoints!

Clearer is to say something like, "I am opposed to a religon that____!" Or that, "if it does not satisfy "reason" per se, then I reject it out of hand." That is a good, valid argument. One thing really amazes me here is how much emotion is brought to the topic, strong feelings from many directions and, like Mrrzy's posts, not without cause! I believe I did state my very narrow view on my own religion, care of the needy, and that I am generally not in favor of highly organized religions, but I DO understand them. It has been said that religion is Man's way of reaching out to God (that is, when it is not fraud or has been a tool of evil here on Earth) but I would be a little broader by saying religion is one way Man reaches out for something beyond Himself. Hence science can be a religion (Mill's Method of Scientific Reasoning in particular). Sexual fetishes and practices not only can be a religion but they ARE as in the Kama Sutra. Religion is a huge topic.

It has also been said that when a man talks to God, that is called prayer. When God talks to a man, that is called Schizophrenia! Perhaps! When you are talking about THE God represented in the book commonly called the Bible then you have a more focused target for discussion as, that is what most folks in the Westernized world think of when God is mentioned and indeed, that was what I had in mind from the beginning. Judaism and Christianity are called a "revealed" religion. God and all that follows is an assertion. It is a faith proposition to be believed or reject by the individual listener. No argument or reason is put forth and therefore it purports having a knowledge of a different order and since the God set forth is a personal God (that is, not "the Force" or some other concept of deity) the knowledge is of a personal nature. And that is to say, you know OF Him or know Him directly. Such knowledge can only be compared with the internal picture of God as presented in the Bible. Is it a consistent picture? Does it contradict the character of God as set forth in the Bible? To claim to have this knowledge of God is to claim that you have somehow met this being becasue He has revealed Himself to you and that is the question at hand.

If you claim to know Mr. Snuffaluffagus (of Sesame Street fame) and someone else denys his existence, you have a delima! Short of having Mr. S meet the denier how do you prove his existence? And that was the gist of the story line in the TV series. To an atheist who set human reason forth as the standard whereby to judge all things, there is no God in the picture and that little voice one claims to hear inside is the "Sky Fairy" or some such. And I understand why this can be maddening, to hear someone go on about God is an insult to reason! The Apostle, Paul says "...the Greeks seek after wisdom (reason)... and to the Greeks (Christ) is foolishness..." (see I Cor 1, 17-31). And that is, to me, the crux of the whole issue: is there more than one type of knowledge?

In legal courst across America there is recognized more than one type of "truth". There is a "preponderance" of the evidence which is in line with inductive reasoning. There is also "conclusive" proof or truth where no other explanation is possible (deductive reasoning). Stephen Hawking would have some fun with this! And then there is the evidence offered by an eyewitness. The latter almost always has to have collaborating testimony or evidenceto be considered valid or worthy of consideration by a jury.

I see the foregoing as the parameters of the discussion but I'm always open to any new arguments or ideas. I'll post those individual comments a little later on. Thanks for listening!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:28 PM

Bugger - wrong button ...

QUOTE
"Also, you got into ""what about conscious energy" - there is no such thing! (manifestion of energy) as "conscious energy". There is something scientifically vague we call (a state of) 'consciousness', which is the observed emergent result of complex electrical currents in the neurons. When that current flow stops, so does the consciousness -> oblivion.
..."

Those things, of which you speak, PROCESS, not CREATE energy. You've effectively contradicted yourself, but at least it SOUNDED impressive, as if you knew what you were talking about....It's a common mistake...I forgive you..that being said, you might want to re-examine your thoughts on the matter! (wink)"
UNQUOTE

Tiredness and being asked to share the computer before I finish cleaning up what I am in the process of explaining. As I seem to remember I went on to talk about how the energy to run that process was 'created by chemical energy' i.e. 'was sourced from chemical energy' which is just another transformation. "There is something scientifically vague we call (a state of) 'consciousness', which is the observed emergent result of complex electrical currents in the neurons. When that current flow stops, so does the consciousness -> oblivion." Thus the 'energy of consciousness' doesn't go anywhere when the organism ceases to function, i.e. 'continue to precess transformations of energy' that end up being perceived by external observers as a 'state of consciousness'. I suspect you really understood, but are just trying to have fun by 'misunderstanding' - either that or you are genuinely confused between 'hard science' and 'layman misrepresentation of semantic objects' :-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:39 PM

"Atheism indicates the rejection of the idea of one God"

This is the view held by Christians and those of the branch of religions that stem from the 'Abrahamic Faith Systems', and of course any other of the other groups that also believe in Monotheism, including Zoroastrians, follows of Aten, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc.

Atheism just rejects the idea of the existence of any magical invisible sky fairy beings (at all, at all, at all!) with any powers outside those able to be exercised by anyone who understands how those powers work - there is no 'being outside the system', no 'miracles (things that cannot be explained inside the system)' - it has nothing to do with any number of gods in any pantheon, thus logically it also cannot accept just One of them either! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:51 PM

Slag said:

My thread title tended to narrow down the subject a little as Atheism indicates the rejection of the idea of one God.

Wrong! Atheism indicates the rejection of ANY god or gods.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:51 PM

Foolestroupe, If you are saying that the combination of chemicals create energy, then I think you are in error. What causes them to re-act? What system? ....and where did that come from??..More re-action from....? Somewhere, along the line, there is an 'origin'......

...Oh, and by the way, if you are saying they are 'self-existing'... then you just translated the Hebrew word, Yahweh,...(self existing one)...which means God, (the giver of life)...or the 'I Am'.

I knew you were just kidding! You just had the wrong words!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:52 PM

"True Test of an Atheist"
When you boil it down, there is no test neccessary for the non-belief in gods, ghosts, fairies, honest politicians or any other mythical manisfestations you care to name - the burden of proof rests entirely on the shoulders of the believer - not much more to be said really.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:54 PM

QUOTE
"Yep, that that sort of belief is defined as 'magic'.... since it is already defined as being beyond the capabilities of 'Science' "

I submit that this may be a current science, but likely not the last science word on that, for eternity that is, as you seem to be putting forward.
UNQUOTE

There is nothing wrong with having ideas about the possible future discoveries of 'Science' (just don't smear it into our current 'Reality') - people have done that for ages - it's now officially called 'Science Fiction' though... :-) Where we are, is where we are - for example 'Science' has not said that FTL travel 'is impossible' (although a few ignorant self important clowns in the past tried to say things like 'heavier than air flight is impossible' - even though birds did it ...), but merely that a few 'back of the envelope' calculations to move mass X at Y times the speed of light over Z lights years distance in a given perceived period of 'current physical Earth based Solar time' is ... mumble, mumble, .... Holy F*** Batman! That's a LOT of energy! We certainly can't handle that amount per second right now ... :-)

Hence all the cute gobbledegook terms invented for the SF genre - they almost always fall back on just 'reversing the polarity' to fix the current scenario problem though ... :-P (I'm not making that up, you know!)

Thank You Mr Spock!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 06:14 PM

QUOTE
Foolestroupe, If you are saying that the combination of chemicals create energy, then I think you are in error. What causes them to re-act? What system? ....and where did that come from??..More re-action from....? Somewhere, along the line, there is an 'origin'......
UNQUOTE

You cannot discuss Science with someone who does not understand any of its basic concepts. Eg, "What causes them to re-act - What system?" - Science merely says - the 'desire of the universe to tend towards a lower state of energy - entropy. Hey - 'entropy' is 'just one of the convenient explanations we have for things we can't fully explain, yet'

"Somewhere, along the line, there is an 'origin'"

That is clearly outside the bounds of 'Science' - by the very definition of what 'Science' is - so that's where 'matters of faith and belief' - usually referred to as 'religious matters' take over. I don't particularly CARE WHAT anyone believes as 'the origin', personally it doesn't matter to me - and most 'atheists' also just aren't too obsessed or worried - but 'the religious' DO have 'a need' for a 'simple' explanation, such as 'my very own personal magical invisible sky fairy did it'.

If that 'belief' makes people happy, and easier to live with in a cooperative society in general, fine - atheists are fairly pragmatic, but definitely do get annoyed when those who believe in their own particular 'magical invisible sky fairy' insist - for their own personal psychological reasons - on everyone ELSE following the alleged dictates of this 'magical invisible sky fairy'... it's called 'dominating others' - 'politics' etc, ... it gets REALLY annoying when it turns into 'my very own personal magical invisible sky fairy talks to me all the time and nobody but me can hear him and you must all do what I say!' - atheists just wait patiently for the day (that pragmatically will probably never dawn) when all those who profess that are just considered mental patients ...

:-)

Oh, and referring to various comments by others, when those making such controlling demands of society definitely 'say one thing and do another contrary to what they publicly profess', then try to hide from the very consequences they demand of others when exposed, the limits of Tolerance by Atheists do get rather close to the limit ...

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 06:18 PM

QUOTE
It has also been said that when a man talks to God, that is called prayer. When God talks to a man, that is called Schizophrenia!
UNQUOTE

When a man talks to God, and he talks back, that is also Schizophrenia!


:-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 06:22 PM

QUOTE
To me, the strangest claim of certain religions is that an all-powerful Creator issued, to a weak, fallible people, commands about our behavior...once...under strange circumstances....to ONE individual..then expected the billions who followed to make sense of all the varied interpretations.
UNQUOTE

Many years ago, I read a short 'SF' story about the group of aliens who sent out missionaries, and just one found a lone half crazed hermit in the desert, and told his story about his civilization sacrificing itself in a violent incineration for the good of all the other civilizations in the galaxy - the sky then blazed - and then he said, now I want you to go and tell everyone what we have done for you all ...


:-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: John P
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 06:25 PM

"Atheism indicates the rejection of the idea of one God"

In my case, I never actually rejected the idea of the existence of god(s). "Rejection" makes it sound like I considered it and decided against it. It never made any sense to me in the first place, so "rejection" isn't really what happened. I remember being five years old in Sunday School, wondering why all the adults were saying such bizarre and impossible things. It was confusing for a while, but then it was a great lesson in human frailty.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 06:32 PM

I switched on BBC Radio4 a few months ago and caught a well known scientist making a very good case for the existance of God - it aws Richard Dawkins. As I've said before, I don't believe in the same god that the atheists don't believe in.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 07:01 PM

"There is nothing wrong with having ideas about the possible future discoveries of 'Science' (just don't smear it into our current 'Reality') - people have done that for ages - it's now officially called 'Science Fiction' though... :-) "


Attempts to minimize science investigation to "current reality" and refering to future science investigation as "science fiction" is belittling to science, The RC church tried to stifle science investigation and keep it within "current realities" a few centuaries ago. Fortunately, because of the rigor of science, it met with marginal success over the long term.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 07:20 PM

Foolestroupe, Your premise is quite contradictory to the THEORY of evolution, which says things are EVOLVING upwards, but entropy is just the opposite. You can't have it both ways. You may wish to re-consider, but a cool discussion is always good!

Evolution, and entropy both are explanations to get around energy being manifested, from a consciousness, and by design, or purpose....random.
How far does 'random' go, before you come to the conclusion that ALL is meaningless??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 07:20 PM

"What Skepticism Reveals about Science, A skeptic's journey for truth in science. Scientific American Magazine » July 2009,
By Michael Shermer

Exerps from the article:

"In science, lots of mysteries are left unexplained until further evidence arises, and problems are often left unsolved until another day. In the meantime, it is okay to say, "I don't know," "I'm not sure" and "Let's wait and see."

"Most people (scientists included) treat the God question separate from all these other claims. They are right to do so as long as the particular claim in question cannot—even in principle—be examined by science".

"There is one mystery I will concede that science may not be able to answer, and that is the question of what existed before our universe began. One answer is the multiverse. According to the theory, multiple universes each had their own genesis, and some of these universes gave birth (perhaps through collapsing black holes) to baby universes, one of which was ours. There is no positive evidence for this conjecture, but neither is there positive evidence for the traditional answer to the question—God. And in both cases, we are left with the reductio ad absurdum question of what came before the multiverse or God. If God is defined as that which does not need to be created, then why can't the universe (or multiverse) be defined as that which does not need to be created?

In both cases, we have only negative evidence along the lines of "I can't think of any other explanation," which is no evidence at all. If there is one thing that the history of science has taught us, it is that it is arrogant to think we now know enough to know that we cannot know. So for the time being, it comes down to cognitive or emotional preference: an answer with only negative evidence or no answer at all. God, multiverse or Unknown. Which one you choose depends on your tolerance for ambiguity and how much you want to believe. For me, I remain in sublime awe of the great Unknown.

There is one mystery I will concede that science may not be able to answer, and that is the question of what existed before our universe began. One answer is the multiverse. According to the theory, multiple universes each had their own genesis, and some of these universes gave birth (perhaps through collapsing black holes) to baby universes, one of which was ours. There is no positive evidence for this conjecture, but neither is there positive evidence for the traditional answer to the question—God. And in both cases, we are left with the reductio ad absurdum question of what came before the multiverse or God. If God is defined as that which does not need to be created, then why can't the universe (or multiverse) be defined as that which does not need to be created?

In both cases, we have only negative evidence along the lines of "I can't think of any other explanation," which is no evidence at all. If there is one thing that the history of science has taught us, it is that it is arrogant to think we now know enough to know that we cannot know. So for the time being, it comes down to cognitive or emotional preference: an answer with only negative evidence or no answer at all. God, multiverse or Unknown. Which one you choose depends on your tolerance for ambiguity and how much you want to believe. For me, I remain in sublime awe of the great Unknown".

The article and intesting comments can be found in the link below:

Skepticism and Science

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 07:26 PM

Note that I cut and repeated the last couple of paragraphs in my last post...sorry about that.

Did anyone pick up on one statement in the post:

"It is arrogant to think we now know enough to know that we cannot know".

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 07:37 PM

"...the THEORY of evolution, which says things are EVOLVING upwards, but entropy is just the opposite."

Now THAT is a basic misunderstanding of both entropy and evolution. 'Evolving' is changing... it has little to do with states of energy. Entropy is the **tendency** of the universe to gradually seek lower states of energy. As living entities reproduce, they are just re-arranging some of the matter/energy which has not dissipated thru entropy.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 07:48 PM

"Attempts to minimize science investigation to "current reality" and refering to future science investigation as "science fiction" is belittling to science, The RC church tried to stifle science investigation and keep it within "current realities" a few centuaries ago. Fortunately, because of the rigor of science, it met with marginal success over the long term. "

Unlike 'Religion', as you describe, 'Science' isn't the slightest bit interested in 'stopping progress'. But when claims about 'ground-breaking' things like 'cold fusion' are made, Scientists do insist that the rigorous processes of explaining clearly exactly what you did, and why you think it works is necessary so that others can do it too. Also mistakes can be made in the process of analysis of the methods or results, which exposure to other minds may reveal, and improve the future path of investigation.

If you are the only one that makes this claim of 'some new magical stuff that no one but me can do and, Good Lord, you will have to pay me lots of gold to see me create gold from chickenshit again', then there is natural skepticism from 'Scientists'. That is not 'belittling to Science' nor 'restricting' anything but the genuinely deluded - Google 'Perpetual Motion Machine', or the outright charlatan. The Perpetual Motion Machine devotees simply cannot understand Mathematics or Science, but obsessively keep repeating poorly designed 'experiments' that do not have the desired result, then rationalize away the results - there is very little difference between their compulsory obsessive 'Pseudo Science' and 'Religion' - they also have very strong 'faith' in their delusive 'beliefs'. Sad, but true ... but then if it keeps them from socially unacceptable activities like molesting little children, I know which activity I'd prefer that they get obsessed with... then again, they MAY just stumble over something 'useful and interesting' ... most real scientific advances are often a serendipitous combination of persistence and faith in areas that are outside 'current realities' (eg recent Aussie Nobel Prize winners in stomach ulcer research)...


"The RC church tried to stifle science investigation and keep it within "current realities""

This was purely for Political Purposes (based on 'magical sky fairy' beliefs) - CONTROL of People's MINDS - and if any ONE thing in their 'irrefutable revealed thesis' was disproved, they FEARED THEY WOULD LOSE CONTROL, especially of all the money! :-) They really weren't the slightest bit interested in 'Advancing Science' - after all 'All that was needed to know had already been revealed'. This is NOT 'Science', but 'Religious Faith', as it was all 'revealed' by their 'magic sky fairy' - going contrary to it was not only religious heresy, but would lead to people 'losing faith in the belief system, and the leaders losing political POWER'.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 07:52 PM

QUOTE
Foolestroupe, Your premise is quite contradictory to the THEORY of evolution, which says things are EVOLVING upwards, but entropy is just the opposite. You can't have it both ways. You may wish to re-consider, but a cool discussion is always good!

Evolution, and entropy both are explanations to get around energy being manifested, from a consciousness, and by design, or purpose....random.
UNQUOTE

I can see little progress in our mutual discussion along these lines as you and I are not arguing from the same basic premises. Bill D has already given all the answer needed.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 07:55 PM

Oh dear. John P has it right, but I fear I must contradict some others among my fellow atheists here. Atheists don't reject anything. Good atheists refuse to be put on to the back foot by believers, who feel they have the default position. "I believe in this, so, as you don't agree with me, you are a non-believer. An a-theist (without God.)" Well no thanks. That makes me sort of negative, and at this moment I don't feel especially negative, thanks. I'm not having people who believe in entirely improbable beings, for whom there is neither evidence nor explanation, defining me. I'm not having people who have come to an entirely irrational conclusion about how the universe should be explained characterising me. I'll discuss this on my territory (if at all), not theirs, thank you very much. I'll make just one small concession: you may call me an atheist, even though this insulting term puts me squarely on your turf, simply because we need to use a convenient word that everyone gets. But don't get big ideas from that that I take your big ideas seriously. I don't. You're deluded!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 07:57 PM

Anyone who thinks there's anything random in evolution doesn't understand evolution. Not in the slightest. The word doesn't belong in any discussion of evolution.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 08:02 PM

"As living entities reproduce, they are just re-arranging some of the matter/energy which has not dissipated thru entropy. "

If you can't understand HOW a more complex structure like a more complex molecule being built up by processes that process/transmute energy/matter from less complex components, 'displays entropy', i.e. the transition of energy from higher states to lower states, then you certainly won't benefit from me trying to expound and express thousands of PHD theses and millions of man hours of laboratory research in any length message that anybody would read here.

It's taken ME my whole life to just understand enough to peek under the rug.... and be totally unsatisfied by the 'my magical sky fairy did it all, now just shut up and obey me' approach.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 08:02 PM

"There is one mystery I will concede that science may not be able to answer, and that is the question of what existed before our universe began."

This is a bogus mystery and your notion of it demonstrates that you don't understand space-time. Go and read some Hawking.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 08:07 PM

No real atheist believes that getting the 100th post wins him anything.... ☺

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 08:23 PM

"...anything random in evolution..."

Um, well...do you consider a cosmic ray altering a gene random? In some ways it isn't, but for all practical considerations there ARE 'random' events. If all you mean is that physical causality proceeds in a complex, but often unpredictable way, it's kinda trivial.

If 'chance' had not allowed the primordial 'Eve' to carry baby 'X' to term, we might not be having this discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 08:33 PM

"Anyone who thinks there's anything random in evolution doesn't understand evolution. Not in the slightest. "

I agree with you Steve, and also love your response to the word 'Atheist'! They also don't know what the word 'random' means.

The problem with the layman using the word 'random' is that they don't know what it means to Scientists/Mathematicians. Random events are in fact 'totally predictable' using Statistical Theory. If it's not totally predictable using Statistical Theory, then it's just not Random!

That hurts your head, doesn't it? :-)

You see I didn't say that any particular event outcome is definitely one thing or another, just that one event or another occurs in a certain predictable ratio to the other possible outcomes. Statistics!

Example - the sun will appear above the horizon tomorrow, irrespective of any cloud or eclipses or any other known event - probability of 0.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 ... (that means ellipsis - or omitted material!) 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999...

Now rolling a 'fair' dice will always produce one of 6 equally probable events - probability 1 in 6. A sane mathematician cannot bet his house that the next throw will be a 6, but we mere mortal laymen 'bet' all the time to play 'games'... :-)

Now you can define for yourself what any word means to you (and you alone!) - like our friend Conrad's 'definition' of 'Folk Music' - i.e.. Free Beer and crapping in hedges! - but since, as Humpty Dumpty said (thru Lewis Carol) "A word means just what I want to to mean (at any particular point in time!)" everybody has 'different things that it means in their minds' and that only impedes clear communication between minds, leading only to confusing obfuscation, and only resulting in irrational illogical nonsense being promoted as some form of 'Absolute Truth'... so there is plenty of room for 'magical sky fairies' ... :-)

FSM RULES!!!!
:-P

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 08:34 PM

Unlike 'Religion', as you describe, 'Science' isn't the slightest bit interested in 'stopping progress'.

Exactly, it was not science I was referering to, as I have respect for science...as to belittling comments, it is for those who try and shape science into something else for another gain...

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 08:39 PM

"There is one mystery I will concede that science may not be able to answer, and that is the question of what existed before our universe began."

"This is a bogus mystery and your notion of it demonstrates that you don't understand space-time. Go and read some Hawking".

Sorry, this was not my quote, (If you read it properly, you would not have made such a foolish accusation of me) but that of a skeptical scientist (his name is there to see)....and btw, healthy science is ripe with skeptics.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 08:40 PM

randomness

It IS important to specify which sense you mean.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 08:42 PM

"healthy science is ripe with skeptics"

Skepticism is essentially part of 'Science' otherwise we'd all still be sitting around trying to transmute chickenshit into gold for very large fees ....

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 08:55 PM

"Skepticism is essentially part of 'Science' otherwise we'd all still be sitting around trying to transmute chickenshit into gold for very large fees"

I have worked with many scientists from many countries for the past 31 years. But, I have never seen any of them conducting research with chickenshit. So, I will have to take your word for that one :)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 09:05 PM

"randomness

It IS important to specify which sense you mean"

I am specifying that there is no room for this term in a discussion of evolution. Nothing that happens to make species change is ever random in that there will always be a cause. Mutations are never random, in spite of the ludicrous received-wisdom term "random mutations." Natural selection is the very opposite of random. "Random" is a term that is overwhelmingly used by people who just don't get evolution.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 09:12 PM

Well ed, I kind of assumed that because you were quoting it you were endorsing it. Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 09:15 PM

"...in that there will always be a cause."

Ok... that is basically correct, though, as I said, almost trivial for most discussions beyond physics.

We MEAN something by 'random mutations' in many discussions.

Now...I am leaving for 3 days, so I will not be ignoring any replies..

Ya'll have fun!

"Entropy Will Get You If You Don't Watch Out!"




In fact, entropy will get you even if you DO watch out!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 10:29 PM

If Entropy don't get you, then Enthalpy will!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 10:31 PM

Steve Shaw - huh?

"I am specifying that there is no room for this term in a discussion of evolution. Nothing that happens to make species change is ever random in that there will always be a cause. Mutations are never random, in spite of the ludicrous received-wisdom term "random mutations." Natural selection is the very opposite of random. "Random" is a term that is overwhelmingly used by people who just don't get evolution."

If we are talking about mutations, I agree with Bill D that it depends on your definition of "random", but will you allow "spontaneous"? "accidental"? "happening by chance"?

The sources of genetic variation upon which natural (or artificial) selection may act most often have a high degree of chance involved. In addition, not all mutations lead to variation on which selection acts; they may be neutral. Not all evolutionary change is due to selection; population bottlenecks may lead to genetic drift, which is a process reliant on chance.

Try Evolution 101. (This whole site is one of the best ones available on the topic.)

Folks who are really adamant about a topic, who toss around exclamation marks (that would be Foolestroupe, not you), and who talk about what people get and don't get ought to be sure their own understanding is good...

The magic (in the sense of wondrousness) of life (using this as a biological term) is the way it works against entropy, but entropy is certainly a partner in the process.

~ Becky in Long Beach

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 10:37 PM

"it works against entropy"

It only appears to. The total energy 'potential' after the changes over a long enough period of time has still increased entropy. Now if you do 'Work' you can 'pump up' the energy in a small system (transferring and transmuting energy), but you get that energy into that system by running down the energy in another system. You can charge a car battery from a wall socket, but you get a higher home electricity bill ... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 10:51 PM

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC1aRandom.shtml
(experiments have made it clear that many mutations are in fact "random," and did not occur because the organism was placed in a situation where the mutation would be useful. For example, if you expose bacteria to an antibiotic, you will likely observe an increased prevalence of antibiotic resistance.)
&
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC1bLederberg.shtml
(The hypothesis for the experiment is that antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria surviving an application of antibiotics had the resistance before their exposure to the antibiotics, not as a result of the exposure.)

uses the term 'random' merely to demonstrate contrast to 'directed' mutations - 'did not evolve resistance in response to exposure to the antibiotic' which would have been a 'directed' mutation. Here, random merely means - no control exercised in the context of the exposure to antibiotics, by the case of the exposure itself.

This of course is merely using the same 'word' to have a different semantic content in a different field to the semantic content used in Mathematics.

We really need blatantly obvious 'semantic signals' to stop the untrained (one could also say 'layman') from just grabbing all the semantic baggage of a 'word' from one field and dragging into another unrelated field where it creates unnecessary and unwanted obfuscation.

FSM Rules!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 10:57 PM

The true test of a Pastafarian would be what?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 10:59 PM

Oh, and by the way:

"The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance"

--Robert Coveyou

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 11:06 PM

FT, it's not clear to me whether you and Steve Shaw are having the same difficulty with the use of the word, "random".

~ B in LB

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 11:19 PM

Mutations are quite random in both the scientific and colloquial sense.
Whether they are beneficial, detrimental, or negligible is up to environment...i.e. natural selection.
Natural selection is itself not random at all, but relentlessly directed (albeit with a direction ... sometimes changing...dictated by environment).
Whew. Now I am tired.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 11:39 PM

I've never heard of the slogan Jim Carroll attributes to the Christian Brothers, "Give me a child of five and I will give you a believer for life."

I AM familiar with a Jesuit slogan that is very similar, "Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man." I assumed that meant that the first seven years of life are formative, and have a strong effect on who we are as adults.


And on another note, how do I become a Pastafarian? Make mine tortellini, please.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 11:54 PM

"Mutations are quite random in both the scientific and colloquial sense."

It was pretty clear to me (someone who struggles at what I consider only a passing grade in maths :) that the comment 'there are no random mutations in genetics' is coming from someone with a strong mathematics background. Because the mathematician does not just wave his hands in the air and say "well it's all bloody random, you know!"

No computer system can give you truly random numbers either - they are all 'pseudo-random' - all generated by a mathematical calculation. They also use a 'seed number' too, sometimes you can even specify which one for particular purposes. Seen those games that allow you to replay a particular 'card or mahjong' type game sequence by inputting a 'magic number'?

When you dig into mathematical analysis of genetic mutations - a currently cutting edge field, for there is still just much discussion and little agreement on what all the possible outcomes are, let alone what are the probabilities for each outcome are, you may understand why that statement about 'scientific sense' to be just as much nonsense as it is in any other scientific field, especially in the field of 'gambling analysis' - the original starting area of the field of 'analysis of possible outcomes'. If you really wanted the semantic sense of 'no control', or 'no predetermination' it's easier and clearer to just say 'unrestrained outcomes'....

Sorry about that Chief!

Of course you will find many mathematicians still love to gamble anyway... that's just their inherent humanity...

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 11:56 PM

How do I become a Pastafarian?

:-P

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 11:58 PM

Ok - I'll agree that the post above

From: GUEST,Sunny - PM
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 11:46 PM

The song   I had but fifty cents....."Peg" Moreland about 1926 or 1928    The versions I'm seeing are not the one on the record. Flip side "That's a habit I never had"

is truly 'random' ok?

But really, it;s not, he just posted it to the rong thread...


Oh Shut up!

:-P

---

But I moved it to the proper thread, so it is no longer random. -Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 04:08 AM

Sorry Joe, you can't become a pastafarian any more than I could become a Catholic. You have to seriously believe you see...

I like being an actual member of a religion now, it is giving me a sense of purpose that was obviously lacking when I went through life without any hang ups...

Right, sorry. Serious point time...

This thread is drifting into entropy / probability territory. Quite appropriately, as a common aim of science and theology is pondering why we are here and how. The more I read on why a quantum event such as the big bang can foster a fairly non quantum reality such as that we can observe is not only one of life's mysteries, I would argue it is the one we should all be asking if indeed we are asking anything about how we got to where we are today.

Assuming our hubble sphere (observable universe) observes similar laws to other hubble spheres....   ah.. there you see, we are drifting into hypothesis already and that means religious interpretations can be valid till proven otherwise. we are no further forward.

Off to grate some parmisan...

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 04:46 AM

Bill D: "Now THAT is a basic misunderstanding of both entropy and evolution. 'Evolving' is changing..."

I apologize for not being more clear. In the context of 'evolving' I was referring to the Evolution THEORY...actually, I said that...you misunderstood, for some reason(doesn't matter).
In the evolution theory, living beings evolve to preserve life, and adapt..entropy, things decay.

Which direction do you think we, are going?..Are we somehow evolving to a higher life form, as in fish to birds, to mammals to apes to humans?
Or humans to decay and oblivion?

Same question to Foolestroupe.....(or anyone who may agree or disagree)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Slag
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 05:02 AM

Scientifically, life is anything that causes a local and temporary reversal in the process of entropy. This definition pretty much covers all that is neccessary and sufficient to describe life.

Entropy is the tendency of all energies to arrive in time to a state of equalibrium.

Randomness can be defined as a result of entropy with regards to location of any given object or set of objects within a defined space in relation to a given location point of the same object or set of objects during a kinetic energy phase and after equalibrium is attained (absolut zero). Randomness is thus unknowable as no such stability has ever been known to occur and is, in fact, most unlikely to occur and is therefore unforeseeable.

I too, have read Hawking and I would think that he would be most upset at anyone pointing to him as the final word of authority on any subject.

Also, the Universe is a very strange place and it is unclear that the laws of physics, which are locally known, that is, within the observable universe from our general location within the same, are the same everywhere. This assumption tends to be borne out by theoretical physicists such as Stephen Hawking.

One of the strangest aspect of our universe is that with current knowledge it appears to have evolved from a near uniform entity which could be described as near random and through its continued evolution has produced an ever increasing higher order(s) of complexity(s). From a near plasmic, photonic fog within the first few microseconds to photons, ions, baryons and atoms of both helium and hydrogen with the latter being the dominate element by about 80%. From there to stars galaxies and the nuclear smelt of heavier elements and the formation of planets and in at least one instance, the formation of life. This seems to run counter to a cornerstone of the science of physics, the deduction of thermodynamics, the Second Law (which was actually the first law). Curiouser and curiouser!

And yet if the universe is an undirected occurence, that is, if no intellect is involved in it's creation, then it is quite plausable to argue that ALL is random and we must then accept that all events and occurences are random, including life which clearly, on a local level, runs diametrically to entropy. And if we human beings are truly random events, then all we do, say and think are also random events. And even if I predict that I will hit the capital "Z" key on my key board ten times in a row and then do so, whereby causing a series of the letter "Z" representaions to appear on any monitor which happens to be set to receive this forum, it IS a random event. Oh yes it is! ZZZZZZZZZZ. Gee, some of my letters appear to be more random than others!

Such a view point may seem absurd but that is what I see if you take God out of the picture. And, BTW, I deny any and all responsibility for anything, ever! After all, I'm just a random event!

Gee, talk aaabooout threaadddd driiiifffffttttttlooioiunhnsdhijhe3r7y4hfoihi8uqgu98jhbfiuiui8y98yi9u8

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 05:12 AM

Hey, Slag,..Nice to see you're still up. HI!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 05:15 AM

Slag: "Scientifically, life is anything that causes a local and temporary reversal in the process of entropy. This definition pretty much covers all that is necessary and sufficient to describe life."

Would you say, "life is light that came into darkness" is consistent with your above quote?

Smiling,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Slag
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 05:43 AM

"And in him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprhended it not." John chapter 1 verses 4 and 5. No, there is nothing random there. It's all tied up with destiny and the like. You know, a directed and non-random approach.

The scientific definition covers all physical life of which that community currently upon the face of this planet, of scientists and those convinced of the absolute correctness of the reasoning process known as the scientific method, would call life. Such method has no known way of delving into that which might be called spiritual.

Yep. I've always been a nightowl. My son came up with an evolutionary theory of why some of us are nightowls. It is a survival phenomenon from prehistoric times. If some of the troop of us bipedal apes did not sleep in times of dark but were naturally awake and alert, then we would be a layer of protection against beasies and things that go "bump" in the night. We're a built in alarm system for the tribe!. Makes sense, in an evolutionary sort of way. And regardless of why or how it came to be, it still makes sense to have some of us awake to face the darkness and bring light when and where needed!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 06:22 AM

A mutation is miscopying of heritable material. If you want to demonstrate that any such miscopying is random you're going to have to show that there was no cause. We know of many causes of genetic miscopying, but if we see an example to which we can't easily assign a cause it is not justifiable to insert "random." It is simply that we have almost certainly failed to detect the cause. It is far more reasonable to assume that there was probably a cause that we haven't been able to detect than to throw up our hands and declare that it was random.

In an odd way this reflects the attitude of some religious believers who automatically insert God into any gap of understanding we happen to have.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 06:57 AM

"In the evolution theory, living beings evolve to preserve life, and adapt ... evolving to a higher life form, as in fish to birds, to mammals to apes to humans"

That's somewhat of a clever misrepresentation, in that you have a hidden religious agenda, in 'Evolution theory' things just react to changes around them, if they survive, life continues - if not, bye bye loser - something like 90-99% of all life forms ever evolved have already gone extinct, so I heard.

Your thesis (fish to birds, to mammals to apes to humans, etc) displays that you don't understand Scientific 'Evolution Theory' at all - that what you say is NOT what any but those ignorant religious fundamentalists out to discredit 'Evolution' keep babbling! What Evolution Theory IS - refers to the concept that ONE PREVIOUS entity evolved into OTHER later entities, e.g. BOTH APES AND HUMANS!

To claim that things 'move upward thru evolution' is thus a religious not scientific perspective, based on the religious delusion without any evidence but 'faith' that 'man' is the 'highest form of life, just under the Angels'.... but since certain parasites that can ONLY live on/inside humans exist, they must have evolved AFTER man (or the magic invisible sky fairy created them after he magiced up man!), so THEY must be a higher life form by your OWN thesis...


All living entities decay, once they stop transforming energy to fight entropy. Even non-living entities decay, like houses, once the occupant stop fighting entropy by regular maintenance and repair..

Sings "This Old House..." (now it's a music thread?)

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 07:02 AM

Living things evolve without goal.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 07:07 AM

Steve Shaw

A mutation is miscopying of heritable material. If you want to demonstrate that any such miscopying is random you're going to have to show that there was no cause.

I'm sorry Steve, but are you arguing in support of directed mutation? Are you claiming that the changed sequence of DNA base pairs was actually caused in some way?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: theleveller
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 08:36 AM

"All living entities decay, once they stop transforming energy to fight entropy. Even non-living entities decay, like houses, once the occupant stop fighting entropy by regular maintenance and repair.."

Ah, so that would be the meaning of soft and hard entropic priciples, I presume.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: olddude
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 08:57 AM

Well said Slag, well said

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 09:01 AM

Wither entropy?

The argument for evolution versus entropy is rather academic. If evolution meant getting better and more efficient, then it would defeat entropy. But evolution doesn't. We have evolved into being rather lazy, mainly through no real predators, (other than each other.) A few thousand years ago, I would have had bulging biceps and a six pack rather than a bulging belly and the whole barrel.

To pit entropy against evolution is the same as wondering how a quantum event can produce a seemingly non quantum physical universe. Apples & pears if you ask me.

(Mind you, I didn't get away with that in my PhD thesis... I recall being pushed on comparison, even though my subject was oscillation of otherwise inert media....)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 09:10 AM

QUOTE
A mutation is miscopying of heritable material. If you want to demonstrate that any such miscopying is random you're going to have to show that there was no cause.

I'm sorry Steve, but are you arguing in support of directed mutation?
UNQUOTE

No

QUOTE
Are you claiming that the changed sequence of DNA base pairs was actually caused in some way?
UNQUOTE

Are you claiming that changes occur 'without cause' - i.e. 'randomly' (in the sense of being 'uncontrolled')?

No change without Cause - and we don't need the 'directed mutation' concept, which is an intellectual red herring in the context of your question - and there is still no need for magical sky fairies - the surviving children of the WWII Dutch Famine Winter had serious problems caused because of environmental factors - such as starvation.

It's now been understood that germ cell changes can occur if the parents experience certain environmental factors - then changes (miscopyings) DO occur (but not quite like the giraffes 'stretching their neck' to reach the top leaves!).

For example, the dietary efficiency of a child may be affected depending on whether the parents experienced severe 'feast or famine' or the young child did - the girls have their germ cells (ovaries) formed in vitro, but the guys germ cells (sperm) don't start getting getting formed till puberty. Consequently, if the 'hardships' are experienced during those particular times for each sex, then the research shows that genetic miscopyings occur. As a working hypothesis, there does seem to be a causal link that we as yet can't define exactly what chemical reactions occurred, what enzymes were in excess or shortage, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 09:18 AM

"the research shows that genetic miscopyings occur"

oops - sent too soon - I should have said

"the research shows that genetic miscopyings occur which are transmitted to the next generation. This occurs due to changes in the actual germ cells of the creature undergoing the environmental stress - a breakthrough discovery, but the demonstrated mechanism now does exist to explain why genetic pattern changes can occur 'relatively rapidly', i.e. over non-geological time periods, and that relatively simple causal mechanisms also exist."

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 11:08 AM

"but since certain parasites that can ONLY live on/inside humans exist, they must have evolved AFTER man"

Not necessarily so...could they not , just as easily, entered the human body as a generalist, later specializing only on humans after many years.

'man' is the 'highest form of life, just under the Angels'

Possibly much like a theory put forward by the RC pope. Seems more reasonable to also include women... and while you are at it, why not the octopus?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 11:34 AM

I am not at home and not in a position to read the thread, just Slag's thought-provoking intro. So apologies if I am repeating a point already made.

Slag was curious to know why aetheists don't just leave believers to get on with it. The answer in my case is that religious faith distorts loyalties. Or to put it more neutrally, it results in loyalties to perceived higher authorities which may, or may not, exist. The self-distructing jihadist is an extreme example; a slightly milder example would be the 19th century mill worker persuaded to expect his reward in heaven rather than hope for it on earth. Moreover religion has been exploited by many regimes, not least Constantine's, thanks to which Christianity not only survived but became one of the world's leading religions.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 11:54 AM


I am specifying that there is no room for this term in a discussion of evolution. Nothing that happens to make species change is ever random in that there will always be a cause. Mutations are never random, in spite of the ludicrous received-wisdom term "random mutations."

If you mean mutations that survive and propagate, you're right.

But at the cellular level, I wonder. Yes, I suppose that if a cell comes up with a change there may have been a stressor of some kind that made some change more likely. (Note "suppose" and "of some kind" and "more likely".) But the environmental change (say the presence of some mutation-encouraging chemical) doesn't, as I understand, determine the nature of the cellular mutation.

Given the occurrence of a cellular mutation, and assuming that the offspring is viable, we get to Darwin, with natural selection. At that point I certainly agree that one could not validly call the process random.

But it's important to note (perhaps getting off the immediate point) that the process is not at any point teleological or purposeful. It has no intent or target; it's not "to improve the species". It may possibly end up doing so, but chance combinations of factors play a big role in that, and a mutated organism may have an advantage for current conditions, elbowing out the unmutated population, only to find that the result is harmful in the longer run, say if conditions change.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 12:07 PM

Foolestroup: Not only have you avoided the issue, by accusing me of being slipping 'fundamentalist' Christian teachings, into the mix, you've misstated what is being said, to manipulate the topic to argue against a simile, I gave to Slag, to suit your personal, point of view, so you can comfortably argue it on your personal point of view, which seems to contradict itself. Then you assert claims, of which you have NO proof, other than your OPINION.

I think you are playing to impress the audience, rather than, having a discussion, finding consistency, with the theories you quote....and trying to make it appear true. I think you could do a little better than that, at least in admitting that some theories pick up, where others leave off, or at least, conflict with each other, at certain points.

The true test of an atheist, perhaps??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: olddude
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 12:24 PM

Well then how about this one:

All I really need to know about how to live and what to do and how to be I learned in kindergarten. Wisdom was not at the top of the graduate school mountain, but there in the sand pile at school.
These are the things I learned:

    * Share everything.
    * Play fair.
    * Don't hit people.
    * Put things back where you found them.
    * Clean up your own mess.
    * Don't take things that aren't yours.
    * Say you're sorry when you hurt somebody.
    * Wash your hands before you eat.
    * Flush.
    * Warm cookies and cold milk are good for you.
    * Live a balanced life - learn some and think some and draw and paint and sing and dance and play and work every day some.
    * Take a nap every afternoon.
    * When you go out in the world, watch out for traffic, hold hands and stick together.
    * Be aware of wonder. Remember the little seed in the Styrofoam cup: the roots go down and the plant goes up and nobody really knows how or why, but we are all like that.
    * Goldfish and hamsters and white mice and even the little seed in the Styrofoam cup - they all die. So do we.
    * And then remember the Dick-and-Jane books and the first word you learned - the biggest word of all - LOOK.

Everything you need to know is in there somewhere. The Golden Rule and love and basic sanitation. Ecology and politics and equality and sane living.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 12:57 PM

Foolestroupe

Are you claiming that changes occur 'without cause' - i.e. 'randomly' (in the sense of being 'uncontrolled')?

I'm not claiming anything, I'm just trying to clarify what is being claimed. Are you and Steve claiming that there is a cause for the specific new order of bases after the miscopying?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 01:15 PM

Thank you, Foolestroupe!

I have no idea what directed mutation could possibly be.

Imagine (not that you have to - it's real enough) two identical strands of DNA. One of them mutates and the other stays as it is (duh). Let's suppose (more difficult) that every environmental condition had been absolutely identical for both those pieces of DNA. Then I might have to admit that the change was random (I wouldn't like the term much, applied to a single example, but hey ho). But did I just say "more difficult?" I think I might well have meant well-nigh impossible. It is often difficult to pin a particular cause to a particular mutation, but that's only because we don't understand everything yet. What you can't say is that the change happened without cause. Well you can say it but I wouldn't believe you. I'd want to be looking ever more closely for a cause. But because I don't care for "random mutation" it doesn't mean I believe in "directed mutation." The cause is there, the DNA is there but they are blind to each other.

Natural selection gets to work ruthlessly on mutations, but there is no goal. That isn't to say that there won't be progress in a particular direction, but that is not the same as a goal. Likewise, evolution doesn't have a goal nor an end-point, something which is misunderstood by those who claim that God kick-started evolution then let nature get on with it (poor old God is even more redundant than that). Evolution is full of dead ends, wacky failures, Heath Robinson arrangements and natural extinctions. Even if I did believe in God (heaven forfend...oops!) I'd be pretty annoyed with him for pissing around like that.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 01:23 PM

"Are you and Steve claiming that there is a cause for the specific new order of bases after the miscopying?"

Why not? There would be a cause for the initial impetus to change and a cause for the particular way of recombining. The specific new order of bases you refer to will almost certainly be completely useless, remember. There will be millions (I'm guessing) of duff, or worse than duff, mutations for every potentially-useful one. There's nothing intelligent going on.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 01:36 PM

Steve Shaw: "...Likewise, evolution doesn't have a goal nor an end-point, something which is misunderstood by those who claim that God kick-started evolution then let nature get on with it (poor old God is even more redundant than that). Evolution is full of dead ends, wacky failures, Heath Robinson arrangements and natural extinctions. Even if I did believe in God (heaven forfend...oops!) "

The phrase that I gave Slag, about "light coming into darkness", which he gave a parallel quote from the Bible, does not mean that there should be "...misunderstood by those who claim that God kick-started evolution then let nature get on with it (poor old God is even more redundant than that)."...Reason: ALL things are made of light, and/or light energy. So, what will the 'atheists' start blathering about now??...That there is no light????

Until they think that one through, I'll just do something else, while waiting for their light to go on!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 01:41 PM

Damn. And I could have sworn I was stardust. I don't understand your post and I have to go and mend the washing machine and put the chip pan on.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 01:45 PM

That's okay Steve, it will be here. You can come back to it later, and figure it out. Its not THAT complicated.....
.....then again, it may take LIGHT years!....(wink)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Stringsinger
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 05:11 PM

Slag, there are a lot of misconceptions being bandied about as to what atheism is.
These misconceptions need to be clarified and addressed if we are as a people to
embrace plurality and diversity in our thinking. When religious people make outrageous assertions, they need to be answered rationally. Many of these assertions have to do
with atheism and religion. Hence, the long threads are on the subject.

Those who want atheists to "keep quiet" also probably support "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

Nothing socially has ever been accomplished by sweeping inaccuracies and outlandish statements under the carpet. The true test of an atheist is to speak out when others try to distort or make false assumptions about their point-of-view.

Making the false assumption that atheism is another belief systems isn't true. Atheism means not-believing in theology or a god. It is not a religion. When that atheism is not accepted rationally and is given a reactionary and sometimes violent rebuttal, then as in GLBT or Civil Rights for Blacks, it becomes necessary to speak out regarding injustice.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: John P
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 05:31 PM

Reason: ALL things are made of light, and/or light energy. So, what will the 'atheists' start blathering about now??...That there is no light????

I have no problem with the concept, and light obviously exists. My problem is with the leap of logic that says this proves that a virgin gave birth to someone who was all man and all god at the same time, who died and came back to life, and who washed away our sins, whatever that means.

There are many, many things that clearly exist but that science can't define or measure. I have never, however, seen anything to suggest that any of these phenomena proves (or even implies) that gods exist, much less the specific doctrinal claims of any religion.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Stringsinger
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 05:43 PM

Then there is the the question of Separation of Church and State. When religion is imposed politically or in terms of laws without redress, then to sweep this under the carpet is tantamount to cowardice.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Stringsinger
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 05:51 PM

There may be a causality to Evolutionary processes as you would fold (as Dawkins has pointed out) an origami boat out of paper. Randomness is the propaganda offered by religionists. Evolution makes no such claim. But causality doesn't mean a single "creator" any more than a god decides to strike you down with a thunderbolt. The "First Cause" theological argument has been debunked many times as "OK, who or what caused the First Cause?"

Just because science has not yet uncovered causality in the Big Bank theory doesn't mean
that it isn't there. One thing for sure, not one sky god or super creator caused that as
Hawkings has pointed out so eloquently. He also maintains that this idea is irrelevant
to what happened scientifically.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 05:58 PM

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Stephen Roberts quote

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 06:02 PM

Repost - did not stick after previewing and then posting - lucky I saved it....

QUOTE
"Not only have you avoided the issue, by accusing me of being slipping 'fundamentalist' Christian teachings, into the mix, you've misstated what is being said"
UNQUOTE

Unfortunately what you said is exactly what the 'Creationists' and now 'ID' proponents say to deliberately twist and misrepresent something that not only is it clear that they DO not want to understand, but FEAR that if they do and accept, they will lose temporal power in manipulating others. From the very beginning of the publication of the concepts of Darwin and Wallace, such religious fanatics have trumpeted that 'evolution cannot exist, cause my magic sky fairy did it - and we do not believe that Man evolved from monkeys'. Science never said that Man did.

Once you bring forth that same misrepresentation, whether you are one of that crowd, or just a misinformed layman (whether you have been brainwashed by those with a political agenda to 'discredit Darwin' or not), it doesn't matter. The type of thinking that leads on from the thought that species A -> B when both are still current will lead you round in circles of blind misunderstanding. For example it is conventionally accepted to say that 'the sun rises', but unless you REALLY UNDERSTAND that what is happening is different, based on bigger ideas, you have not progressed from the sort of thinking that caused persecution of the man who wrote the book with the maths and said it was just mathematically easier to think differently than the accepted norm of the times. Sadly he BELIEVED in their magic sky fairy anyway, but because he was seen as a threat to their Power, he had to be destroyed - hardly an Act of Love by worshipers of a God of Supreme Love!

You see Science says species A -> both B & C - just because you insist on using the same semantic label for two of the entities doesn't make them the same thing in Science - there are also genetic differences - so before the days of being able to actually examine the DNA, it was probably understandable that the thinking was fuzzy. If you claim that 'man descended from monkeys' then you have to say 'which species of monkey' and since all the species are different from each other (by definition!) AND Man - you are saying something that Science doesn't, and misrepresenting the position of Science. The difference may be far too subtle for some minds to grasp, but it IS critical and fundamental to Science.

Trying to then castigate someone for saying/believing something you don't understand, misrepresenting what they really DID say takes us back to the the time of burning witches. Why is she a Witch? Because I say she is - or even more evidence, my magic sky fairy told me she was. Some of the most clever men of the time in the church began to realize that something wasn't right, and that is WHY the witch burnings were stopped. A lot of people still had the need to believe they existed though.... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 06:02 PM

"It is an interesting and demonstrable fact, that all children are atheists and were religion not inculcated into their minds, they would remain so" Ernestine Rose quote

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 06:10 PM

"There may be Gods, but they care not what men do."
(Henry David Thoreau, writer and philosopher /1817-1862)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 06:15 PM

"Just because science has not yet uncovered causality in the Big Bank theory"

Ahhh so that's why the GFC happened...


:-P

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: olddude
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 06:24 PM

Strings
my dear friend, again there are no laws based on religion but on social and moral accepted codes of behavior to preserve a society. History taught us if you kill and steal your society will collapse. Those laws that were based on religion were unconstitutional. No one goes to jail because they missed church. School prayer was a good example, it was based on religion and was rendered illegal (rightfully so) But we had the law for many many years because no one challenged it. If laws such as this still exist in some states then it waits to be challenged. The Supreme Court doesn't go looking for cases, it rules on cases brought to them. I cannot speak for other countries, just my own.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 06:48 PM

QUOTE
Making the false assumption that atheism is another belief systems isn't true. Atheism means not-believing in theology or a god. It is not a religion
UNQUOTE

It is closer to say that it is in fact 'anti-religious thinking' - something which frightens those with religious beliefs of any kind - so they make fun and denigrate by saying, an atheist eh? Oh you are still religious though - atheism is just your religion.... haha!

Not Funny, really!

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 07:23 PM

The True Test of an Atheist is whether they can stand up when misrepresented and say

"What part of No! can't you understand?"

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: John P
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 07:46 PM

Actually, there is no true test of an atheist. They are as varied in nuance as any other group of people. I, for one, don't feel any need to test my atheism. Or defend it.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 08:10 PM

There is nothing to test. "Atheism" is no more than a convenient one-word term to define us. Being the affable souls we atheists are, we put up with that. But atheism is not non-this or anti-that. To acquiesce in that is to accept that the deluded-religious can define us. Well they're not defining me, thanks. Anyone who wishes to define me had better show that they are doing it rationally. Religious people fall well short of that qualification. Call me an anti-cosmic teapot bloke and I'll laugh in your face. People who define me as a non-believer in their highly-improbable God deserve no better.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 08:56 PM

Steve Shaw

I have no idea what directed mutation could possibly be.

Well, you'd better ask Foolestroupe. He's the one who introduced the term in his post of 30 Sep 10 - 10:51 PM .

"Are you and Steve claiming that there is a cause for the specific new order of bases after the miscopying?"

Why not? There would be a cause for the initial impetus to change and a cause for the particular way of recombining.

That sounds as if you are saying that there is mechanism in a bacterium that says "Aha! I'm being exposed to Methicillin. I'd better make some changes to my DNA. I'll just change that Adenine to a Thymine and that'll sort it out." That sounds dangerously close to Lamarckism.

The specific new order of bases you refer to will almost certainly be completely useless, remember.

Quite. The sequence of bases resulting from the change, whatever the cause for the change, is random; it's natural selection that determines whether it is any use or not or, more specifically, whwther it survives.

Just so we don't waste any time on side issues, God does not come into the argument in my problems with what you are saying.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 09:21 PM

"Why not? There would be a cause for the initial impetus to change and a cause for the particular way of recombining.

That sounds as if you are saying that there is mechanism in a bacterium that says "Aha! I'm being exposed to Methicillin. I'd better make some changes to my DNA. I'll just change that Adenine to a Thymine and that'll sort it out." That sounds dangerously close to Lamarckism."

It doesn't sound like anything of the sort. You are talking in terms of goals and I have comprehensively dismissed this already more than once. The cause and the resultant change are blind to each other. Not difficult.


"Quite. The sequence of bases resulting from the change, whatever the cause for the change, is random; it's natural selection that determines whether it is any use or not or, more specifically, whwther it survives."

The sequence is a result of causes. Absolutely not random. Natural selection is not a determining force: it is blind, without goals. On one island the mutation may be beneficial, on another the self-same mutation may be useless. Natural selection does not work directly on genes, but on favourable (or not) expressed attributes according to the prevailing environmental circumstances. Read your Darwin.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Slag
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 11:43 PM

My own thread is getting hard to follow! A few items. Some may be surprised I'm fine with evolution as a theory and adaptation as a reality. It would be awfully stupid of a creator to make critters in a world to have the ability to change to meet the vicissitudes of a planet that undergoes change via the sun's fluctuations, the moon's gravity, seasons due to axial tilt, plate tectonic and so on. There is no book in the Bible entitled "How I Did It, by God!". Why? Because as far as a human relationship with deity is concerned, those thing are practically irrelevant. That is not the point. Personally I find science of all sorts most interesting as it tends to satisfy my curiosity about most phenomena. The history of Western thought is also extremely interesting. When scientific reasoning was first enunciated the world changed. How human beings think changed. And what a tool for discovery and understanding. The acceleration of knowledge and general betterment of mankind took a tremendous upward surge that is still sky rocketing into every aspect of the physical universe.

But the human condition has not changed. I won't harp on that. It is my opinion that we humans are flawed beings.

If you begin with God, God being who and what He is, is capable of doing literally anything, anyway He wants. It can make sense in the human mind or not and none of what we may think or believe does not affect the nature of God one scintilla.

You can almost say the same for the state the field of theoretical physics is in. The nature of physics is such that in a multi-verse of infinite dimension anything is possible, just not always observable or verifiable. But rigorous mathematical considerations have brought us to this point in our understanding of the nature of the universe we find ourselves in.

There are people who do not believe science. There are people who do not believe IN science and the reasons are many. Some fear what science may unleash upon Humankind. Some do not have the intellectual capacity to understand and follow the pathways of science. And some cannot resolve the conflict they see between science and religion.

The reverse is true for religion and religious experience, for want of a better term. There are many scientist who believe in God or an entity outside their abilities to apprehend with the tools of scientific thought and there are those who don't and it is really as simple as that. Either you do or you don't.

And the point of that is the thrust of my initial question. I could turn it around in a religious forum and ask why are so many Christians intimidate by science? To me it reflects a fundamental lack of faith to be frightened by the powers of man and his mind. I would ask the religionist isn't your God all powerful or is he limited to YOUR ability to understand? If so, that would reduce their faith to superstition and I really think that a lot of so called Christians operate at that level. They have to protect their God and their own minds from "evil" superior powers. They worship a very small God.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 11:46 PM

"I have no idea what directed mutation could possibly be.

Well, you'd better ask Foolestroupe. He's the one who introduced the term"

I just quoted them from the 'lesson' linked to in a previous post by someone else.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 12:24 AM

Foolestroup: "I just quoted them from the 'lesson' linked to in a previous post by someone else."

It would be far more interesting to have a discussion, with you, if you knew what you were talking about!....don't you think?

As so far as your post: "Unfortunately what you said is exactly what the 'Creationists' and now 'ID' proponents say to deliberately twist and misrepresent something that not only is it clear that they DO not want to understand, but FEAR that if they do and accept, they will lose temporal power in manipulating others. From the very beginning of the publication of the concepts of Darwin and Wallace, such religious fanatics have trumpeted that 'evolution cannot exist, cause my magic sky fairy did it - and we do not believe that Man evolved from monkeys'. Science never said that Man did."

This is my quote: "Not only have you avoided the issue, by accusing me of being slipping 'fundamentalist' Christian teachings, into the mix, you've misstated what is being said, to manipulate the topic to argue against a simile, I gave to Slag, to suit your personal, point of view, so you can comfortably argue it on your personal point of view, which seems to contradict itself. Then you assert claims, of which you have NO proof, other than your OPINION.

I think you are playing to impress the audience, rather than, having a discussion, finding consistency, with the theories you quote....and trying to make it appear true. I think you could do a little better than that, at least in admitting that some theories pick up, where others leave off, or at least, conflict with each other, at certain points."

Now underline: "to manipulate the topic to argue against a simile, I gave to Slag, to suit your personal, point of view, so you can comfortably argue it on your personal point of view, which seems to contradict itself."

...and read, in light of: "I just quoted them from the 'lesson' linked to in a previous post by someone else."

Come on, can't you come up with an original thought????....or are you waiting for it to be 'Created', so you can contradict it, TOO!

My post was concerning LIGHT, and energy that cannot be created, nor destroyed!

ALL matter is made of light...so, however light came together, could it be said, would it not be true, that light created all matter??

My comment was to Slag, just stating, that 'the light came into darkness'..which he gave a parallel quote from the Bible. It's not that I'm promoting a 'fundementalist' doctrine, as much as 2000 years ago, this was said, and only proven about 75 years ago!

Sounds like they had some understandings that 'science' is still playing 'catch up' with!

What I suspect, is that many atheists, perhaps yourself included, say there is no God, but really mean to say, 'There is no God, at least what I conceived it was, and perhaps, still do!'

..and by the way, I am not a fundamentalist, nor evangelical.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Slag
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 12:29 AM

OPPS! Big BOo BOO. 4th sentence should read:It would be awfully stupid of a creator to make critters in a world to have the ability to change to meet the vicissitudes of a planet that undergoes change via the sun's fluctuations, the moon's gravity, seasons due to axial tilt, plate tectonic and so on AND NOT MAKE MAN TO FIT INTO THAT SAME SCHEME.

I might also mention that when studying any ancient or historical text it is always an error to not take into consideration where that people were in their ability to understand the world in which they lived, how they tended to see things. Do not try to understand Genesis for instance with our modern concepts of time (6 day creation for instance and an accurate clock to measure it to measure a 24 hour period). Rather you ask yourself what was the point of this story? Why was it important to these people? Does it touch upon a universal truth, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 01:57 AM

QUOTE
It would be far more interesting to have a discussion, with you, if you knew what you were talking about!....don't you think?
...
I think you are playing to impress the audience, rather than, having a discussion, finding consistency, with the theories you quote....and trying to make it appear true. I think you could do a little better than that, at least in admitting that some theories pick up, where others leave off, or at least, conflict with each other, at certain points
UNQUOTE

What you mean by the second part of that, I can't work out, without insulting you by saying that perhaps you just want to me confess that you are the only with with logical arguments and correct ideas?

It wasn't me that used the old arguments beloved of fanatical close minded small thinkers out to destroy and ridicule Science, so as to cement their position of political and social power.

If you can't win an argument, then just insult the opponent, eh? They what they did too. If you act like them, you may be mistaken for them. I've refrained from the other threads along these topics cause I thought little positive would come out of them - now this thread has reached that point too.

I'm not the one putting forward arguments in which semantic terms are muddled, and many other logical fallacies committed.

I have nothing to prove.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 01:58 AM

QUOTE
It would be far more interesting to have a discussion, with you, if you knew what you were talking about!....don't you think?
...
I think you are playing to impress the audience, rather than, having a discussion, finding consistency, with the theories you quote....and trying to make it appear true. I think you could do a little better than that, at least in admitting that some theories pick up, where others leave off, or at least, conflict with each other, at certain points
UNQUOTE

What you mean by the second part of that, I can't work out, without insulting you by saying that perhaps you just want to me confess that you are the only with with logical arguments and correct ideas?

It wasn't me that used the old arguments beloved of fanatical close minded small thinkers out to destroy and ridicule Science, so as to cement their position of political and social power.

If you can't win an argument, then just insult the opponent, eh? They did that too. If you act like them, you may be mistaken for them. I've refrained from the other threads along these topics cause I thought little positive would come out of them - now this thread has reached that point too.

I'm not the one putting forward arguments in which semantic terms are muddled, and many other logical fallacies committed.

I have nothing to prove.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 04:33 AM

Foolestroup, I'd LOVE to have a positive discussion about this! That is exactly why I posted as I did. ...and... I too, agree with your: "It wasn't me that used the old arguments beloved of fanatical close minded small thinkers out to destroy and ridicule Science, so as to cement their position of political and social power."

Science is the arrived at by "THE OBJECTIVE OBSERVER", not by trying to hand pick things in science to promote a preconception, wouldn't you say?

Now when you re-read your post(s), can you see why, I'm calling that to your attention...including "It wasn't me that used the old arguments beloved of fanatical close minded small thinkers out to destroy and ridicule Science, so as to cement their position of political and social power."

"Old arguments"??? The statement, that 'all things are made of light'..at what point did that become "OLD"? Seems more like a 'constant' to me. Wouldn't you say? Now, either science didn't know how to look for that, or didn't see it, till recent history, or perhaps the observers weren't objective enough, to finally come to that conclusion..right? It seems like it would have to be one or the other....in any event, they didn't know it, or prove it, one way or another...fair enough?

Now, because some guy wrote it down, as being said 2000years ago, either he was a lucky guesser, or he had his finger on the pulse of..something!.....or maybe just random? The chances of 'lucky' and 'random' seem pretty slim, to me..how about you?

Now, without 'ridiculing science', the fact that that has been said, for centuries, with nothing to prove it with, but just believing it by 'faith'(unless someone else, along the way, got their finger on the pulse), I would think that science, coming to the same conclusion, WITH PROOF, would be seen as a sigh of relief....and compatible..possibly, in other overlooked areas, too. Who knows, what isn't known yet?....Fair enough?
....and the person arguing for so long, might not have been as 'small minded' think.....maybe the PERCEPTION of him was small minded!..only because, the 'OBSERVER'S mind, could not conceptualize outside the limits of his own mind....(you don't have to personalize this, its not an attack.) ...

...and while one person, based on science, and logic, is trying to show, another person that there IS something, often disregarded, or misunderstood, such as light, and those 'finger on the pulse people' years ago, wrote that...and here's a exact quote, "God is Light"...that means those small minded people, are talking about a 'something'..of existence.....SOMETHING...OKAY?

Whereas, as you so aptly posted, "I have nothing to prove."...which is, of course, "BS:True Test of an Atheist".

Wanna talk?

Respectfully,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 05:22 AM

Since you demonstrate repeated confusion and misrepresentation of scientific concepts, smearing the sky fairy stuff into everything, it's pointless to talk.

""Old arguments"??? The statement, that 'all things are made of light'..at what point did that become "OLD"? "

You've cleverly picked the wrong "old argument". Pointless telling you to read back. What I referred to was the Species A -> species B stuff "fish to birds to mammals etc ... thus proving an evolution to higher states, etc". This is the game the fundy wackjobs played since Darwin publisjhed.

This sort of 'confusion' just wastes time as you lead others around in a merry dance. Been there, done that - survived years of such 'clever tactics' by someone who was eventually found to be Schizophrenic. I don't know or care if you have such problems, but when you display such actions, I rapidly get bored and walk away.

I don't have to prove the existence of invisible powerful magical beings sticking their d*cks into everything.

Goodbye

You win!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 05:37 AM

...but the premise of my 'old argument' referred to, by you, was based on the 'old argument' by me, sorry if there was confusion about that.

Here, is my quote (C&P): "I apologize for not being more clear. In the context of 'evolving' I was referring to the Evolution THEORY...actually, I said that...you misunderstood, for some reason(doesn't matter).
In the evolution theory, living beings evolve to preserve life, and adapt..entropy, things decay.

Which direction do you think we, are going?..Are we somehow evolving to a higher life form, as in fish to birds, to mammals to apes to humans?
Or humans to decay and oblivion?

Same question to Foolestroupe.....(or anyone who may agree or disagree)"

Sounds more like a question to me.....of which you flew off the handle's charts,.....(Well, I guess I got the feedback).

Still open, for an answer, to the question,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 08:53 AM

I am a Nobody.
Nobody is Perfect.
Therefore I am Perfect

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,999
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 09:30 AM

`ALL matter is made of light...so, however light came together, could it be said, would it not be true, that light created all matter??`

Only if it was made by Westinghouse.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 09:42 AM

electromagnetic vibration along with all the other forces that wiggle squirm and flow is the stuff of which all stuff is made.

Be it a looped string from string theory or the pulsing of a giant magnatar, the anthropormorphic notion of vibrating music is the stuff that all stuff is made.

Roughly speaking, energy equals mass, if you expand mass by the speed of light times the speed of light.


btw
is this thread about evolution or is it about creationist personalities trying to insult those who have studied evolution????????????

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,999
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 09:47 AM

Thing is, even Einstein didn`t find a unified field theory. The question since Rutherford isn`t the speed of light. The question is either what`s the speed of dark or where can a guy find a good blt sandwich.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 09:50 AM

There are 3 good arguments to prove that Jesus was Jewish:
1. He worked at His Father's business
2. He lived at home until he was 33
3. He was sure his Mother was a virgin and his Mother was sure He was God.

But, there is also compelling evidence that Jesus was a woman:
1. He fed a crowd at a moment's notice, when there was virtually no food
2. He kept trying to get a message across to a bunch of men who just didn't get it
3. Even when He was dead, he still had to get up because there was still work to do

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 10:31 AM

For lost sheep - Getting To Know God

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 10:35 AM

dear 999

Excellent insight. Albert was only roughly right. He needed a cosmological constant to fudge the equation since he did not have the data regarding unseen dimensions.

(something you may have hinted at)
I have often mused if the speed of light is different in different dimensions since space is half of the reality we call space time!
A miniature dimension may have a speed of light that is small compared to ours. If so its light would be dark from our perspective.   See where I am going here?
The density of such a small dimension would also have the potential to be extremely dense compared to ours.
'
Gravity may be the dominant vibtating force in one outer dimension that surrounds all other dimensions yet all we sense is the little energy that leaks out of that dimension into ours.

The forces in our observable universe is roughly the same everywhere.
There have been findings that over time there has been tiny changes in the laws of physics in the millionsths of a percent, but that may only be due to a slight disintegration of some atomic particles over time.

Over time all sorts of relative forces have changed, like positive matter overtaking antimatter. Various relative changes in our observable universe is now causing it to accelerate in its expansion.

So I ask you "Could this be caused from standard matter entering black holes and passing into a dimension that acts as an outer gravity to our observable universe, pulling it ever outward faster and faster?"


your contribution will be made known to the Nobel committee.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,999
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 10:36 AM

Dear David,

Sheep don`t know how to read.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 10:59 AM

Why do atheists need a test? You're an atheist if you say you are. If you say you are, good for you and who cares? I thought it was about not believing in god rather than trying to save the world from "the harm caused by religion" which I would say is zero. Religion doesn't harm people--people harm people. I'm not getting the point of this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 11:08 AM

Dear Guest, 999: that's England's emergency number!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,999
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 11:20 AM

Dear David,

I am chuckling over that remark. I should mention that it`s good to see you still posting your poetry. I recall when you received grief over it and I have admired and do admire your courage in keeping on keeping on. We are on different pages regarding God, but that just means that one of us is right (or both or neither). I follow you from time to time on Myspace, and I do appreciate being one of your friends on that site.



Dear Don, I messaged you and I`ll respond to your last post in my next post.



Gal called the fire department and said, HELP, my house is on fire. I said, `How do we get there.` She replied, `Duh! In the big red truck.`

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,999
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 11:37 AM

Don, I will be thankful to find a good blt, and I hope the Nobel committee does take-out.

One of the Sci-Fi books I came to really enjoy--after about a half dozen readings--was Blish`s `Cities in Flight.` I expect you`ve read it. The book--well, a collection of four shorter novels--posits that time itself will come to an end. Were it not for time, I expect we would be able to answer or at least intelligently understand the dimensional puzzle that seems to cause us all so much difficulty (perhaps I should say causes me so much difficulty).

We tend to accept light`s speed as a constant, but as you (and GfS (another sharp cookie)) noted, we have no choice about that. I think we do however have the option of ignoring light`s speed because it may not be applicable to an understanding of this thing we call reality. If indeed time IS slowing, then light will change nothing other than the development of the negative. We use time to measure the speed of light, but IF time is distorting, then what we measure using it is getting distorted, too. Make any sense to you?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 12:06 PM

Then again, maybe the true test of an atheist is that they call out YOUR name when they climax!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 12:21 PM

"what if a self-aware cartoon character asks 'Who drew the drawers?' No one, (is the answer) they were not drawn".

Quoteof Anonymous Coward on http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/09/02/1235245/Hawking-Picks-Physics-Over-God-For-Big-Bang

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 02:01 PM

///We tend to accept light`s speed as a constant///

Constant in a vacuum. It is not constant unconditionally. Light from space slows down as it enters earth's atmosphere.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 02:14 PM

"Which direction do you think we, are going?..Are we somehow evolving to a higher life form, as in fish to birds, to mammals to apes to humans?
Or humans to decay and oblivion?"

This question could only be asked by someone who has absolutely no idea what evolution is all about. For Pete's sake buy yourself a copy of Origin of Species and shut up about evolution until you've read it. Honestly, Darwin writes beautifully clearly.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Lighter
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 02:38 PM

The Pew survey tells more about the sorry state of American education than about anything else.

All the groups on average seem to have scored fairly miserably. I was taught the answers to virtually all those questions while still in high school, if not junior high. But that was very, very long ago.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 03:58 PM

Merrzy: "
Then again, maybe the true test of an atheist is that they call out YOUR name when they climax!"

Priceless!

...and Ed T.:

"There are 3 good arguments to prove that Jesus was Jewish:
1. He worked at His Father's business
2. He lived at home until he was 33
3. He was sure his Mother was a virgin and his Mother was sure He was God.

But, there is also compelling evidence that Jesus was a woman:
1. He fed a crowd at a moment's notice, when there was virtually no food
2. He kept trying to get a message across to a bunch of men who just didn't get it
3. Even when He was dead, he still had to get up because there was still work to do.


I DO want to get back to a couple posts, that I thought were really interesting, to learn something from, stimulate thought, and probe the 'unknown'. But I can't, right now.

Donuel, You hit on some great stuff! Magnetism, gravity, and, of all things, music, scientist have yet to explain, as to 'where it comes from, and how and why it works! Being as we are musicians, this should be, or can be, very enlightening....(I hope!).
Musicians, at times, have been able to 'tap in', to an unseen, unexplained 'world', and manifest things sonically, that is still an enigma. I certainly, at this point, believe it is a communication, or language, if you will. I KNOW that your ears, are the most direct way to your central nervous system, and what goes in them, DIRECTLY affects, alters, or changes, or influences(any one you like), one's moods and behavior...True story.....The hows and whys, and the selective process, of what the player draws from, and/or processes, through his filter, would certainly be a fascinating subject.

Oh, and to those atheists out there, you can't see it, either...but it DOES work!

Some have even said that, music comes from a parallel universe, as does magnetism, along with a few other things. I don't know that to be the case, but I thought it rather fascinating.

Anyway, I can't be on, long, now...but I thought I'd drop that on ya', and let it roll around in your noggins. Love to hear your thoughts on it!

Maybe a different thread..Whatever.
Hey, Regards!

GfS

P.S. ..and related....
Beethoven, when asked how he wrote and come up with the music, he was composing, said, "I think I'm closer to God than most men"..... interesting. I'm not so sure he was referring to a guy in the sky, with a white flowing beard, and a 'Maxwell Silver Hammer' in his hand just waiting to come down on everyone's head! He was tapping, most likely, into the same thing, I was just speaking of......Donuel, any thoughts?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 04:18 PM

Why GfS,

You apparently don't know that consciousness is just a product of matter and means nothing and that life is meaningless. Just ask any of the geniuses I've been arguing with. They know everything. And Darwin was god--just ask them.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 04:27 PM

"Beethoven, when asked how he wrote and come up with the music, he was composing, said, 'I think I'm closer to God than most men'....."

He was being sarcastic and dismissive of his questioner, that is plain. He was probably extremely pissed off with sycophantic people asking him that all the time, and he was a fairly irascible chap after all. When Moscheles had told him that the piano arrangement of Fidelio was "finished, with the help of God," Beethoven's riposte was "Oh man, help yourself." Your quote is evidence of absolutely nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 05:07 PM

Steve Shaw: "He was being sarcastic and dismissive of his questioner, that is plain. He was probably extremely pissed off with sycophantic people asking him that all the time,......."

Steve Shaw: "Your quote is evidence of absolutely nothing."

Steve Shaw: "...He was PROBABLY extremely pissed off...."

Is that an assumption?..'PROBABLY'????

GfS: "Your quote is evidence of absolutely nothing."..but HE DID SAY, what he said...I'm glad you were there, to report back to us about the mood he was in!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 05:09 PM

Either that or he simply misheard the question...

Life has whatever meaning *you* choose, josep, not anything handed down from On High, or anything/anywhere else.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 05:11 PM

Steve has what Roger Waters would call "amazing powers of observation."

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 05:18 PM

Considering, that he was hearing all he was coming up with, without the influences of radio, T.V., et al....such as we have now....I personally think, and its only an OPINION, that he was tapped into something, other than pure mechanics...However, that being said, the Fifth, is extremely mechanical in structure..arrangement-wise, is something else. ....but then his piano concertos, are definitely, inspired, and in turn still inspire!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 05:43 PM

Speaking of which:

Watch the body language and expression of this awesome piece, watch the hands, watch his expression.

Vladimir Horowitz performing Rachmaninoff 3rd Concerto

If this kind of stuff doesn't interest you, at least put your cursor at 36:45
(Though you should watch the whole thing!)

Horowitz plays the Rachmaninoff 3rd Piano Concerto in Avery Fisher Hall, New York, 1978 with Zubin Mehta ( His last recording ever of this concerto and maybe the last time he played it. Horowitz was 75 years old in this recording!!!)

THIS PERFORMANCE IS TRULY INSPIRED!!..and a MUST SEE!!!!!!!!!!

Enjoy,

Guest from Sanity

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 05:49 PM

///However, that being said, the Fifth, is extremely mechanical in structure..arrangement-wise, is something else///

I think his 9th Symphony is his crowning achievement. The first symphony ever to contain words which aren't sung until an hour or more into it and what are the first words ever sung? "Not these tones, friends..." What do you think he meant by that?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Wesley S
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 05:58 PM

200!!!

PTL !!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 06:20 PM

///Life has whatever meaning *you* choose, josep, not anything handed down from On High, or anything/anywhere else.///

I disagree. I agree with the ancient philosophers/poets who held that humans are composed of six "earthly" element and one "heavenly" one. Mineral, vegetable and meat were the last three and then a seventh came down from above and crowned them off, pacified them, brought them order. It is, of course, our consciousness. Now, of course, this is metaphorical. Consciousness didn't come down from the sky. This perfected being was called "The Prince of Peace." Christians today think it applies to a historical creature from 2000 years ago. It applies to all of us in potential. Jesus Christ is a template of the perfected human--a true prince of peace. You could call him a buddha if you'd like.

This was known to the Ancient Egyptians as Iu-Em-Hetep (Imhotep) or "He Who Comes Seventh" or "He Who Comes to Bring Peace." This was a well-known concept in the times that Christians were proclaiming a historical Christ so Matthew actually has Jesus say, "Think not that I am come to bring peace but a sword." Generations of Christians have puzzled over those words not knowing why the author put them in their savior's mouth. He did it to stop people of his time from saying, "Oh, you mean this Jesus Christ you preach is just the old Imhotep concept rehashed. Right, gotcha."

The true concept is still found in Christmas Carols as "Hark the Herald Angels Sing" and "Joy to the World."

Now you can take the tack of Teilhard de Chardin and say consciousness is inherent in matter and so it wasn't necessary for it to come down from above. I agree with that too. It's how you choose to interpret things.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 06:21 PM

josep,...Full lyrics for the Ninth:O friends!

Not these sounds!
But let us strike up more pleasant sounds and more joyful!

Joy, o wondrous spark divine,
Daughter of Elysium,
Drunk with fire now we enter,
Heavenly one, your holy shrine.
Your magic powers join again
What fashion strictly did divide;
Brotherhood unites all men
Where your gentle wing's spread wide.
   
The man who's been so fortunate
To become the friend of a friend,
The man who has won a fair woman -
To the rejoicing let him add his voice.
The man who calls but a single soul
Somewhere in the world his own!
And he who never managed this -
Let him steal forth from our throng!

Joy is drunk by every creature
From Nature's fair and charming breast;
Every being, good or evil,
Follows in her rosy steps.
Kisses she gave to us, and vines,
And one good friend, tried in death;
The serpent she endowed with base desire
And the cherub stands before God.

Gladly as His suns do fly
Through the heavens' splendid plan,
Run now, brothers, your own course,
Joyful like a conquering hero

Embrace each other now, you millions!
The kiss is for the whole wide world!
Brothers - over the starry firmament
A beloved Father must surely dwell.

Do you come crashing down, you millions?
Do you sense the Creators presence, world?
Seek Him above the starry firmament,
For above the stars he surely dwells.


Gosh Steve.........You still think he was 'PROBABLY'...(whatever you said)???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 06:27 PM

And can you tell what TV program you now hear the opening strain of the 3rd movement?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 07:10 PM

"I think his 9th Symphony is his crowning achievement. The first symphony ever to contain words which aren't sung until an hour or more into it and what are the first words ever sung? "Not these tones, friends..." What do you think he meant by that?"

Then you haven't heard his last three piano sonatas or the Diabelli Variations or the five late quartets.

The phrase you quote from the symphony is in the manner of an operatic recitative. It is a highly-theatrical reaction to the three previous movements, which, just before the bass sings that line, have been caricatured in brief reprise. The sung line says, in effect, that we must now cast aside the struggles personified in the symphony so far and turn to more joyful considerations. I can't think what else you might be seeing in it. Beethoven is my all-time numero uno hero, but the opening to that finale is, to me, a pretty scruffy, untidy and ill-judged affair. I still love the whole work though.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 07:24 PM

josep,...Full lyrics for the Ninth...



...Gosh Steve.........You still think he was 'PROBABLY'...(whatever you said)???

He was setting a bloody poem written by somebody else, fer chrissake (Anton Schiller to be precise). Not only that, Beethoven chopped the poem around mercilessly. If you are somehow concluding from this that Ludwig was a God-botherer, you'll have to try a bit harder. Far more scholarly persons than me (and, certainly, than you) have gleaned no more than that Beethoven was, at the most, equivocal about God and religion. He would no more refuse to set a religious or (as in this case) a quasi-religious text than I would refuse to go into Europe's great cathedrals and admire the architecture and stunning religious works of art therein (which I do). Bach's Mass in B minor and Mozart's Great Mass in C minor are among my desert island discs. But if you were to attempt to conclude from this that I was secretly not an atheist at all, you'd be no more than a confounded bloody fool.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 07:27 PM

That post did not quite come out as I intended but you get the drift.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 08:03 PM

Re Beethoven's 9th.

"No I wrote a completely different poem in German" to quote (approximately) Bert Brecht before the Un-American Committee.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 08:23 PM

///Then you haven't heard his last three piano sonatas or the Diabelli Variations or the five late quartets.

The phrase you quote from the symphony is in the manner of an operatic recitative. It is a highly-theatrical reaction to the three previous movements, which, just before the bass sings that line, have been caricatured in brief reprise. The sung line says, in effect, that we must now cast aside the struggles personified in the symphony so far and turn to more joyful considerations. I can't think what else you might be seeing in it. Beethoven is my all-time numero uno hero, but the opening to that finale is, to me, a pretty scruffy, untidy and ill-judged affair. I still love the whole work though.////

Typical Steve. He just has to outdo you--he's a skeptic and an atheist after all. If you've done everything once, then by god, Steve's done it twice and then a third time just in case you get any wise ideas about catching up.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 08:34 PM

And since Steve couldn't find a website that analyzes the 9th symphony that could answer my question about what TV show uses the opening strain of the 3rd movement, he "forgot" to answer it. Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 08:34 PM

"Anton Schiller"

I don't know where I got that from. Let's call him Friedrich.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 08:38 PM

"Typical Steve. He just has to outdo you--he's a skeptic and an atheist after all. If you've done everything once, then by god, Steve's done it twice and then a third time just in case you get any wise ideas about catching up."

Outdo you? Correct you, actually. I did tell you that Beethoven was my numero uno hero. It follows that I've studied the bloke a bit. Maybe you didn't believe me and thought you could spout off about him without challenge. You can't half say silly things.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 08:42 PM

"And since Steve couldn't find a website that analyzes the 9th symphony that could answer my question about what TV show uses the opening strain of the 3rd movement, he "forgot" to answer it. Countdown with Keith Olbermann."

I don't need websites than analyse the ninth symphony, thanks, and I don't watch daft TV shows, ever. Now are you sure it was actually the opening "strain"? Perhaps the way you worded that is what discouraged me from taking you seriously. Etcetera.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 08:48 PM

Personally, I sure like Rachmaninoff. Beethoven, too.
Josep, Did you watch the link I posted?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 09:04 PM

that analyse

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Oct 10 - 11:11 PM

Salty dog.

Lighten up.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 11:13 AM

///Josep, Did you watch the link I posted?///

Yes, he's almost as good as me.

Alright, I'm lying. I just wanted to know what it would be like to be able to say that.

His fingers are so fluid and there's no wasted movement. Effortless. He literally could play that zonked out in an alcoholic stupor he knows it so well.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Slag
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 11:23 AM

OK! That does it! Kick this thread above the line!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 11:43 AM

Josep, I did notice a couple of clams though....but they flew by so fast ......(really)....But watching him, especially toward the end, is truly inspirational!!!

Glad you enjoyed it!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 11:55 AM

I apologize for getting so off-track in this thread but really I don't understand the point of this thread. Why does an atheist need a true test? If you're an atheist, you're an atheist. And why should we expect two atheists to agree about atheism? For me, it's a set of arguments designed to shred theist arguments, which it does quite well. I don't take it any further than that. Others make atheism a virtual belief system: no god, no soul, no afterlife, no nothing. It's whatever floats your little boat.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 12:14 PM

Josep: "For me, it's a set of arguments designed to shred theist arguments, which it does quite well. I don't take it any further than that. Others make atheism a virtual belief system: no god, no soul, no afterlife, no nothing. It's whatever floats your little boat."

I think that this time, that they're the ones that got shredded...but, it really doesn't matter, there was NOTHING to shred!
They should of thought of that oxymoron*, when one sets out to 'prove a negative'!

*The most common form of oxymoron involves an adjective-noun combination of two words. For example, the following line from Tennyson's Idylls of the King contains two oxymorons:

    "And faith unfaithful kept him falsely true."

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 01:30 PM

Atheist arguments don't prove a negative; they disprove the theist arguments. Without theism, atheism wouldn't exist. Those who try to make it exist as a stand-alone are not really atheists but rather are material realists who believe atheism proves everything they believe about reality.

Atheism doesn't prove anything. It doesn't even prove god doesn't exist. It merely disproves any theist argument that can be posited and it does it quite easily: every theist argument must presuppose god's existence which is invalid. So all the atheist has to do is locate the presupposition and the argument is disproven.

To go beyond that is to go beyond atheism and so it really isn't atheism anymore but an aggressive material realist stance that calls itself atheism. Atheist means "not theist." That's all it was designed for--a rejection of theism based on the logical fallcy of theist argumentation which is the presupposition of the god's existence in the premise of the argument--an invalid position.

Athism does not prove there no god, no soul, no continuance after death. Anyone who says it does simply does not know what they are talking about.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 03:30 PM

josep: "Atheist arguments don't prove a negative; they disprove the theist arguments....."

It also does three things, that are somewhat related. One, it pokes holes into certain 'religious' dogma, which were bogus, in the first place. For that, it may make a lightweight religious 'crusader', look a little deeper, maybe even sober them up, and get off their pet doctrines of error...The second, It makes all sides reconsider, their stances, which are often taken for 'comfort' rather than seeking after the 'Truth'!..and thirdly, often, the atheist has abandoned a 'religion', because its bogus doctrines were NOT meeting his needs, nor satisfying, his curiosity for more truth...and that is valid..a valid step, but not the final step.

That being said, the theist/atheist argument will NOT settle anything, that would last!....meaning, if someone can 'talk you into' a 'God', someone or thing can 'talk you out' of it, as well!

Those things are best settled, by an EXPERIENCE, that no one can talk you into, or out of! At least in the debate, hopefully either side, can walk away from it, and be open, to a wider view, of possibilities, that before, might have been closed down, because of the limitations of inconceivable possibilities, that before, might have been ignored....which in turn, opens a door, for maybe a NEW experience!

Methinks you understand.

Regards to you,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Slag
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 05:11 PM

Thank you Guest josep! You win the big cigar! That really is the whole point of this exercise. With virtually stereotypical accuracy some individuals in the category, the is CATEGORY of atheism attack the category, a-hem, the CATEGORY of religion. There is no focus nor any attempt to understand just what the individual who has been lumped under the nameplate thinks or believes or why or whether they have some validity their beliefs. And this door swings both ways. It is repugnent to a man of reason to have some cockeyed religious person make a blanket dismissal of all things scientific, theory and practice, without any comprehension of what that may entail. And it is equally repugnent to a person of faith who has made an informed decision based on his life experiences and knowledge to be categorized with those with who he dissagrees, often for the very same reasons the atheist dissagrees.

There is no true test for either category. That is all they are: broad labels that MAY serve to bring awareness but all too often serve to promote non-thinking. Thnak you, thank you, thank you josep.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 05:43 PM

Someone pointed out to me today that a lot of Buddhists are atheists.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Slag
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 06:05 PM

There is a saying in Zen that "even if you should encounter the Buddha himself and he should detain you on the Road to Enlightenment, slay him!" No, I don't think there is a Western concept of a God in Buddhism per se but there are those who personify the nature of reality and are honored as such, be they, in the Western mind, mythical or historical.

BTW I failed to mention in my preceeding post that my question initially was two pronged. The second aspect has developed admirably as this discussion!

Man always worships something, even if it's himself.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 06:26 PM

"Yet each man kills the thing he loves,
By each let this be heard,
Some do it with a bitter look,
Some with a flattering word,
The coward does it with a kiss,
The brave man with a sword!"

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 06:50 PM

"Atheist arguments don't prove a negative; they disprove the theist arguments. Without theism, atheism wouldn't exist."

Atheist "arguments" neither prove nor disprove anything. Neither do they set out to do so. There is an argument that says atheism does not exist, but I doubt it's an argument you would understand.

"Those who try to make it exist as a stand-alone..."

...and who might they be?

"...are not really atheists but rather are material realists who believe atheism proves everything they believe about reality."

I don't know a single atheist who thinks that atheism proves anything (and I haven't a clue who these "material realists" are). It just goes to show how desperate believers can be to falsely characterise atheism just to suit their arguments. I think it's called Aunt Sallyism.

"Atheism doesn't prove anything. It doesn't even prove god doesn't exist."

Yes, we're making progress...

"It merely disproves any theist argument that can be posited and it does it quite easily: every theist argument must presuppose god's existence which is invalid. So all the atheist has to do is locate the presupposition and the argument is disproven."

..but, oh dear, we've lost it again. There is no proven or disproven on either side. 'T'aint possible.

"To go beyond that is to go beyond atheism and so it really isn't atheism anymore but an aggressive material realist stance that calls itself atheism."

Perhaps you could clarify for me just what these mythical "material realists" do or say that puts them beyond atheism...

"Atheist means "not theist." That's all it was designed for--a rejection of theism based on the logical fallcy of theist argumentation which is the presupposition of the god's existence in the premise of the argument--an invalid position."

Atheism might well mean that in literal translation but atheists are far less than "not theists." You're making the severe mistake, common among non-atheists (God, I love that - gotcha, berstids!!), of trying to define us on religion's territory. I should add the bleedin' obvious, of course: atheism was not designed by anybody for anything.

"Athism does not prove there no god, no soul, no continuance after death. Anyone who says it does simply does not know what they are talking about."

Well, insofar as atheism never has, never will, and doesn't want to, prove anything, I s'pose I'll have to agree. I can't prove that you've been talking bollix in this quoted post, but there's a strong probability that you have been.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 06:58 PM

What is this???...A re-union of the Three Musketeers???

Just remember, a two edged sword, one side cuts to the bone, the other cuts off the bounds, to freedom...but the POINT, is LOVE!

Regards,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Ebbie, housesitting
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 07:08 PM

I have decided that GfS's commas are meant to indicate where he stops to take a breath; however, it is most distracting, visualizing the hyperventilation that is going on.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 07:10 PM

Steve: "Atheist "arguments" neither prove nor disprove anything. Neither do they set out to do so. There is an argument that says atheism does not exist, but I doubt it's an argument you would understand."

Then again, maybe we do,..but YOU don't understand! Atheists, at least in this forum, sure do a lot of projecting hostilities, and their own blindness onto every one else...which if you think about it, you CAN understand....but not willing to understand what that looks like, from the other side of the fence!

There are times in most everyone's life, that they'd rather look the 'other way'....some learn quicker than others, that it might be a comfortable place to visit, FOR A WHILE, but not stay.

Some people's lives don't always remain in bitterness, resentment, unforgiveness, and self absorption. Some people are connected, and know it, to the rest of reality.

Here's To Ya'..Best Wishes and Cheers!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 07:13 PM

They are not commas, Sweet Ebbie!
You should read 'shooting scripts' or playwrights. They are an indication of time, usually thoughtful, in nature....you know, THOUGHT-ful????

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 07:24 PM

>>Atheism might well mean that in literal translation but atheists are far less than "not theists." You're making the severe mistake, common among non-atheists (God, I love that - gotcha, berstids!!), of trying to define us on religion's territory. I should add the bleedin' obvious, of course: atheism was not designed by anybody for anything. <<

I have to disagree with Steve Shaw.

Everyone I know who self disguises as "athiest" is anti-thiest. Certainly people like Dawkins are.

There may be people who truly don't believe and are neutral about whether or not God exists. But I have neither heard from them or of them.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 07:58 PM

[Steve: "Atheist "arguments" neither prove nor disprove anything. Neither do they set out to do so. There is an argument that says atheism does not exist, but I doubt it's an argument you would understand."

Then again, maybe we do,..but YOU don't understand! Atheists, at least in this forum, sure do a lot of projecting hostilities, and their own blindness onto every one else...which if you think about it, you CAN understand....but not willing to understand what that looks like, from the other side of the fence!

There are times in most everyone's life, that they'd rather look the 'other way'....some learn quicker than others, that it might be a comfortable place to visit, FOR A WHILE, but not stay.

Some people's lives don't always remain in bitterness, resentment, unforgiveness, and self absorption. Some people are connected, and know it, to the rest of reality.

Here's To Ya'..Best Wishes and Cheers!]


Incomprehensible as ever, but whatever it is you're on I'll have some.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 08:20 PM

"I have to disagree with Steve Shaw.

Everyone I know who self disguises as "athiest" is anti-thiest. Certainly people like Dawkins are."

Well now, I suppose it depends on whether you'll calling that vast body of the human race who care not a shite either way "atheists" or not. As for the rest of us (the non-silent minority), we have no need to self-disguise (whatever that means: I suppose "delusion" was a bit too harsh for you to say but is probably what you meant). In fact, we tend to take the world as it comes, simple souls that we are, and try not to wrap ourselves in myth, legends, tradition, unquestioningness and, worst of all, faith without evidence. How any believer can accuse atheists of lurking around in disguises after all that lot, well, fails me. As for anti-theist, well some of us shrug and ignore, others like a bit of intellectual banter I suppose (don't criticise us - after all, religion indulges in the stupidest, most disguised banter of all. They call it theology). I'm one of those atheists *and* anti-theists I suppose, and why not. Theism deserves every challenge possible, and if you really have the courage of your convictions you'd laugh us off. I suspect many of you secretly haven't, judging from the worried attacks on atheists every time we stick our heads above the parapet, but I'm only guessing there.   

"There may be people who truly don't believe and are neutral about whether or not God exists. But I have neither heard from them or of them."

That's because we don't "not believe," as I've said several times before. I know how hard it must be for you to accept that we don't actually need to say that "we respect you and your God but it's not for us," but we don't, and most of all we don't engage with what we regard as your far-fetched and highly-improbable notions. Do you believe in fairies at the bottom of your garden (or do you regard my question to be facile and pointless)? I wouldn't engage with that if I were you. So don't be too surprised if we don't engage with your equally-improbable question.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 09:11 PM

So it is Banter is it Steve?

You want banter? How is this for banter?

>>>"There may be people who truly don't believe and are neutral about whether or not God exists. But I have neither heard from them or of them."

That's because we don't "not believe," as I've said several times before. I know how hard it must be for you to accept that we don't actually need to say that "we respect you and your God but it's not for us," but we don't, and most of all we don't engage with what we regard as your far-fetched and highly-improbable notions. Do you believe in fairies at the bottom of your garden (or do you regard my question to be facile and pointless)? I wouldn't engage with that if I were you. So don't be too surprised if we don't engage with your equally-improbable question. <<<

Steve in this thread you are certainly anti Christian. You certainly are anti-thiest. You are in fact displaying the classic behavior of an "athiest" as it is usually defined.

But you do not argue as well as many Athiests. Certainly you are not persuasive. You are assume much about me and my beliefs based upon the little I have said. It is evident that you are stereotyping me as a conventional Christian. You are way off base, but you don't let lack of knowledge get in the way of your snarky condescending comments.

Certainly you are not qualified to speak for those who are "neutral about whether or not God exists." You obviously have some great personal interest not only in arguing against God, but in mocking His professed believers.

You can say that you have no religion all you want. But your behavior says otherwise.

Like many of your fellow members of the Church of Empty Nothingness you seem to have plenty of passion and a well defined Dogma but no direction or purpose.

I pray that you release yourself to the Godliness you so obviously crave. Think of Jesus on the Cross paying in blood for your sins.

Barring that, I hope that you try to find release from your obsession with God so that you can banter about Him without quite so much venom. Stress causes physical harm. Why hurt yourself over something in which you do not believe. Do you get as worked up about fairies at the bottom of your garden? I thought not. The true test of an Athiest is the venom in their disbelief.

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Smokey.
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 09:38 PM

One true test of a Christian is their tolerance of alternative views.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 09:41 PM

If Steve DIDN'T understand, he wouldn't be so pissed off! It sounds like an obstinate temper tantrum to me. I think down deep, whether he 'believes' or not, is the issue...the problem is that...he really KNOWS, and just as soon forget!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 10:06 PM

"I pray that you release yourself to the Godliness you so obviously crave. Think of Jesus on the Cross paying in blood for your sins. "

Even though I am prepared to accept that the believer who says this may often genuinely be sincere (as many of my friends are), and want to help, but only in the '"The One Way, or the highway" method, this is still highly offensive intolerance, in the same way as it is to say this to the culture of a Jew, Muslim, Hindu, or even Buddhist or Pagan - but supposedly it is acceptable to the culture of an A-theist. Once my friends are made aware of this viewpoint, they are often embarrassed, but I point out to them that I understand why they say this, having been brought up this way myself, and that such little things are understandable, they realize that I am not offended by such casual social lubrication.

I am reminded of the Buddhist Leader who related how his Teacher reacted when told this - "Thank you very much for that. Nice weather we are having today, isn't it?"

I accept people saying "bless you" when I sneeze, or "that's a good Christian act" when I help someone pick up the packages they have dropped, for they mean well in offering a compliment in the only way they know how.

But when you say what you just did, especially in that sort of intimidating put down context, you are revealing that not only are you multi-culturally insensitive, you are trying to intimidate and control by projecting your own fear, your own guilt for your own sins, so remember as your Own God admonished you, the mote in your own eye before you try to remove the beam from your neighbor. This context is why He said it.

For someone who really does not believe in your particular sky fairy culture, trying to force control by provoking guilt by emotive images of blood and deathly sacrifice is pathetic, if not actually laughable - remember that they do not ascribe to the things you hold most sacred, so you are only insulting the concepts they hold most sacred, in the same way as leering at women and saying "Nice tits, eh?", then responding, "Hey, it was only a compliment!" is only taken as a crude lack of respect - "What part of No can't you understand?".

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Slag
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 10:20 PM

Steve, I believe in unicorns. For argument's sake let's say you don't believe in unicorns. That would make you an "a-unicornist". According to your logic you have just proved the existence of unicorns by not believing in them. This is known as the "deontological argument" in logic and it is ultimately fallacious as I have just demonstrated above. Nice try but no brass ring this time.

God cannot be proved by means of rational argument. Period!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 10:32 PM

////I don't know a single atheist who thinks that atheism proves anything ////

Well I do.

///...but, oh dear, we've lost it again. There is no proven or disproven on either side. 'T'aint possible.///

Yes there is a disproven. If the atheist counterargument doesn't disprove the theist argument then there is no such thing as reason.

We have rules in debate and one rule is that a conclusion of an argument cannot be contained in the premise. That's loading the argument. So if I expose the presupposition, I have disproven the argument. There's not getting around that.

///Perhaps you could clarify for me just what these mythical "material realists" do or say that puts them beyond atheism...///

I've already stated it if you'd read what I wrote instead of automatically NEEDING to gainsay every goddamn thing I say no matter what it is. I've run into too many people who call themselves atheists who believe that death is final--when you're gone you're gone. That consciousness is produced epiphenomenally from matter and is an illusion and does not survive the death of the body. They believe this is implicit in atheism. And they can NOT admit that it is just a belief no different than a religious belief and that it has nothing to do with atheism. They are so convinced that they are just too logical and intelligent to hold anything other than perfectly reasoned conclusions unlike regular flawed mortals. Don't know anyone like that, you say? Doesn't sound at all familiar, eh?

///Atheism might well mean that in literal translation but atheists are far less than "not theists." You're making the severe mistake, common among non-atheists (God, I love that - gotcha, berstids!!), of trying to define us on religion's territory. I should add the bleedin' obvious, of course: atheism was not designed by anybody for anything.///

Err...um...hmmm...I'm an atheist. I do not accept theism because the atheist counterarguments DISPROVE theist arguments to my satisfaction. If am religious, pray tell what religion I am. I'm dying to know!!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 10:43 PM

Foolestroupe
Hmmmmm

I was not addressing a Jew, Muslim, Hindu, or even Buddhist or Pagan, I am simply addressing Steve, not you, Steve. If you feel insulted by that I am sorry that you did not realize I was not speaking generally.

It is Steve that seems so obsessed with Christianity that he seems to need to bully people to keep it away. It is Steve that seems to crave Godliness. It was Steve I was talking to.

-------

I am a little puzzled by your implication that I advocated this. >>>'"The One Way, or the highway" method,<<< as I gave an alternative in the next sentence. I was inviting him to accept Jesus, I said if he could not do that, I was asking him to calm himself and not get so worked up about things he professes not to believe. Being a strident Atheist give one all of the drawbacks of having religion with none of the benefits.

--------

As far as the beam in my eye goes, I just don't see it that way.

I respectfully disagreed with him. He replied with mocking. He called it banter. I am bantering back.

Do you think that he meant for the banter to only go one way?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 10:59 PM

"disguises" was a typo"

This is what was meant.

Everyone I know who self >> describes << as "athiest" is anti-thiest. Certainly people like Dawkins are."

Self described Atheism is a fundamentalism and a religion.

Steve Shaw seems to be is a high level practitioner of that religion.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 11:36 PM

"I am simply addressing Steve, not you, Steve."

No - you are talking in an open forum - thus you are addressing us all. If you want a private discussion/harangue with someone, use the PM system - don't bother annoying me though with PMs on this subject, I'm only interested in this discussion through this open forum - if you send me anything private on this subject (or indeed many others - especially if you try bullying tactics :) I will always publish it here, whether you want me to or not.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 12:04 AM

"Do you think that he meant for the banter to only go one way?"

Did you? Sadly In My Experience, many do.



"I am a little puzzled by your implication that I advocated this. >>>'"The One Way, or the highway" method,<<< as I gave an alternative in the next sentence. I was inviting him to accept Jesus, I said if he could not do that, I was asking him to calm himself and not get so worked up about things he professes not to believe. Being a strident Atheist give one all of the drawbacks of having religion with none of the benefits."

Irrational self justifying nonsense. If YOU don't believe what YOU are demanding others believe, why insist on it? Why even say it? If I said "Go Thou and Jump off a Cliff" would you do it? Would you be somehow inhunman if you did not? Shall you be insulted just by my mere saying those words? Shall I say, "don't be offended, I was just funning"? Would you believe that I was just funning, or would you take that as 'proof' that I did not like you?


"As far as the beam in my eye goes, I just don't see it that way. "

Exactly WHY Jesus said that - because the one with the beam in his eye always knows it not! Q.E.D. :-)


"Self described Atheism is a fundamentalism and a religion. "

Only if the practitioner needs to convert the rest of the world (then they are acting no different from the 'Theists') - I know some atheists like that - they DO have a need to make the whole world 'right' and 'save everybody'

Not me mate. I don't CARE what sky fairy others believe in - it may actually make them behave socially nicely anyway - as long as they leave me (and my belief systems - or from their viewpoint 'non-belief' system...) alone and don't insult me by trying to 'convert' me and 'save my (non-existent) soul' in the way they specify. I regularly attend Buddhist 'feast-forums' , but occasionally I just have enough and walk away too. No one has to sit there endlessly when they have had sufficient of the insistence of 'the only way is this' 'discussion'. :-) Much of their pragmatic philosophy is very socially useful, but that doesn't mean that I go along with the whole sky fairy concepts of 'hungry ghosts', infinite dimensions that no one can see except the one individual that had 'exceptional powers'... and other mythical entities, etc....


"Strident athiests"

Haha! many rational thinkers (even Christians too!) object to the sort of sloppy smeared logic (jumbling, misusing, and mixing up poorly defined semantic concepts) so beloved of many Sky Fairy Culture thinkers - just because one objects to that sort of drivel doesn't mean that one is upset by the Sky Fairy nonsense itself, just that the misuse of Logical thought process in expressing it. So then they are attacked as 'evil muddled-headed non-believers' - 'just another atheist'! "

Banter away ... Strident atheists are just as objectionable to me as strident theists ... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 12:51 AM

Ironic...I've never professed to be of any 'religion' on this forum..though I have a working knowledge of several...and it seems that once it was supposed that I was, major resentment and hate spewed forth. Hmmm...I thought 'liberals' were open to diversity....and not bigotry. Any 'religion' I would chose, if any, is one of the guarantees that Our Constitution allows us...but these same characters who banter about 'Civil Rights' in one thread, say homosexuality, for instance, are the same that would deny certain 'religions' of theirs, in this thread!

My, My, My,...peel the layers of the liberal onion, and you find some rather major hypocrisy going on!!...sort of a disconnect from their own stated 'reality'. So really, guys, take a look, and maybe stop embarrassing yourselves in public!

I guess whether your Jewish or Christian..or anything that should believe in, let's say, the Ten Commandments, it REALLY pisses them off to no end...because the First of the Ten, says something like, "I am the Lord thy God, thou shall not have false gods before me"...and that bums them out, because their OPINIONS, have become their false god to them...and they rather worship that particular idol. But, alas, its only an opinion. It has no power of its own.

Besides, atheism in general, is not matter of knowledge, but rather, inflated pride...I mean, what?..knowledge of nothing?!?!?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 01:36 AM

"atheism in general, is not matter of knowledge, but rather, inflated pride"

Oh my - do as I say - not as I do - this vicious emotional put down follows after a pitiful bleating that 'all the atheists hate me (and whatever sky fairy culture I profess) and put down religion' ...

Such tolerance!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 01:45 AM

"atheism in general, is not matter of knowledge"

Bzzzt!

Atheism in general, is a matter of 'not-knowledge' - which is another 'fettle of kish' entirely ... :-p

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 01:59 AM

Foolestroupe:"atheism in general, is not matter of knowledge"
Bzzzt!
Atheism in general, is a matter of 'not-knowledge' - which is another 'fettle of kish' entirely ... :-p

Foolestroupe: "I have nothing to prove.

Foolestroupe:Goodbye

Foolestroupe:You win!



GfS: Good bye

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 03:24 AM

Back - had to surrender the PC for somebody else.

QUOTE
"atheism in general, is not matter of knowledge"
Bzzzt!
Atheism in general, is a matter of 'not-knowledge'

UNQUOTE

It's the sky fairy cultists of all various flavors who KNOW - and because they KNOW, then everybody ELSE who says different logically must be wrong. So anybody who contests and says that he does 'not-know' is misguided or mistaken at best, or evil at worst and obviously (not even being allowed the luxury of actual intent!) out to attack and destroy those who KNOW - the only thing that those who KNOW (and thus they are the self-restricted victims of their own beliefs) can then do is to 'save the unbelievers' by frothing at the mouth till they have convinced the 'unbelievers', if not actually murder them should they be stupidly stubborn enough to defy 'the truth' and resist. Of course this 'war to save them' logically also applies to believers of other sky fairies, whether they believe they are the ONLY sky fairy or not.

Tolerance of other beliefs is a humanist concept and has been a long fought hard battle. This also includes things like slavery, world dominance by any elitist group, 'women are people too', etc.

Those who do 'not-know' by definition have nothing to prove - but those who KNOW are compelled to 'keep proving it', most especially to themselves, lest they backslide and lose their faith.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 06:18 AM

Anti-Christian, moi? Anti-theist? Never!

What I am anti is the way in which religion assumes the default position, quite unjustifiably. This is reflected in microcosm on this thread by two people already who pity me and have said they'll pray for me. Ha ha. Condescending, patronising claptrap. In the big world my BBC licence fee allows me to be bombarded by Songs Of Praise and pronouncements from The Archbishop of Wotsit (not to speak of Thought For The Day). My kids were forced to have religious worship and "R.E." lessons at school. My tax money goes to funding faith schools, just about the most backward institutions imaginable. Nah. I don't give a hoot which god you happen to support (I'm Liverpool FC as it happens though it pains me to admit to that at the moment) but just bloody keep him to yourself. Even Jesus told you to do that fer chrissake. As for Christian, if you think that being that is what makes you a goodie then allow me to introduce you to a few atheists who are among the nicest and most humanitarian people you'll ever meet. But carry on. Just shut up about it, that's all, and stop your chosen church from trying to force it on everyone else. And go and pray for yourselves. You need it more than I do. As for me, I'm an atheist. I have literally nothing to shut up about.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 06:20 AM

I forgot about all those "morning services" and "choral evensongs" on the wireless. Aaargh. Sometimes I even join in with the singing.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 06:23 AM

"Ironic...I've never professed to be of any 'religion' on this forum..though I have a working knowledge of several..."

Working knowledge of several? Are you three vicars?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 06:29 AM

"Self described Atheism is a fundamentalism and a religion.

Steve Shaw seems to be is a high level practitioner of that religion."

This is a slightly odd statement considering that I've never tried to describe atheism and never want to. I know you'd like me to have some sort of atheistic belief system to shoot at but I assure you that such a thing isn't even inchoate in my mind. Stop feeling so threatened!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 06:57 AM

>> I know you'd like me to have some sort of atheistic belief system to shoot at but I assure you that such a thing isn't even inchoate in my mind.<<

No On this thread, you define your beliefs by attacking the beliefs of others.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 07:11 AM

FOOLestroupe: "Tolerance of other beliefs is a humanist concept....."

.....can then do is to 'save the unbelievers' by frothing at the mouth till they have convinced the 'unbelievers', if not actually murder them should they be stupidly stubborn enough to defy 'the truth' and resist...

...logically also applies to believers of other sky fairies, whether they believe they are the ONLY sky fairy or not."

"Tolerance of other beliefs.." ?

Hey pal, You have no remote clue what my beliefs are, and you jumped in with your immature emotional rant, assuming I was things that I'm not. That was in YOUR stupid head! There are people in here, that have experienced things, you never even dreamed of, and you think you have the right to project your petty little mind, in them, as if they lived there. Some of these experiences changed lives, and they would yours as well, if you knew what they are talking about..but you don't! Got it? You come off with your emotional whiny, pout, and expect any respect to your validity, by talking down to them??!! Grow up! There are people in here, who are LIGHT YEARS above your understanding, or your manners! Who gives a fuck what you think you know...IT DOESN'T WORK!

FOOLestroup: "Much of their pragmatic philosophy is very socially useful, but that doesn't mean that I go along with the whole sky fairy concepts of 'hungry ghosts', infinite dimensions that no one can see except the one individual that had 'exceptional powers'... and other mythical entities, etc...."

Do you have any idea how childish that is to some others who may have seen or experienced something large than you describe, because of your VERY limited vision?? You expect to taken seriously?????

I wasn't going to post to you, when I offered my last 'Good Bye' on my previous post..and you probably have no idea why, and who cares, if you did. Your a lightweight, no matter how big your opinion or your head!

To some in here, who have experienced something beyond ANYTHING 'normal' existence has to offer, this isn't one of those mental chewing gum exercises, to talk you in or out of anything,..anything you know jack shit about...and reduce it to 'politics' or your sex trips. Some people take life changing experiences, more seriously, because maybe they got a glimpse of another side. They know exactly who they are.

If you were able to have a mature dialogue, exchanging ideas, without the childish insult attempts, that would be one thing, and maybe we learn from each other...but this behavior of yours,...well, some of us have learned more than we need to know about you..let's put it that way! Not really interested in anything you have to say, or think.

By the way.... I'll leave you with this..to give you something to whine about

I thought it was silly, too...nonetheless....

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 07:13 AM

Same to you Steve...grow up!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 07:14 AM

>>If YOU don't believe what YOU are demanding others believe, why insist on it? Why even say it?<<

I DO believe it. I said it because I thought it might help him.

Shaw, is attacking the religion of others, religiously. I'm saying that since he seems to be obsessed, to the point of finding it necessary to insult people. He is more obsessed that someone who simply does not believe can he.

I am suggesting that he would be better off either giving into his apparent religious urges or if he won't do that, to just try not to be so mean.

I am NOT demanding, and these suggestions were not aimed at anyone but him. Everything I said to Steve was meant for Steve based upon what he has said, to me and to others. I meant it sincerely even though it was couched in humor and partly by reflecting back his own tactics.

Foolestroupe, I fail to see why you would be insulted by that, or why you should even care.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 08:10 AM

I don't know, go away for a couple of days and the whole thread goes doolally.

Steve Shaw

You are talking in terms of goals

I most certainly am not.

and I have comprehensively dismissed this already more than once.

Quite right too

The cause and the resultant change are blind to each other. Not difficult.

So what is the point in insisting on this cause?

Natural selection is not a determining force: it is blind, without goals. On one island the mutation may be beneficial, on another the self-same mutation may be useless. Natural selection does not work directly on genes, but on favourable (or not) expressed attributes according to the prevailing environmental circumstances.

All true but irrelevant to the point I am taking issue with. Natural selection comes in after the mutation occurs and works on that. Actually, it does most of its work on the reshuffled genes resulting from meiosis.

Read your Darwin.

I have studied biology, genetics and evolution at unversity level. I have read my Darwin. He had nothing to say about mutations arising from the miscopying of DNA because it wasn't discovered till the following century.

The sequence is a result of causes. Absolutely not random.

I have never come across this suggestion before in all my studies. Please back it up with some references or examples or something.

Earlier you said -

If you want to demonstrate that any such miscopying is random you're going to have to show that there was no cause.

No I'm not, anymore than I have to demonstrate that there isn't a teapot in orbit round the Sun between Earth and Mars. You're making the claim. The ball's in your court.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 08:12 AM

Jack the Sailor

There may be people who truly don't believe and are neutral about whether or not God exists. But I have neither heard from them or of them.

Hi Jack. Pleased to meet you.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 08:24 AM

There may be people who truly don't believe and are neutral about whether or not God exists. But I have neither heard from them or of them.

And why would you hear from them?

I was brought up without religion and never had any interest in it. It doesn't figure in my life in any shape or form at all.

I live my life, there's on the average day no reason for me to post notices about not being religious on the internet or tell people about it. Which doesn't mean that I am not here, un-religious and all.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 09:38 AM

"Yes Mayor - this man has no dick!"
:-)

"To some in here, who have experienced something beyond ANYTHING 'normal' existence has to offer"
"There are people in here, that have experienced things, you never even dreamed of, and you think you have the right to project your petty little mind, in them, as if they lived there. Some of these experiences changed lives, and they would yours as well, if you knew what they are talking about..but you don't!"
"Some people take life changing experiences, more seriously, because maybe they got a glimpse of another side. They know exactly who they are."
"If you were able to have a mature dialogue, exchanging ideas, without the childish insult attempts, that would be one thing, and maybe we learn from each other...but this behavior of yours,...well, some of us have learned more than we need to know about you..let's put it that way! Not really interested in anything you have to say, or think."

Hmm.. who started the 'insults' 'you just need to find the Godliness you seek, etc' - oh not you, you just don't like looking in the same mirror you hold up to others.

What immature arrogance - you are not a telepath... but you claim to know my life experience more intimately than I do...

"Hey pal, You have no remote clue what my beliefs are, and you jumped in with your immature emotional rant, assuming I was things that I'm not."

Snap!

My younger brother finished his Doctorate at the Seminary - I was supposed to go too - but with my father dying slowly of leukemia, while my mother was also dying meant that someone had to take a paying job. My mother had come home on more than one occasion after asking some good Christian married men with kids who pontificated with even more fire and brimstone than you from the pulpit for some 'christian charity'. "You're a good looking lady luv - spread your legs and you and your kids will be well taken care of."

Met your sort before.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 09:51 AM

"Hey pal, You have no remote clue what my beliefs are, and you jumped in with your immature emotional rant, assuming I was things that I'm not. That was in YOUR stupid head! There are people in here, that have experienced things, you never even dreamed of, and you think you have the right to project your petty little mind, in them, as if they lived there. Some of these experiences changed lives, and they would yours as well, if you knew what they are talking about..but you don't! Got it? You come off with your emotional whiny, pout, and expect any respect to your validity, by talking down to them??!! Grow up! There are people in here, who are LIGHT YEARS above your understanding, or your manners! Who gives a fuck what you think you know...IT DOESN'T WORK!"

Tee hee. A Christian then...

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 09:53 AM

"Same to you Steve...grow up!"

Oh the irony of this, after that awful sweary rant... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 10:11 AM

"Natural selection comes in after the mutation occurs and works on that. Actually, it does most of its work on the reshuffled genes resulting from meiosis."

Natural selection does no such thing. It works on expressed characteristics, on the phenotype in other words. After all, a gene mutation is very likely to occur first, if it survives at all, as a recessive gene, as you'll know from your university studies (I have a biology degree too). There is nothing there for selection to work on unless the double recessive allows the mutated gene to be expressed - tricky when you think about it. It ain't easy for tham thar mutations to get their feet under the table.

"Read your Darwin:" go back to the quoted post and check the context of that remark.

[The sequence is a result of causes. Absolutely not random.

I have never come across this suggestion before in all my studies. Please back it up with some references or examples or something.]

Any particular altered sequence will have been altered by something. Bases don't just jump on and off DNA strands for the hell of it. Something makes them reorganise the way they do. We might not know exactly what every time but that is no reason to suppose that it happens without cause. I don't get why you don't get that.

[If you want to demonstrate that any such miscopying is random you're going to have to show that there was no cause.

No I'm not, anymore than I have to demonstrate that there isn't a teapot in orbit round the Sun between Earth and Mars. You're making the claim. The ball's in your court.]

I haven't made a claim. I'm taking issue with somebody else's claim tht mutations are random. I'm saying mutations have something causing them, but that we, as yet, don't know what the cause might be in every case. We cetainly do in a lot of cases, so it's reasonable to suppose that mutations in general have causes, though there's clearly no certainty. "Don't know" doesn't mean "no cause" (or that it was God doing it or something). I suggest that my position should be the default one. Humbly.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Ebbie, housesitting
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 10:12 AM

lol

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 11:17 AM

I get the impression that there are some "Atheists" whose God is Atheism.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 11:20 AM

Well that's a bit like saying that the Bible (or name your theological text) is God. I don't think God would like that very much.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 11:48 AM

"Well that's a bit like saying that the Bible (or name your theological text) is God. I don't think God would like that very much. "

Right on! It's known as bibliolatry.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 12:13 PM

Late getting back in, but "random" is a tricky word:

colloquial meanings is: without direction or purpose

mathematical meaning is: not deterministically predictable, but following a probability distribution

I'm pretty sure that genetic mutations fit both.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 12:59 PM

Steve Shaw

"Natural selection comes in after the mutation occurs and works on that. Actually, it does most of its work on the reshuffled genes resulting from meiosis."

Natural selection does no such thing. It works on expressed characteristics, on the phenotype in other words.

You are quite right, sloppy speaking on my part. Natural selection actually works on the consequences of the change in base sequence after it has been translated into RNA and then protein and then expressed as a change in the phenotype. It is even further removed from the mechanism of DNA replication than I said.

"Read your Darwin:" go back to the quoted post and check the context of that remark.

I did, in fact, quote and comment on the context where you, yet again, cited natural selection as evidence for the non-randomness of changes in the base sequence during copying. I have no problems with what you are saying about natural selection, it is just nothing to do with the copying or mis-copying of DNA.

Any particular altered sequence will have been altered by something. Bases don't just jump on and off DNA strands for the hell of it. Something makes them reorganise the way they do. We might not know exactly what every time but that is no reason to suppose that it happens without cause. I don't get why you don't get that.

There is a "mechanism" for tossing coins or throwing dice. There is nothing (or at least, nothing accessible to calculation or prediction) that causes the coin to fall heads or the dice to fall six. The result is random.

I haven't made a claim.

Sorry, but it sounds to me as if you are claiming that mis-copying is a non-random process.

I'm saying mutations have something causing them, but that we, as yet, don't know what the cause might be in every case. We cetainly do in a lot of cases,

Really? Please provide references and examples.

I suggest that my position should be the default one. Humbly.

Since, on the evidence so far, you are the only person who holds that position, that's not all that humble.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 02:11 PM

Mutations can be triggered by ionising radiation and by ultra-violet light and by numerous chemicals that we even call mutagens, among other things. If a mutstion arises that can't immediately be assigned to such a cause, I'm sure you'd think it reasonable to try to find one. Good college, was it?

"(or at least, nothing accessible to calculation or prediction)"

Exactly.

Tia, back to you after I've had me tea!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 02:41 PM

Steve Shaw

Mutations can be triggered by ionising radiation and by ultra-violet light and by numerous chemicals that we even call mutagens, among other things. If a mutstion arises that can't immediately be assigned to such a cause, I'm sure you'd think it reasonable to try to find one.

Of course, but I would have no reason to believe that the outcome was any more predictable than any of those external physical causes.

"(or at least, nothing accessible to calculation or prediction)"

Exactly.

You have just agreed with TIA's mathematical definition of random. Why are you arguing that mutation is non-random?

If a mutstion arises

Did something "cause" that typo? Was the substitution of an "s" for an "a" deterministically predictable? You could just as easily have hit any other adjacent key or, given that typing is a two finger hand job, any other key. I've done the same myself many times. The mechanism of typing is fraught wih errors; the results are unpredictable.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 03:09 PM

Forgot to add -

Good college, was it?

Yes.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 04:00 PM

"Of course, but I would have no reason to believe that the outcome was any more predictable than any of those external physical causes."

You appear to be defending "random" as if it means "unpredictable."

"You have just agreed with TIA's mathematical definition of random. Why are you arguing that mutation is non-random?"

Basically I'm arguing that it's reasonable to suppose that mutations are caused by something. Right up from downright unstable molecules with over-excited atoms to being nobbled by colchicine or gamma rays. The word random seems inappropriate, as it implies spontaneity or "without cause." Even over-excited atoms or sub-atomic particles that do wacky things will only be doing them because of some fortuitous combination of circumstances, because they do do them all the time. A cause, in other words. The results, in some scenarios, may well be random distribution, but I don't see how this can be applied to mutations. They are unlikely to be spontaneous and they can't be analysed statistically in that way. I'm saying I don't think random is either the right term nor does it communicate the right idea of what's going on when genes mutate.

Tia: the sense in which I suspect "random" is being used here is "without direction or purpose." Actually, that is a characterisation of mutation I can cheerfully live with, though describing the results of mutations as random is futile. (He said, looking around over his shoulders in case someone inserts God into it... ;-) )

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 04:29 PM

Guest from Sanity "informed" us as follows:

They are not commas, Sweet Ebbie!
You should read 'shooting scripts' or playwrights. They are an indication of time, usually thoughtful, in nature....you know, THOUGHT-ful????

Then how do they miraculously get into your posts, GfS?

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 04:36 PM

Steve Shaw

You appear to be defending "random" as if it means "unpredictable.

Er... Yes. What's your definition?

Tia: the sense in which I suspect "random" is being used here is "without direction or purpose."

Good.

Actually, that is a characterisation of mutation I can cheerfully live with,

Good.

though describing the results of mutations as random is futile.

Nobody is doing so. Clearly the results of mutations are subject to natural selection. The problem arises from the assertion that those mutations arise from some cause.

(He said, looking around over his shoulders in case someone inserts God into it... ;-) )

Please leave God out of this discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 04:38 PM

One true test of a Christian is their tolerance of alternative views.


Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure it is!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS:
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 05:14 PM

"Please leave God out of this discussion"

The thread title is "True Test of an Atheist"

That would lead one to assume that God has no place thediscussion, well, maybe...but,he/she tends to have his/her agents(s)...and they are not all directly endorsed by St. Peter :)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 05:23 PM

"because they do do them all the time."

I meant because they don't do them all the time. Aargh.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 05:35 PM

I was interested to read where Jack the Sailor said this:

Being a strident Atheist give one all of the drawbacks of having religion with none of the benefits.

I tend to agree with you, Jack. And I have tended to agree with that statement for sixty years while I have sometimes called myself an agnostic and sometimes an atheist. Some of the benefits of religious belief I recognize are emotional, some social; those are the benefits of the belief itself, regardless of the truth of what's believed in. Then, if the truth of the belief were really there and I believed, there would presumably be what I'll refer to as "supernatural benefits".

And as an "out of the closet atheist", there are definitely social drawbacks. If one were weak in one's atheist position, unsure of the logic of one's beliefs, the uncertainty would be uncomfortable, and a drawback.

But recognizing that "If I just believed X, I suppose I'd gain a lot regardless of what might be the untruth of the proposition" doesn't suddenly make X believable. The fact is that I don't find X (the whole theist and Christian position, in this context) believable, and I cannot find it believable despite much thought, reading, and discussion over the last sixty years, and I WILL NOT PRETEND to believe X in order illegitimately to claim some of the social benefits. And further, if I were merely pretending to believe in order to gain the social benefits I wouldn't get the putative emotional benefits either; instead, I'd get a negative "benefit" by knowing myself to be intellectually dishonest, knowingly engaged in self-deception or the deception of others.

That being the case, I would not characterize myself as "a strident atheist", to use your words, Jack. I really, truly wouldn't want to talk a convinced theist out of his position (if that were even possible), because I would be harming him, depriving him at least of the emotional and possibly the social benefits, and the supernatural benefits too, in the unlikely event that there were any.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 05:41 PM

Once and awhile, in frustration over differences in opinion on the meaning of a word, I seek comfort in the totally insane "Urban Dictionary". Here are some random (NO, not that useage) definitions from that site. It is so refreshing, and gives an understanding where our civilization is headed.

Random:
a word that follows no criteria or pattern. A word often misused by morons who don't know very many other words.
Correct: The decay of a radioactive isotope is random.
This is correct because nobody can predict exactly when the atom will decay. It actually doesn't follow a pattern.

Incorrect: Lol! Here r sum randome people I just met.
This is incorrect because the people have been chosen by a number of criteria: they are people that happen to be closeby and people who are willing to talk to you.

Incorrect: LoL here R sum randome words that I am thinking of.
The words are not random because you have specifically chosen them on the criteria that they are "suprirsing" or "unusual".


Random:
The most over used and misunderstood word in the english language. Commonly used by english teens, often buying into the fast growing subculture of emo. 1)Supposedly meaning spontaneous and off the wall by ignorant people. 2) how a large proportion of the myspace community describe themselves. 3) A way for morons to pretend they are capable of original though when actually every aspect of their lives is planned out meticulously with out fail.
Person A: and we said " mouse pad cups"
Person B: How totally random of you
Person C: "quiet you mundane little twat, stop abusing that word. you have no concept of random that words to big for you. your misuse offends me. I ought to brick you"

Random   
The most annoying word ever. You'll say something that relates to your previous topic, yet they say it's random because they can't comprehen it.
"Cake is good. I just got one from the bakery, and it was chocolate."

"That was random, LMFAO."

"No, you asshole, we're still talking about cake."


Random
act of being naked; most commonly associated with sleeping in the nude. (Adjective)
"Cindy enjoys sleeping random on occasion".

Random
unexpected hard-on.
"Dude, I was in class and I just got a random".

Random
Irrelivant, unexpected, unusual technical definition, selected on no particular attributes.

"I can't think of any. here, i will insert the word random".

Random
redneck term used commonly with large vehicles. Referring directly to making physical contact with something else using the vehicle.
Hey Bo, wheredyaget dem deers?

"I random over on the highway".

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 05:52 PM

">>I suggest that my position should be the default one. Humbly.

Since, on the evidence so far, you are the only person who holds that position, that's not all that humble. "

May I humbly submit you publish the result of your survey on that erroneous sweeping claim?

Steve and I are different people - perhaps FOOLestroupe is just ignored...

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 06:13 PM

I love the unexpected hard-on meaning!

Random in psych experiments means "according to a random number table or unseeded random number generator" - that last bit added because the seeded ones apparently weren't random, marring oh, about a decade of research...

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 06:17 PM

"Nobody is doing so. Clearly the results of mutations are subject to natural selection. The problem arises from the assertion that those mutations arise from some cause."

Overwhelmingly, the results of mutations are that the mutations will not survive, way before the point where natural selection gets hold of them. A mutation may be a nonsense or lethal combination for a start. Then again, even if a mutation codes for a potentially-viable trait, it may well be recessive and not expressed. A tiny minority of mutations will ever find phenotypic expression, and only then will natural selection, er, "get to work."

The assertion that mutations have causes is demonstrable in that certain environmental conditions or chemical agents can be shown experimentally to cause mutations. Blimey, even fag smoke is known to contain mutagens. We all know that unprotected sunbathing (exposure to UV) can cause mutations in skin cells. Asbestos fibres can trigger cancerous mutations in lungs and surrounding tissues. And so on. The fact that frequency of mutations can be increased by subjecting tissues to these agents surely makes us suspect that mutations in general have causes. I don't know why you don't see this point. I'm not saying I'm right but at least I'm not being counter-intuitive.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 06:28 PM

Mrrzy

I seem to remember that I mumbled on about such stuff before, particularly in 'computer games', there is a whole sub-field of computing (dabbled a bit there too!) related to generating 'random' numbers - mathematically it seems that computers can only generate pseudo-random numbers for a whole bunch of reasons that the keen student can look up for themselves, as my Uni lecturers used to say with a wry smile.

Amusingly, if you attempt to generate 'random numbers' by manual means - eg guessing, the output displays no 'random' bell curve, but is always strongly biased, a fact magicians have known and exploited for centuries. That and a bit of sleight-of-hand 'forcing' and 'distraction' is how they get their results. But people still strongly believe in spite of objective research evidence that they actually have 'free choice' which guarantees that their selection process will be 'random'.

'Religion' (and politics, which some consider to be a form of 'religion'!) depends on the beloved techniques of 'forcing' - guaranteeing particular outcomes irrespective of selections or other inputs.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 06:32 PM

Thanks for the ultra-sane urban dictionary quotes, Ed. This one is actually pretty serious:

"Correct: The decay of a radioactive isotope is random.
This is correct because nobody can predict exactly when the atom will decay. It actually doesn't follow a pattern."

This illustrates very well the point I've been trying to make. Actually, I don't know much about radioactive decay so I might not use the right words, but here goes. Saying that the decay of a radioactive isotope is random is actually meaningless. Are you saying that subatomic particles are emitted in a random way in terms of direction, or are you talking about the rate of emission of particles being random, or are you saying that some atoms of the isotope in question decay whilst others don't? And you haven't referred at all to causality. Impose a cause (such as putting billions of similar atoms next to our atom so that the critical mass is exceeded) and you will have to let go of that word random. And when you say it doesn't follow a pattern, for how long have you observed the process to confirm this? Could there not be a pattern you haven't detected?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 06:34 PM

"Nobody is doing so. Clearly the results of mutations are subject to natural selection. The problem arises from the assertion that those mutations arise from some cause."

The classic case of demonstrating 'a cause' in evolution - and from earliest times of researching 'evolution' (who first documented it? - I know) was

'the little moth'
sitting on the black tree...

sorry, nearly broke into song..... :-)

In industrial England, the light colored bark trees that were blackened with soot allowed birds to more easily catch the lighter moths. The population shifted with time to darker colors. After the local soot generation stopped and the environment was 'cleaned up', eventually the population percentage of lighter colored moths was favored again.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 06:49 PM

I used to mark 'A' level biology essay papers for the University of London. The bloody peppered moth serially drove us examiners mad. It is not an example of evolution at all, though it is an example of natural selection at work. The dark moths were generated in small numbers well before the Industrial Revolution, but were not favoured by the environment and so few survived to breed. But a few did. The point is that the dark moths did not "evolve" as a result of soot blackening tree trunks. Dark moths were *always* there. In order for dark and light moths to evolve into two species, isolation of dark and light populations would have to occur for so long that, at the end of it all, the dark and light moths would no longer be able to interbreed. That bit is simply not part of the peppered moth story as we hear it. Now I'm not saying that the peppered moth can't evolve. I am saying that it can't evolve into two species unless isolation of populations takes place. God, I used to love scoring out bloody great long accounts of the peppered moth "as an example of evolution" with my red pen.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 07:15 PM

Steve Shaw, you just said a magic word: "counter-intuitive".

We all, I think, intuitively feel that any event has some cause. That's part of why the Big Bang is so hard for people to swallow. And the idea that the Judaeo-Christian god was not caused or created, but existed forever, as an attempted escape from the First-Cause argument. But we (or at least I) know that many, many, many intuitive convictions or judgments turn out to have no basis, once investigated.

Many, many scientific studies are ridiculed because they inquire into beliefs or relations that almost all of humanity have historically found intuitively true: "They have to have an experiment to study THAT? Everybody knows that!" and if their findings are contrary to the intuitive opinions the findings tend to be attacked.

Steve, I think you are in essence saying that, "If we could just investigate and investigate the origins of mutations, I believe that somewhere back there we'd find a cause, because I find universal causation intuitively powerful."

And so do I; I'm more comfortable intellectually with the idea of universal causation. I suppose everyone is, at first blush.

But to say that a stressor such as radiation, asbestos fiber, or some chemical makes cellular-level (and intracellular) change statistically more common doesn't quite get to the level of causation of a particular change. And WHICH specific change in many cases appears not to be "caused" by the stressor impinging; the result is "caused" all right, I think, but by such a multitude of environmental and cellular facts as to ultimately unpredictable, thus random. We are talking about "faith" here, faith in causation, which I share; and also adopting or rejecting one or another meaning of "random" in support of one or another intuitive judgment

You close with "at least I'm not being counter-intuitive". That may be just the problem, on both sides of this particular corner of the discussion.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 07:30 PM

Science to stimulate "random" thought"

Natural Selection May Not Produce The Best Organisms

Natural Selection Not The Only Process That Drives Evolution?

How Evolution Learns From Past Environments To Adapt To New Environments

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 07:30 PM

Well Dave, I hope you took in that I was being self-deprecating at the end of that post. I tend to think you did. We atheists don't deal in certainties, unlike some of those Christian chappies. I have this visceral feeling that the word "random" is often used for scenarios which we just don't understand, and I'd rather say "I don't think I understand why this event happened" than "I can't see what caused this so it must have been random." It's a potential cop-out, a bit like the God of the Gaps.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 07:38 PM

Thank you Steve, I thought you might love the 'moth' tale .... :-)

The Foole loves the role of Devil's Advocate...

hee hee....

You - the percentage of light and dark moths at birth hasn't changed, last I heard, just that the percentage of current surviving traits moves around according to whatever current pressures exist.... sorta like politicians, isn't it :-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 07:39 PM

Well, Ed, I had a quick look at those rather tabloidesque links you put up. I get a bit suspicious when I read about "genes evolving" (they don't: genes mutate, organisms evolve) and "evolution learning" (it doesn't: it's blind and has no goals and there's no underlying intelligence to "learn" anything). Hope you don't think I'm chucking the baby out with the bathwater and all that, but I think I'll stick to more learned sources.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 07:45 PM

Yep, well said, Foolestroupe. I wasn't having a dig, it's just that I had that sodding moth coming out of my ears for twelve years on the exam board!

Actually, they're very pretty. We had one on an apple tree trunk last week and my wife had to look twice to see it at all. As we're in unpolluted Kernow, you won't be surprised to hear it was a light one! They're also incredibly well camouflaged on natural concrete paving slabs.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 07:49 PM

Steve

I have a friend who once was brought to tears marking a paper. It rattled his religious faith as well a lot of his other life beliefs too, causing him much grief - probably a genuine example of 'life changing experiences' that our foaming at the mouth 'banter friend' was previously claiming that I know naughtynaught of too....

While writing a dissertation on evolution, the sincere student had ignored the set text books, the whole University Library et al, and quoted only from the Bible.

This friend was terrified that if he failed the paper (which really he HAD no 'intellectual' choice but to do), he would be sacked - the Uni being in an area of strong 'Religion', and what with Vice Chancellors leading public prayer meetings etc.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 07:56 PM

"Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives' mouths." Bertrand Russell

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Slag
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 08:00 PM

Random- a silent sprinter
re the general topic at hand: the 3 things you never discuss, religion, politics, atheism.

re natural selection: Given the Earth's sub-atomic environment, genetic mutations are inevitable. The vast majority are of no value with most being harmful. If they should afford some advantage over other "same niche" creatures then there is a possiblity that such a mutation will be passed on. That's natural selection at the genetic level.

An interesting development has been the discovery of "switching" genes. It seems that some genes have adaptives or responsive sequences built in and that certain environmental conditions will cause that segment to "turn on". It's seems it's already in there and ready to go. Pretty amazing stuff.

Back to the topic: "Religion" is some form of ritualized behavior often engaged in as an attempt to influence devine or other-worldly influences or as an act of adoration of the same. Sometimes it is seen as a routinization of experience and the actual point of the religious action is lost. That is to say, it becomes a mindless perfomance.

Unfortunately the term is used broadly to mean any spiritual experience or life altering experience as in "he got the 'religion' and doesn't do that any more" or some such. As such it ignores the distinctive aspects of an individual's experiences and unfairly categorizes him, his experience and in general, is dismissive of the same.

I may be guilty of the same coming from the other direction but aside from the anecdotal bad and worse experiences some have had with those who claim a religion, a postion in some organized religion, etc. and all the emotional fallout that ensues, I would conclude that the sole basis of atheism is the lack of empirical evidence and the inability of scientific reasoning to prove the existence of a seperate spiritual plane of existence. Would this be correct?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 08:01 PM

QUOTE
used to love scoring out bloody great long accounts of the peppered moth "as an example of evolution"
UNQUOTE

This is a perfect example of what I was rabbiting on before about how people easily muddle up semantic labels with great abandon, almost enjoyment, with no remorse. IME those with great 'faith' and little skepticism are the easiest to be suckered (they do it themselves) into this trap, and they really see no problems at all. Their thinking is totally clear, there is no beam in their eyes, they KNOW the facts ....

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 08:19 PM

"I would conclude that the sole basis of atheism is the lack of empirical evidence and the inability of scientific reasoning to prove the existence of a separate spiritual plane of existence. Would this be correct? "

I appreciate your sincerity, but you really have that ass-backwards. The 'religious' are unable to 'prove' (except in their own mind, by convoluted semantic jumbling and smearing of concepts) any of their complex convoluted mumbo jumbo, which by their OWN definition 'is beyond human understanding' (told you I was brought up fundamentalist Lutheran!), so they just accept it 'in their hearts' on 'faith'. To see a current topical example, you might like to wade through Conrad's thesis on 'FREED Folk Music' where he insists as a matter of 'faith' that getting stonkered with gallons of 'bier' on every musical occasion is necessary for 'the release of his muse'... :-)

The one with 'faith' KNOWs, the atheist just 'not-know's - as I said "What part of No is so difficult to understand?" which has now become a fairly standard answer to the "Creationist/ID proponents' whose intellectual flailings about remind the student of the history of scientific progress of things like 'the aether', orgonne, the musical theory of the crystal spheres of the rotations of the planets, the history is littered with ineffectual attempts to grasp understanding..

I've input here on that before, so I'll let others have a turn, or I'll be back later, supposed to be mowing grass, really ... :-) ...

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 08:31 PM

"re natural selection: Given the Earth's sub-atomic environment, genetic mutations are inevitable. The vast majority are of no value with most being harmful. If they should afford some advantage over other "same niche" creatures then there is a possiblity that such a mutation will be passed on. That's natural selection at the genetic level."

Well, Charlie Darwin knew nothing about the genetic level and I'm more than happy to stick with his model of natural selection, which is that it acts on expressed characteristics. He worked it all out even though he'd never heard of genes, and he was able to do so because natural selection does not act on sequences of bases on a long-chain chemical in your cells, but on your expressed physical and physiological attributes. To us today that means the phenotype. That man-eating tiger doesn't analyse your genome before he goes for you. He sort of notices that he can run faster than you. The wonderful thing about Darwin's big idea is that it's embarrassingly simple, and it is by no means out of date.   


"I would conclude that the sole basis of atheism is the lack of empirical evidence and the inability of scientific reasoning to prove the existence of a seperate spiritual plane of existence. Would this be correct?"

Nope, not correct at all. Way too negative, and I'm not keen on your veiled pejorative when it comes to science. We ask for evidence for any assertions made, which is a highly rational stance. We know that there is much still to be discovered. But we find it puzzling that believers don't want to ask questions. When you're dealing with a being who's supposed to explain everything, yet who is completely inexplicable himself and who breaks all the laws of physics, we feel that asking questions and demanding hard evidence is justified.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 09:03 PM

Slag said, in part, with some prefatory sidestepping:

I would conclude that the sole basis of atheism is the lack of empirical evidence and the inability of scientific reasoning to prove the existence of a seperate spiritual plane of existence. Would this be correct?

First, you say "sole basis" (one thing, barring any other factors), and then give two parts to your thesis. Not a big deal; we can work with it.

But taking those two parts as if they were one, you're positing an extremely simplified line of thought. Without having given a great deal of study to your proposed analysis, I thought at first that you might just be coming into the ballpark. EXCEPT that--

"The inability of scientific reasoning to prove", etc. puts the shoe on the wrong foot. The function of scientific reasoning is not really "to prove" anything; it is to test hypotheses. If a hypothesis passes the experimental testing, it is commonly said to have been "proved", which sounds definite and sound, but really what's happened is that, based on that test or experiment, the truth of the hypothesis is considered more likely.

If you or another thinker hypothesizes "the existence of a seperate [sic] plane of existence" (whatever that may be), it is I suppose conceivable that scientific reasoning might seek to test that hypothesis--not "prove" it. I don't have any idea how that might be done, however

And "prove" as it is used in modern English means to cause a particular view of a question to be adopted, based on objective grounds. That would be the function of metaphysicians (or possibly theologians) in the case of "a seperate [sic] plane of existence".

However, if there could be evidence which conclusively proved "the existence of a seperate [sic] plane of existence", that would not of itself prove the existence of a god therein. Buddhism posits what I think could be called a separate plane(s) of existence, but without a god to its name, for instance.

If you are interested in synthesizing a simple statement of "the basis of atheism", try going back to the drawing board, Slag.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 09:10 PM

I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.
- Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr., Sept. 28, 1949, quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2

Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious.

- Albert Einstein, Response to atheist, Alfred Kerr (1927), quoted in The Diary of a Cosmopolitan (1971)


The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer.
- Albert Einstein, quoted in: Einstein's God - Albert Einstein's Quest as a Scientist and as a Jew to Replace a Forsaken God (1997)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 09:31 PM

I just could not resist ...

"No one expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise, fear and surprise; two chief weapons, fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency! Er, among our chief weapons are: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, and near fanatical devotion to the Pope! Um, I'll come in again..."

— Graham Chapman

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 09:40 PM

Now I can't get the damn thing out of my mind... but it's somehow relevant to this thread ... :-)

Ximinez: Now, old lady - you have one last chance. Confess the heinous sin of heresy, reject the works of the ungodly - *two* last chances. And you shall be free - *three* last chances. You have three last chances, the nature of which I have divulged in my previous utterance.

Dear Old Lady: I don't know what you're talking about.

Ximinez: Right! If that's the way you want it - Cardinal! Poke her with the soft cushions!
~~~~~~~~~~

and a fuller version of before...

Reg: Trouble at t'mill.
Lady M: Oh, no! What sort of trouble?
Reg: One on't cross beams gone owt askew on't treddle.
Lady M: Pardon?
Reg: One on't cross beams gone owt askew on't treddle.
Lady M: I don't understand what you're saying.
Reg: One of the cross beams has gone out of skew on the treadle.
Lady M: Well, what on earth does that mean?
Reg: I don't know! - Mr. Wentworth just told me to come in here and say that there was trouble at the mill, that's all - I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition!

[the door flies open and in come three Cardinals in red robes]

Cardinal Ximinez: NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise!... Surprise and fear... fear and surprise... Our two weapons are fear and surprise... and ruthless efficiency! Our three weapons are fear, and surprise, and ruthless efficiency... and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope... Our four... no... Amongst our weapons... Hmf... Amongst our weaponry... are such elements as fear, surpr... I'll come in again.

[They leave]

Reg: [gamely] I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition.

[They burst in again]

Ximinez: NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!... Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms - Oh damn!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 10:28 PM

Some of the Athiests in this discussion seem to be conflating the arguments, of their opponents here.
No wonder they are lost lambs, they cannot tell the sheepdogs from the wolves.

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 10:49 PM

"Some of the Athiests in this discussion seem to be conflating the arguments, of their opponents here.
No wonder they are lost lambs, they cannot tell the sheepdogs from the wolves."

Nonsensical gibberish - but got a quick laugh.

Examples please?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 12:18 AM

"Well, Ed, I had a quick look at those rather tabloidesque links you put up. I get a bit suspicious when I read about "genes evolving" (they don't: genes mutate, organisms evolve) and "evolution learning" (it doesn't: it's blind and has no goals and there's no underlying intelligence to "learn" anything). Hope you don't think I'm chucking the baby out with the bathwater and all that, but I think I'll stick to more learned sources"

Well Steve, while the (tabloidesque)articles I posted (you know, the ones you took a quick look at) were in science news articles, the journals where they were publiched were noted.

Could it be that they were not in keeping with your "scientific beliefs/opinions"?

Where have you posted links to your, so called, "learned sources"? What I have seen is mostly opinion, much like that posted by others taking an oposing position (my opinion). Not that there is anything wrong with that.

It is easy to talk the talk.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 02:04 AM

"How Evolution Learns From Past Environments To Adapt To New Environments

... suggest that in environments that vary over time in a non-random way, evolution can learn the rules of the environment and develop organisms that can readily generate novel useful traits with only a few mutations."

QUOTE "learn the rules" UNQUOTE ... haha! Semantic tricks again....

Ah - I am reminded of 'the matchbox computer to play hexpawn', which I built once.... :-)

You get lots of matchboxes with the various pictures of all the possible playing positions of the pieces on the outside. Inside each one you place various counters or pieces of paper that reflect all the possible moves from the position on the outside of the box.

You then play the game many times. Many, many times. Many, many, many times. (Sorry - old BBC Radio Comedy Show gag line...)

Each time that you strike a position when the 'computer' loses, you 'prune the tree' of that possible outcome by removing the losing move selector. Eventually, the computer will only win, or draw. You can also prune paths leading to the draw position if you wish to 'force' (as per magician's forcing) the outcome.

Theoretically, this paper pontificatesguesses that if 'natural selection' prunes out the unsuitable outcomes, then the 'organism had learned' - interesting semantic trick ....


"employed computer simulations of evolution of simple computational 'organisms'. "

Ha! - Pilots trained on computer simulations of planes still crash and die when the real physical entity does things that were not pre-programmed - thus one must take great care before pontificatingguessing how the real world will behave...

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Slag
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 02:32 AM

OK then, you "evolve" into an atheist and a mutated gene is the culprit? But the semantical outcome is the equivalent of a religion? And the God forsaken Spanish Inquisition silenced Albert Eisenhower with a four ponged soft pillow? Finally, your arguments are beginnning to make a certain kind of sense, I think.

I apologize to any to whom my previous terse little summation and attempt to understand where we were in this thread was somehow offensive and definitely at odds with the tone of gentlemanly discourse this discussion has taken. I'll let the dust settle a bit more and let a little sleep clear the cobwebs. Night all.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 05:02 AM

Steve, I have no problem with anything you have said since my last post except that you totally fail to address the point I am making.

Initially I asked for clarification of your statement -

A mutation is miscopying of heritable material. If you want to demonstrate that any such miscopying is random you're going to have to show that there was no cause.

Foolestroupe intervened on your behalf but failed to answer the question. I then asked "Are you and Steve claiming that there is a cause for the specific new order of bases after the miscopying?" to which you replied -

Why not? There would be a cause for the initial impetus to change and a cause for the particular way of recombining.

That is what I am questioning.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 05:06 AM

Foolestroupe

Steve and I are different people - perhaps FOOLestroupe is just ignored...

Sorry FT but since you posted this link and this link I assumed that you did not share Steve's deterministic view.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 05:12 AM

Ed T

"Please leave God out of this discussion"

The thread title is "True Test of an Atheist"

Sorry Ed, I was referring to the discussion that Steve and I are having which is nothing to do with the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 06:57 AM

"Well Steve, while the (tabloidesque)articles I posted (you know, the ones you took a quick look at) were in science news articles, the journals where they were publiched were noted.

Could it be that they were not in keeping with your 'scientific beliefs/opinions'?"

Not at all. I get suspicious when I read such loose writing in supposedly learned journals and I did point to two examples of this that I picked up in just a quick flick-through. They were both howlers that, at worst, should have been picked up by a competent editor and, at best, not written at all. Popular science writing has its place as long as we remember that that's all it is.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 07:19 AM

"Why not? There would be a cause for the initial impetus to change and a cause for the particular way of recombining.

That is what I am questioning."

Suppose we have a sequence that goes CGTAGGT on two identical DNA strands. Say we irradiate the strands and they both, er, mutate (yeah, I know...) One strand ends up as CGATGGT and the other ends up as CGTGAGT. We can strongly suspect that the radiation triggered the mutations (you could do controls of course to confirm that) but it's a bit harder to explain why they ended up different and not the same. Maybe we bent over backwards to ensure that they were irradiated identically and that all other conditions were identical for both. But therein lies the rub. It's impossible, to all intents and purposes, for either us or the environment to get identical conditions for both, when you think right down to subatomic particle level. All that jiggling and shooting about and jostling of atoms and molecules in the surrounding medium... The most reasonable position to take would be that they recombined differently because they were subjected to ever so slightly different environmental conditions. I don't think it's reasonable, just because we can't actually pin down the cause, to assume that was was no cause. I suppose that if you repeated the experiment thousands of times there's a chance that you'd find the numerical spread of the new combinations fitted some kind of statistical "randomness", but, even if that were so (and it might not be), it would elucidate precisely nothing about what was going on (as I probably haven't). It wouldn't show that there were no causes, that's for sure.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 08:37 AM

Steve, thank you for replying to the point I was making at last.

You are now echoing what Uncle DaveO said -

And WHICH specific change in many cases appears not to be "caused" by the stressor impinging; the result is "caused" all right, I think, but by such a multitude of environmental and cellular facts as to ultimately unpredictable, thus random.

The sequence is "caused" by something but each cause is effectively unique. You have simply replaced random outcomes with random causes which makes no practical difference. The mutations that feed the system leading to altered phenotypes for natural selection to work on are still random.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 09:05 AM

"Sorry FT but since you posted this link and this link "

Are you really sure that I posted them? But then perhaps, my Mind isn't what it used to be, it used to be my Liver, I think....

I did look at and comment on at least one of them...

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 09:33 AM

Unpredictable doesn't mean random. I dislike the word random to describe mutations because it communicates wholly the wrong idea about what's going on. It implies that they are somehow spontaneous and without cause. I'm saying that that message is highly questionable, and that we need a different way of characterising the way mutations arise. It's just the wrong word.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 10:10 AM

Steve Shaw

Unpredictable doesn't mean random.

Er, I think you will find that it does. Look it up.

I dislike the word random to describe mutations because it communicates wholly the wrong idea about what's going on.

So what is going on?

It implies that they are somehow spontaneous and without cause.

Not without cause, but not deterministic either.

I'm saying that that message is highly questionable, and that we need a different way of characterising the way mutations arise.

Please provide one.

It's just the wrong word.

Seems to work fine.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 10:18 AM

Foolestroupe

Are you really sure that I posted them?

Here you go

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 10:23 AM

"You have simply replaced random outcomes with random causes which makes no practical difference."

It IS the VERY and critically important practical difference....

If your 'practical difference' claim simply means that you are confused and assume that 'random causation' "a" always produces 'random outcome' "A"... but in that case it is a one to one relationship, and so the idea that the outcome itself is 'random' (and unrelated to the input, irrespective of whether THAT is 'random' or not) is shot down....

But now if input "a" always produces a different output ('random' - 'non-deterministic') then we can learn nothing by studying it anyway ... unless the output displays a statistical output curve, in which case it is still consistently deterministic.... just that we can only assign a percentage certainty to the outcomes...

If you don't mean either of the above, I have no idea what you could mean....

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 10:33 AM

AH ...

Knew I had not directly searched for those links myself, but had taken them from another poster.

From: Desert Dancer
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 10:31 PM

Who Posted
QUOTE

Try Evolution 101. (This whole site is one of the best ones available on the topic.)
UNQUOTE

The link was on the "Evolution 101"....

I just went there and made a few comments on a few pages - the urls of which I posted direct.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 10:42 AM

I wonder if there is a true test of a Christian.

"Take all your goods and give them to the poor - nope, Senator Joe wouldn't have approved of that one.
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into heaven" - don't think so really.
"Thou shalt not kill" - ok until a war comes along, then the clergy are there urging our lads over the top.
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods" - not if your in business.
"Love thy neighbour" - unless he's black, or brown, or Irish, or Catholic, or Protestant, or Jewish, or a Traveller.....
"Suffer the little children" - taken too literally by some of the clergy.

Any offers?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 10:43 AM

QUOTE
It's just the wrong word.

Seems to work fine.
UNQUOTE

Only for muddled thinking. You may scoff at the pedantic, but if you do not refrain from confusing what the terms (words) mean and use one term (word) indiscriminately when there are several semantic concepts (meanings) involved in the arguments ... then ... GIGO.

As per previous statement...

QUOTE
I dislike the word random to describe mutations because it communicates wholly the wrong idea about what's going on. It implies that they are somehow spontaneous and without cause. I'm saying that that message is highly questionable, and that we need a different way of characterizing the way mutations arise.
UNQUOTE

That's perfectly clear to me, but then I am pedantic.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 11:10 AM

"Unpredictable doesn't mean random.

Er, I think you will find that it does. Look it up."

OK, I looked it up in four places. It doesn't mean "random."

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 11:20 AM

"'I'm saying that that message is highly questionable, and that we need a different way of characterising the way mutations arise.'

Please provide one."

Well, we could just say what we know. Mutations are known in many cases to be encouraged by mutagenic agents such as radiation and some chemicals. The extent to which most or all mutations are triggered by these or by other environmental stimuli, possibly right down to the subatomic level, is not clear, but it would be reasonable to hypothesise that most, if not all, are so caused.

In my view, "random" sits very uneasily among that lot.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 12:19 PM

Foolestroupe

If your 'practical difference' claim simply means that you are confused and assume that 'random causation' "a" always produces 'random outcome' "A"...

Unfortunately, Steve has undermined the idea of cause by arguing that the reason for differing outcomes is different circumstances. It's impossible, to all intents and purposes, for either us or the environment to get identical conditions for both, when you think right down to subatomic particle level. It is impossible for 'random causation' "a" to always produce 'random outcome' "A" because 'random causation' "a" only ever occurs once. The cause and the outcome are inextricably linked.

But now if input "a" always produces a different output ('random' - 'non-deterministic') then we can learn nothing by studying it anyway ...

Rather the point I was trying to make.

unless the output displays a statistical output curve, in which case it is still consistently deterministic.... just that we can only assign a percentage certainty to the outcomes...

That is not what Steve is saying. He posits "a cause for the particular way of recombining".

Only for muddled thinking.

A pity you feel the need to resort to that sort of talk.

You may scoff at the pedantic,

Certainly not!

but if you do not refrain [Ooo er!] from confusing what the terms (words) mean and use one term (word) indiscriminately when there are several semantic concepts (meanings) involved in the arguments ... then ... GIGO.

I'm quite happy with TIA's definition of random (look for it yourself). It's Steve who seems to be working to a different one although I can't quite work out what it is.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 12:30 PM

Above posted before I'd seen Steve's replies.

Steve Shaw

OK, I looked it up in four places. It doesn't mean "random."

Try looking up random.

The extent to which most or all mutations are triggered by these or by other environmental stimuli, possibly right down to the subatomic level, is not clear, but it would be reasonable to hypothesise that most, if not all, are so caused.

A bit vague and hedged with caveats to be proposed as the default position, however humbly.

In my view, "random" sits very uneasily among that lot.

I'm sorry, but your discomfort with randomness is your problem. If you are going to include stimuli down to the subatomic level, you have to accept that we live in a non-deterministic universe.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 01:27 PM

[The extent to which most or all mutations are triggered by these or by other environmental stimuli, possibly right down to the subatomic level, is not clear, but it would be reasonable to hypothesise that most, if not all, are so caused.

A bit vague and hedged with caveats to be proposed as the default position, however humbly.]

I was only trying to be honest. Science tries not to deal in certainties.

[In my view, "random" sits very uneasily among that lot.

I'm sorry, but your discomfort with randomness is your problem. If you are going to include stimuli down to the subatomic level, you have to accept that we live in a non-deterministic universe.]

No, you're seeking refuge in the unknown. Input values can never be made to be identical (at least, we can never be sure they're identical) in the cases we're talking about so it's impossible to state that the outcomes are non-deterministic. Not in this case. It's the trouble with all biological systems, as many a frustrated physicist has dicovered.

[OK, I looked it up in four places. It doesn't mean "random."

Try looking up random.]

Haha, you asked me to look up unpredictable. There are many reasons why things might be unpredictable, randomness being just one. You want it both ways.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 02:28 PM

Steve Shaw

I was only trying to be honest. Science tries not to deal in certainties.

Rather different from earlier pronouncements like -

Anyone who thinks there's anything random in evolution doesn't understand evolution. Not in the slightest. The word doesn't belong in any discussion of evolution.
and -
A mutation is miscopying of heritable material. If you want to demonstrate that any such miscopying is random you're going to have to show that there was no cause.

You go one to say -

in the cases we're talking about so it's impossible to state that the outcomes are non-deterministic.

No. If you are going down to the subatomic level it is not just possible to say that the outcomes are non-deterministic, it is mandatory.

Haha, you asked me to look up unpredictable.

You got me bang to rights there Steve. Clearly invalidates everything I've said. Have you looked up random?
If you can't be bothered, do you agree with TIA's definition -

mathematical meaning is: not deterministically predictable, but following a probability distribution?

If not, what is your definition?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Amos
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 02:36 PM

Random had a perfectly good meaning before the computer scientists started tying it to tables or seed generators. WIkiDictionary remarks: " The Oxford English Dictionary defines "random" thus:

"Having no definite aim or purpose; not sent or guided in a particular direction; made, done, occurring, etc., without method or conscious choice; haphazard.

"Also, in statistics, as:

Governed by or involving equal chances for each of the actual or hypothetical members of a population; (also) produced or obtained by such a process, and therefore unpredictable in detail.

"Closely connected, therefore, with the concepts of chance, probability, and information entropy, randomness implies a lack of predictability. More formally, in statistics, a random process is a repeating process whose outcomes follow no describable deterministic pattern, but follow a probability distribution, such that the relative probability of the occurrence of each outcome can be approximated or calculated. For example, the rolling of a fair six-sided die in neutral conditions may be said to produce random results, because one cannot compute, before a roll, what number will show up. However, the probability of rolling any one of the six rollable numbers can be calculated, assuming that each is equally likely.

"Randomness is a concept of non-order or non-coherence in a sequence of symbols or steps, such that there is no intelligible pattern or combination.

"The term is often used in statistics to signify well-defined statistical properties, such as a lack of bias or correlation. Monte Carlo Methods, which rely on random input, are important techniques in science, as, for instance, in computational science.[1] Random selection is an official method to resolve tied elections in some jurisdictions[2] and is even an ancient method of divination, as in tarot, the I Ching, and bibliomancy. Its use in politics is very old, as office holders in Ancient Athens were chosen by lot, there being no voting.
"

The psychological aspect hinges on the individual's ability to predict the motion around him, and the ratio of unpredicted motion to predicted motion.

But as you can see from the above the purely statistical definitions are not the only "right" ones.


A

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 03:30 PM

"More formally, in statistics, a random process is a repeating process whose outcomes follow no describable deterministic pattern..."

But if it's a process requiring inputs, those inputs must be identical otherwise this doesn't apply. I'm saying that it's next to impossible to provide identical inputs into biological systems. There's far too much going on.

"But as you can see from the above the purely statistical definitions are not the only "right" ones."

That's right, and that's yet another reason for avoiding using the term to characterise the occurrence of mutations. One may become confused... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 04:02 PM

A 2000 related science article:
A Biochemical Mechanism for Nonrandom Mutations and Evolution

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 05:26 PM

QUOTE
"But as you can see from the above the purely statistical definitions are not the only "right" ones."

That's right, and that's yet another reason for avoiding using the term to characterize the occurrence of mutations. One may become confused... ;-)
UNQUOTE

I seem to remember the Old Foole rambling on about not smearing multiple different semantic concepts (meanings) onto the one semantic label (word) ... -> GIGO ... :-)

:-P

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 05:43 PM

"Random had a perfectly good meaning before the computer scientists started tying it to tables or seed generators."

They really didn't have much choice, language being the messy thing that it is - they needed something precisely definable and repeatable ... after all when you start using computer simulation, you need to lock down quite precisely just what you are doing.... I remember someone scoffing at me that nowadays we didn't need to actually do any working out what is going on in the real world to design wind instruments, that we didn't need to worry about concepts like Helmholtz resonance etc. Just grab a 'good' computer simulation ..... that's actually so arrogantly ignorant of what computer simulations really do (and how poorly they really reflect The Real World), as to be laughable....

I remember someone getting frustrated with a traffic flow simulation for a multi-lane highway, where the real measured figures were annoyingly different from the best 'simulation that could be produce,

Well it would have been ok if the road had been straight, you see - but when multi lane roads go around corners, the inner and outer paths are different lengths.... Those who know how LP records and CD/DVDs work can start laughing now.... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 08:04 PM

>>>"Some of the Athiests in this discussion seem to be conflating the arguments, of their opponents here.
No wonder they are lost lambs, they cannot tell the sheepdogs from the wolves."

Nonsensical gibberish - but got a quick laugh.<<

Nonsensical gibberish??

You apparently understood the point.
With the point made, names need not be named.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 08:14 PM

I suppose I'd rather be called a lamb than a militant, twisted, obsessive atheist. I just wish these Christian types would make their bloody minds up!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 10:35 PM

"conflating the arguments, of their opponents here"

Conflate - to add together in a mixed up way?

Funny you should say that, it looks to me that the the sky fairy camps, well known for their ability to happily and stridently conflate contradicting semantic concepts (ideas) using the same and often inappropriate semantic label (word) are plagiarizing the misunderstood and misrepresented scientific concepts of their opponents to support their shaky logical position.

Of course, if one is intellectually incapable of thinking clear and straight anyway, they don't really care, for they KNOW those goddam atheists (whose ideas they really just can't ever comprehend) must be stupid... so they snigger at each other and laugh at the stupidity of their opponents ...

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Amos
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 10:47 PM

Robin:

I am not faulting the CS geeks for adopting the term. It was necessary. I am faulting those who, having been exposed only to the CS term or only to the stats term, pretend superiority over those who use it in its more general experiential sense.


A

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 12:43 AM

Amos - precisely.

I'm not only pissed with those, but especially with those who claim to know all those 'other meanings', but STILL jumble them up...

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 02:33 PM

Conflate = confuse + inflate?

Subject: Natural Theology
From: wysiwyg
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 02:43 PM

I know it's late to wade into this discussion and I really do not have time to follow it or conribute with any regularity. And maybe this post has all been said, already-- hain't read more than the OP.

But in my OT studies last week, I read that human beings just have always had a tendency, at every point in our development, to think in terms of a more-powerful force acting upon humankind-- a tendency that evolved (when the human brain evolved to the point of it being feasible) into a predilection for theological thinking.

Whether pro or con, whether one-God, many-Gods, or NO-God, it appears that it is simply part of the human condition to think about it.

And of course since we are also pre-wired to be social creatures... when we think-- we talk.

:~) Now if we could just LIMIT the talking state of expression to the thinking state of being-- it would be a lot less conflict-ridden. :~)

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 05:39 PM

"Whether pro or con, whether one-God, many-Gods, or NO-God, it appears that it is simply part of the human condition to think about it."

Could be, but that is still no indicator that there's anything in it. That's the trouble. Most people I know are scared of spiders, but, as all UK spiders are virtually harmless, the fear is irrational. Yet most people will stroke a dog, whose coat is laden with parasites and pathogens. Equally irrational, but OK, sort of (I'm a cat man meself, and they're just as bad). Huge numbers of people vote Tory. I rest my case.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 05:45 PM

Not quite. Belief in *agency* (if something happens it's because something intentionally made it happen being a childhood falolacy stage) would necessarily have *preceded* our current human intelligence, leaving us with no choice but to think about it.

It's time to outgrow our evolutionary childhood and face the grown-up reality that some things just happen,like where the tornado touches down, and others have non-intentional causes, like thunder is caused but not intended by its cause.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 06:20 PM

Susan, I was glad to see that sentence fragment in your post:

But in my OT studies last week, I read that. . .

I'm really glad you're studying OT; we need more of those occupational therapists!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 07:33 PM

Is that you, jojo? Neither is the truth and it all washes over. If you want me to hurt you're going to have try harder than that.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 08:35 PM

In the absence of any answer to my question to Steve, I'll just have to use this -

But if it's a process requiring inputs, those inputs must be identical otherwise this doesn't apply. I'm saying that it's next to impossible to provide identical inputs into biological systems. There's far too much going on.

As I've already said, you've replaced random outcomes with random causes. The result is the same in practice, natural selection is presented with random mutations. It is natural selection that is non-random.

Your position is rather similar to the theists. They can't believe that anything as complex as the universe could arise by itself so they invent an equally complex creator with no explanation of where He came from.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 09:11 PM

"But if it's a process requiring inputs, those inputs must be identical otherwise this doesn't apply. I'm saying that it's next to impossible to provide identical inputs into biological systems. There's far too much going on.

As I've already said, you've replaced random outcomes with random causes. The result is the same in practice, natural selection is presented with random mutations. It is natural selection that is non-random."

If you had read my post about the 'matchbox computer to play hexpawn', you might understand why you are not getting the point. That may have been posted in the 'God Delusion' thread.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 09:17 AM

I'm at a total loss as to how what I'm saying is comparable to what theists think. Because I say it's well-nigh impossible to control inputs it doesn't mean that those inputs are random. They are just not controlled. Random is the wrong word. Biology is not physics is what I'm saying. In some ways.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 09:57 AM

Steve Shaw

I'm at a total loss as to how what I'm saying is comparable to what theists think.

The theists cannot accept that a complex universe can have arisen out of nothing so they invent an equally complex God to explain it.
You cannot accept that mutations are unpredictable so you invent unpredictable causes to explain their randomness.

Because I say it's well-nigh impossible to control inputs it doesn't mean that those inputs are random.

I'll try again.

Do you agree with TIA's definition of random -

mathematical meaning is: not deterministically predictable, but following a probability distribution?

If not, what is your definition?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 10:12 AM

I agree that Tia's definition is a valid mathematical one (as she says). But the word is too fraught with difficulties to be useful in this context. It's best avoided. Talk of random mutations, when most if not all mutations have causes, whether identifiable or not, is loose talk.

And show me where I said that mutations can't be unpredictable.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 12:13 PM

Steve Shaw

I agree that Tia's definition is a valid mathematical one (as she says). But the word is too fraught with difficulties to be useful in this context. It's best avoided.

The context is scientific. Surely the mathematical definition is the correct one to use. There are lots of words that have different meanings in science and general use. Ask someone if they drink alcohol and then hand them a glass of butanol. "Theory" causes a lot of problems. Must we stop talking about scientific theories so as not to confuse the public?

Talk of random mutations, when most if not all mutations have causes, whether identifiable or not, is loose talk.

That is getting close to a statement of faith. There is no science in it. I suggest you take a look at a couple of Uncle DaveO's posts here and here. You are very good at making categorical statements with a sort of priestly authority but back them up with little other than your own discomfort with the word random.

A while ago you said -
I'm saying mutations have something causing them, but that we, as yet, don't know what the cause might be in every case. We cetainly do in a lot of cases,
to which I replied -
Really? Please provide references and examples.
I'm still waiting. Give us some science.

And show me where I said that mutations can't be unpredictable.

Given the mathematical definition of random, every time you say something like "The word doesn't belong in any discussion of evolution."

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 12:30 PM

Foolestroupe

If you had read my post about the 'matchbox computer to play hexpawn', you might understand why you are not getting the point.

OK, I've read it.(It was posted in this thread.) Can't really see the point you were trying to make at the time but it seems to be something to do with how natural selection works and hence nothing to do with the point I am making.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 02:15 PM

Most mutations just happen - they are "caused" only by the fact that DNA was being replicated, and an error was made. No agency involved - ie although there are causes, there is no *intention* in the cause. No radiation, no mutagens required - just a complex process that, by virtue of imperfection (ie, lack of design!), allows/provides a source of variation. And variation is the key to selection - can't pick and choose from one thing, there has to be a sampling.

Most of those mutations, furthermore, are invisible to natural selection as they have no impact on survival or reproduction. But, because they happen at a measurable rate, we can use them to date speciation.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 05:24 PM

"Most mutations just happen - they are "caused" only by the fact that DNA was being replicated, and an error was made. No agency involved - ie although there are causes, there is no *intention* in the cause. No radiation, no mutagens required - just a complex process that, by virtue of imperfection (ie, lack of design!), allows/provides a source of variation. And variation is the key to selection - can't pick and choose from one thing, there has to be a sampling."

You can't know that any given mutation doesn't have an external, environmental cause, no matter how subtle. For all we know they may all have external causes. This is somewhat simplistic.


"Most of those mutations, furthermore, are invisible to natural selection as they have no impact on survival or reproduction."

Any mutation that is expressed as the phenotype is visible to natural selection. A lethal mutation may not be visible to selection but it certainly has an impact on survival - it kills you.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 07:30 PM

"The context is scientific. Surely the mathematical definition is the correct one to use."

Modern Science has a strong mathematical base - you cannot choose one or the other - you need a term that is consistently describable by both.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 07:54 PM

Steve, they're gaining on you. Time to invoke your god Darwin. Hurry! Hurry!!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 08:06 PM

Foolestroupe

Modern Science has a strong mathematical base - you cannot choose one or the other - you need a term that is consistently describable by both.

I choose the mathematical definition because it is the one applicable to science. No idea what you mean by "one or the other".

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 08:46 PM

You may, Spock-like, choose the mathematical definition all you like. But "random" is just one of them words that don't cut it any more in a biological context. It serves to cast mud (or heat, depending on how religious you happen to be) rather than light. You're an intelligent fellow. Break free of "random" and talk biological. You know it makes sense!

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

Who's gaining on me, Jojo? Don't you know that we biologists still believe we can go faster than light? Have you a thought?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 08:57 PM

///Who's gaining on me, Jojo?///

Why, don't you know? The rest of the human race.

///Don't you know that we biologists still believe we can go faster than light?///

???

///Have you a thought?///

Yes, I use it as a paperweight.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 09:10 PM

Poor Jojo. Chasing Steve, looks over shoulder, hoping to see rest of human race in pursuit. But all he can see behind him is one dead sheep and a couple of one-legged creationists.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Oct 10 - 11:05 PM

Any mutation that is expressed as the phenotype is visible to natural selection. - right - but - by far the largest proportion of mutations AREN'T expressed in the phenotype. They have no effect, they are just uncaused changes in the strands of DNA that make up that type of organism. Remember, most of the DNA in your chromosomes doesn't code for jack that has anything to do with you. You are a mere side-effect, as are blades of grass, antelope, elephants, ants, E. coli, or whatever. Make more DNA - but first, make an elephant.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 12:17 AM

///You are a mere side-effect, as are blades of grass, antelope, elephants, ants, E. coli, or whatever.///

If everything is a side-effect then there's really no such thing as a side-effect.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 01:48 AM

"I choose the mathematical definition because it is the one applicable to science. No idea what you mean by "one or the other". "

Thus you demonstrate that you are but a close minded ignorant bigot, try to pretend cleverness.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 01:50 AM

"I choose the mathematical definition because it is the one applicable to science. No idea what you mean by "one or the other". "

Thus you demonstrate that you are but a close minded ignorant bigot, trying to pretend cleverness.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 04:45 AM

"they are just uncaused changes in the strands of DNA"

Uncaused, eh? I think not.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 09:28 AM

Steve Shaw

You're an intelligent fellow.

Kind of you to say so. It makes a pleasant change from some of your more condescending remarks like "Read your Darwin" (I have) and "Was it a good college?" (How good would be good enough to satisfy you?). Alas, your view is not shared by Foolestroupe who I think I can now justifiably ignore.

It's always best in a debate to avoid assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid and ignorant.

You may, Spock-like, choose the mathematical definition all you like.

You choose whichever is the appropriate definition for the context. If you are talking about science, you use the scientific definition and make it clear that you are doing so.

Break free of "random" and talk biological.

Once more the voice of authority. You still, despite being asked repeatedly, fail to come up with any references or supporting evidence."This is so because I, Steve Shaw say so. Don't argue boy." You are not in school now nor are you debating with a creationist or intelligent designist.

I think I am beginning to understand your problems with "random". The intelligent design lobby are fond of saying things like "Something as complex as the eye could not possibly have arisen by chance." and fail to grasp the point that natural selection is not random as you have been very fond of telling me. Yes, I know that thank you.
As a reult, "random" has become a bogey word and must be totally expunged from the language. You seem to be unable to separate meiosis, which works on DNA, and natural selection, which works on living organisms. This is illustrated by the fact that it took me several days to get you to actually address the point I was making, which was about errors in DNA copying, and kept banging on about natural selection. For instance -

The sequence is a result of causes. Absolutely not random. Natural selection is not a determining force: it is blind, without goals.

Complete non-sequitur. The last sentence has nothing to do with the first two. In fact, there is a non-sequitur between the first two sentences. There is nothing to say that a cause can't have a random result; if I flip a coin, I don't cause it to land heads (wish I could). I know, I know, two flips aren't going to be absolutely identical but if every cause is unique then this is meaningless. OK, my first flip may have "caused" the coin to land heads and my second flip may also cause it to land heads but for different reasons but there is no possibility of predicting the outcome.

The sequence is a result of causes. Really? I'm with Mrrzy - Most mutations just happen - they are "caused" only by the fact that DNA was being replicated, and an error was made. At a trivial level mutations will have causes, a bit of thermal agitation, bits of the "machinery" bumping up against each other, no need for your environmental causes. They happen but are not the main story.

For all I know, you may be right but I haven't found anything in text books or the internet to say so and you have failed to provide any evidence. You just trot out your dogma. You are turning evolution into a religion which does it no favours.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 01:20 PM

Many mutations are not caused by anything mutagenic - it is the replication system itself that allows for "errors" to creep in, as a major source of normal variation.

And "invisible" mutations, i.e. changes in the DNA strand during replication that do not impact any gene for anything phenotypic but occur in the 98% or some such of the organism's DNA that *doesn't* code for the organism, happen at a regular rate, and are part of the normal replication process, and thanks to THAT, we have a molecular clock and that is what can show how long ago two species, like us and the chimps (@5 mya) or the 'panzees and the bobobos (@3 mya), had their common ancestor.

If DNA replication were normally "error"-free we likely wouldn't have enough variation to speciate at all.

It's when a mutation affects *embryology* that you have a change that is visible to natural selection. At that point the change (possibly to a different species, possibly to nothing that works, e.g. extinction) starts to happen very rapidly, yet the basic rate of mutation is not changed.

"Natural selection has no goals" is not a meaningful statement, as natural selection is incapable of intention. It happens, and it is very much not random - selection selects something that works and selects against things that don't. And by work, I mean get more DNA into the next generation in such a way as to promote the survival and replication of the DNA *in* that next generation.

Remember the "goal" of DNA-based life is to become an *ancestor* - not just a parent.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Paul Burke
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 01:50 PM

It's when a mutation affects *embryology*

i.e. in the cell divisions leading up to gametogenesis. Mutations in non- gamete cells aren't propagated.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 03:39 PM

(Thinks: Maybe he's not such an intelligent fellow after all...)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 04:36 PM

"Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the concept that life is serious".

"Experience enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again".

"We willing, following the unknow, doing the impossible. Doing so much, for so long, with so little, that we can conclude anything from nothing".

"A conclusion is the place where you get when you are tired of thinking".

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 04:42 PM

Flow, flow the waves hated,
Accursed, adored,
The waves of mutation:
No anchorage is.
Ralph Waldo Emerson

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 04:50 PM

Look at these pictures and dare deny that most mutations do not survive.The evidence is right there to see.

successful mutations

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 06:45 PM

"you may be right but I haven't found anything in text books or the internet to say so "

I remember being ridiculed by someone who had read a 100 year old book and refused to accept modern advances on fluid dynamics and acoustics, because the original author had not mentioned what I said ... as far as the Internet, it's a bit like a lucky dip - if you want the latest advances, then Google is not always appropriate, you need appropriate sources, for many of which you may need financial membership.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 06:47 PM

"Many mutations are not caused by anything mutagenic - it is the replication system itself that allows for "errors" to creep in, as a major source of normal variation. ... If DNA replication were normally "error"-free we likely wouldn't have enough variation to speciate at all."

Wonderful statement of 'faith' - you have supporting peer reviewed research documentation?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 06:48 PM

""Natural selection has no goals" is not a meaningful statement, as natural selection is incapable of intention. "

Semantic confusion of terms.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 07:23 PM

Bother.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Paul Burke
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 07:29 PM

"Many mutations are not caused by anything mutagenic - it is the replication system itself that allows for "errors" to creep in, as a major source of normal variation. ... If DNA replication were normally "error"-free we likely wouldn't have enough variation to speciate at all."

Wonderful statement of 'faith' - you have supporting peer reviewed research documentation?

Without reading this idiot thread closely (I'm going to die within the next 30 years) have you (Foule) never heard of the "genetic clock" so well documented that it's utterly uncontroversial, except about it's rate (i.e. did chimps and humans separate 3.5 million years ago, or 3.25, or 3.75?)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 08:05 PM

"have you (Foule) never heard of the "genetic clock" so well documented that it's utterly uncontroversial, except about it's rate"

I've possessed many a clock in my time, some with batteries in them, others that I wind up, analogue faces, digital faces, etc. Absolutely nothing controversial about them except for one teensy thing. Their rates.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 11:10 PM

QUOTE
"Many mutations are not caused by anything mutagenic - it is the replication system itself that allows for "errors" to creep in, as a major source of normal variation. ... If DNA replication were normally "error"-free we likely wouldn't have enough variation to speciate at all."

Wonderful statement of 'faith' - you have supporting peer reviewed research documentation?

Without reading this idiot thread closely (I'm going to die within the next 30 years) have you (Foule) never heard of the "genetic clock" so well documented that it's utterly uncontroversial, except about it's rate (i.e. did chimps and humans separate 3.5 million years ago, or 3.25, or 3.75?)
UNQUOTE

I'll spell it out clearer... you have PROOF that it is the replication system itself that allows for "errors" to creep in with no external mutagenic factors?

Hint: It's tricky to prove a total negative .... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 11:23 PM

As for 'clock rates' living organisms have many 'clocks' - the rates change all over the place depending on factors internal & external to the organisms - some of these factors are documented, many are not.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 03:58 AM

I thought the above "Bother" would be sufficient to alert the elves to the fact that the preceding Guest post was from me without benefit of cookie (I wonder what causes that) but apparently not.

Steve Shaw

(Thinks: Maybe he's not such an intelligent fellow after all...)

There you go. If all else fails, insult the intelligence of your opponent. Still no references or examples to back up you statements?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 06:18 AM

Well, O gastropod, the point is that I find it increasingly frustrating to argue with someone who thinks that "random" means "unpredictable" and who fatuously attempts (no fewer than three times at the last count) to pin spurious religiosity to my opinions. Why, it's enough to drive a man to cliché. Arguing with you is worse than trying to grab a greased pig and at least as bad as pissing into a strong wind. Which could still mean that you're quite intelligent I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 12:23 PM

I'll spell it out clearer... you have PROOF that it is the replication system itself that allows for "errors" to creep in with no external mutagenic factors?

Um - how about the observable fact that it happens, and has been happening for close to a billion years?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Stringsinger
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 05:26 PM

" If there really is no Creator or intelligent design then it must be survival of the fittest and no one would need to respect anyone, right? Or is that just too simple?"

David, that's simplistic. Darwin never mentioned "survival of the fittest". That comes from Herbert Spencer, a philosopher around Darwin's time. An either/or argument doesn't apply here. It so happens that atheists and Freethinkers have historically been shown to not only respect other people but have been at the forefront of social issues and constructive social change.

I think it is socially constructive and important to question the "belief" systems that pull our country and others into meaningless wars and assassinations justified by religious zealots. Apparently Slag doesn't think this is important enough. This is why we can't keep "belief" to ourselves unconditionally. The issue has to be faced. Will we allow religious zealotry to dictate political debates? What about the effrontery of those seven
U.S. Republican senators who went on record that they didn't believe in Evolution? Is this not an important issue? What about George Bush receiving his "messages" about Iraq from a god?

The true test of an atheist is to be able to discuss what happens when "belief" gets out of control. It is out of control now and the First Amendment is being violated daily by religious zealots.

An examination of religious beliefs is in order for society to function smoothly. We need
to have an intelligent discussion about religion and not knee-jerk reaction or try to sweep the religious issues under the carpet as Slag has suggested that we do.

It's perfectly fine for those who want to believe in Santa Claus or the Flat-Earth Society
but when religion becomes a vehicle for violence (and make no mistake, it is) then we must discuss it.

Right now, Nixon's former Watergate conspirator Coulson is attempting to Christianize
the prison system in the U.S. by rewarding believers and making those who don't second-class prisoners. The Army Air Force Cadet Training program is attempting to Christianize
recruits by forcing religion down their throats. Is this not important? Billy Graham has been at the right hand of almost every president in violation to the Separation of Church and State.

What we need is more discussion about the efficacy of "belief" than a denial of this issue.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 06:56 PM

Stringsinger commented:

Billy Graham has been at the right hand of almost every president in violation to the Separation of Church and State.

That sentence starts with a true observation, up through the word "president", but then adds a conclusion which doesn't wash.

The Constitution doesn't say that a President can't have friends or advisors with religious roots, or spiritual guidance.   

The fact that an individual (including me) would rather have less religious influence on the chief magistrate doesn't rise to a constitutional prohibition.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 07:48 PM

The quote above doesn't say that Graham's presence *caused* the violation, and besides, the presidents that *didn't* have Billy Graham probably violated that separation too... at least while Graham was available. Earlier pres's had more sense.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 09:56 PM

I need to amend my last post.

In that post I agreed that "Billy Graham has been at the right hand of almost every president".

On second thought I have to quibble with "at the right hand". I don't know that that is true. Many recent presidents have indeed had regular (what at least appeared to be) friendly contact with Billy Graham, but "at the right hand"? I think with some of them that that appearance may have been cultivated for public relations purposes, whereas "at the right hand" suggests that Billy Graham was close to and heavily influenced many if not most key decisions of the respective presidents, which I don't think has been or can be documented.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 11:20 PM

"Billy Graham has been at the right hand of almost every president in violation to the Separation of Church and State"

Maybe so, maybe not. But, do what does that, or any human religion,earthly religious practice, or action of their leaders or followers, have to do with whether there is a God or not (or, relate to "the true test of an Atheist")?

"Hypocrisy is the lubricant of society." David Hull quote

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Sawzaw
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 12:18 AM

Right on the money Slag.

Like you I grew up non religious. Religious people are not of my concern. I go along with them up till the point where they want to convert me. Then I avoid it tactfully without insulting them.

I think respect is the name of the game. Mutual respect.

If it says In God we trust on a dollar bill so what? It still does the job.

Some people need a code to live by and their religion provides that. If it makes them happy I am happy for them.

It can get out of hand like this:
"The Flag of Islam will one day fly over the White House"

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 12:19 AM

Billy Graham at the right hand of most presidents? Good God! How old is that man?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 02:31 AM

"I'll spell it out clearer... you have PROOF that it is the replication system itself that allows for "errors" to creep in with no external mutagenic factors?

Um - how about the observable fact that it happens, and has been happening for close to a billion years? "

I rest my case - your opinion that there is no external driver is purely a matter of 'faith'. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 08:15 AM

"I think respect is the name of the game. Mutual respect."

I totally agree with this statement.

What does it matter what ones personal beliefs are, whether they be theist or athiest? Scientific or otherwise?

Seeking knowledge and stating ones knowledge, beliefs and theories, scientific or not, is fine. Standing up against cases where either, and human interpretations of either, especially where they negatively impacts others, or society(now and in the past), I see as fair game...I even applaud those who do so agressively, IMO that is a good thing.

But, belittling the personal beliefs of others, theist or athiest (when you fail to see it the same way), I see as wrong, and reflects poorly on that person.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 08:38 AM

What matters is forcing your beliefs on other people. In my view, the most outrageous manifestation of this is the indoctrination of children, most outrageous because it is the common practice for major organised religion so to do. Religious people are fond of reminding atheists that we can't prove there's no God (even though we don't need reminding), forgetting that they can't prove that there is one. Yet they act with cast-iron certainty in the passing-on of their highly questionable dogma to their children. I can respect any individual for holding any beliefs they like but I can't respect anyone who passes it on, or who defends this abominable practice, to impressionable people who are strongly discouraged from questioning.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 09:29 AM

"What matters is forcing your beliefs on other people".

Could you not be suggesting we do the same thing, but from another perspective?

"Religious people are fond of reminding atheists that we can't prove there's no God (even though we don't need reminding), forgetting that they can't prove that there is one"

Maybe so, but why join in? What is the point of jumping into that practice and belittling the beliefs of others by regurgitating ideas and concepts on why their beliefs are wrong? Why not just realize it is pointless, agree to disagree by saying we likely both don't really know for sure and move on to a more productive discourse?

Why not focus on discussing alternatives to better public "ethics, education, democracy and good government, tolerance, and justice—and how all in society, not just those who believe in religion, can help these flourish?

"Yet they act with cast-iron certainty in the passing-on of their highly questionable dogma to their children. I can respect any individual for holding any beliefs they like but I can't respect anyone who passes it on, or who defends this abominable practice, to impressionable people who are strongly discouraged from questioning".

I suspect you will ever have much say on what people pass on to their children in their own household.... as religious folks have little say in your household. In open society, as in public schools, that is a different matter.

But, I see many more harmful ideas and practices passed on to children by parents than a belief in a God... that they will have an opportunity to challenge to decide later in life. I suspect many choose a balance, accepting all concepts of science, and with "some" belief in a God (what may seem to be an in conflict, but likely is not). There will be those on the extreme edges, but not likely most.

I was thought as a child to believe in a God. I do not see it as a bad thing, nor do I see it as limiting my mental reasoning.

I also believe in all the science stuff, including evolution, which I learned in school.

I have shook off the shackles of all organized human religions...and both respect and disrespect their good and bad social and historic records.

I also learned tolerance of other people's views and beliefs, especially where they do more good than harm.

Recently, I saw Richard Dawkins on the Bill Maher show, condemning the bad effects of religion on children. The worst example he seemed to come up with is in British Islamic schools children are taught that salt and fresh water do not mix, because it is stated in the Koran. Well if that is a terrible thing, I fail to see any real negative result as they go on with their lives.

In a University philosophy of science course, I recall reading that a case can be made that there is no such thing as movement from point A to point B. You know, this was interesting. But, I don't feel that, theory right or wrong, this revelation changed the lives of any student in the class, we all moved on and thrived.
:)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: bobad
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 09:34 AM

"I'll spell it out clearer... you have PROOF that it is the replication system itself that allows for "errors" to creep in with no external mutagenic factors?

"Intrinsic DNA damage checkpoint

Another interesting aspect is the possible existence of an intrinsic DNA damage signal in a normal cell cycle, in the absence of external cues. Indeed, the replication process by itself can be genotoxic. Replication errors occur stochastically during nucleotide incorporation, and structural intermediates normally arising during unperturbed DNA replication, such as unwound DNA and single-stranded regions, are more fragile than double-stranded DNA organized in a chromatin structure. In addition, single-strand and double-strand breaks are generated by the nicking–closing activity of DNA topoisomerases, which are required to remove torsional stress ahead of the replication forks."

http://www.nature.com/emboj/journal/v17/n19/full/7591246a.html

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 11:16 AM

No, really, you can see it happen:

There is a researcher who's put some life forms (bacteria I think), that are completely sequenced (we know every molecule in the "original" DNA), into 12 separate vials with identical chemical media, and every few generations he takes a dropperful of each and puts THEM in that same identical medium in separate vials and has been doing so for years and years, which is absolutely huge numbers of generations of bacterial descendants. I'll get you the citation if you can't google it yourself. That team has been measuring the rate of mutations that do and don't affect survival and the bugs have been specializing and taking different degrees of advantage of the various chemicals to which they are all exposed. Et voila your data - go ahead and read the Dawkins book on evolution if you want it explained to you as if you were an idiot (boy that guy annoys me even as I agree with him!), otherwise go look it up.

No "faith" involved, au contraire.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 11:41 AM

["What matters is forcing your beliefs on other people".

Could you not be suggesting we do the same thing, but from another perspective?]

No. Atheists have no belief system to pass on. And atheists should always be making clear that they don't deal in certainties. And there is no ostracism, no death threat or no future menace of hell fire for demurring from atheism. I don't know why you can't see this.

[Why not just realize it is pointless, agree to disagree by saying we likely both don't really know for sure and move on to a more productive discourse?]

So we agree that they can continue to cause the damage they do and shut up about it. Fine.

[I was thought as a child to believe in a God. I do not see it as a bad thing, nor do I see it as limiting my mental reasoning.]

It limits your mental reasoning if you don't question (by asking for hard evidence) the existence of a being who breaks all the laws of physics and who is far more inexplicable than the things he was invented to explain. If irrational belief is your idea of mental reasoning not stymied then we're at odds.

[I was thought as a child to believe in a God.... I also believe in all the science stuff, including evolution, which I learned in school.]

You can demand and get evidence for the science you believe in. You can demand evidence, and not get any, for God. It's rational to ask for evidence for assertions put to you, and it's rational to dismiss assertions that can't be supported by evidence.

[I also learned tolerance of other people's views and beliefs, especially where they do more good than harm.]

Quite. But that doesn't mean you have to shut up about the harm.

[Recently, I saw Richard Dawkins on the Bill Maher show, condemning the bad effects of religion on children. The worst example he seemed to come up with is in British Islamic schools children are taught that salt and fresh water do not mix, because it is stated in the Koran. Well if that is a terrible thing, I fail to see any real negative result as they go on with their lives.]

Really? Well, everyone who ever did anything bad in the name of religion had been taught to abide by that religion's teachings when they were yoiungewr. The pope, who condemns millions of women to poverty, ill-health, ignorance and misery with his anti-birth control edicts, was taught to be a good little Catholic all those years ago. And I needn't go on about people who murder doctors at abortion clinics, or suicide bombers...

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 11:43 AM

Younger, obviously.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 12:02 PM

Steve S, you say that you are not doing the same thing that religious people do because you have no 'belief system ' to pass on. That, imo, is quibbling.

Unless you are using 'belief' in a very circumscribed way, anyone could think that - because you cannot provide proof for your contentions - you believe you are correct. For that matter, I think you are more adamant in your beliefs than many a nominal Christian.


Oh, and 400.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 12:54 PM

No, I have no huge body of written-down theology, no rituals, no churches, no traditions, no superheroes. The difference between that and organised religion is not quibbling. It is a chasm. I have nothing to pass on. All I can do is talk about it. I can't force anyone else under pain of ostracism or hellfire to agree with me. There is no equivalence between relgion and atheism, in spite of religion's wanting to find it.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 01:27 PM

"No. Atheists have no belief system to pass on"

Maybe objective athiests, but, IMO, some agressive atheist sound more like fundamentalist religion folks...promoting their beliefs... "yes, beliefs"... as if theirs is the only correct path for all to believe.

"So we agree that they can continue to cause the damage they do and shut up about it. Fine".

There is a difference between a belief in a God and organized religion. You seem to have difficulty in seeing the difference. This surprises me. Your definition of damage is very subjective, and personal,rather than objective. So, I won't go there.

"It limits your mental reasoning if you don't question (by asking for hard evidence) the existence of a being who breaks all the laws of physics and who is far more inexplicable than the things he was invented to explain. If irrational belief is your idea of mental reasoning not stymied then we're at odds"

I disagree. The belief in a God is not necessarily at odds with being a questioning person. Being a skeptic, I question mostly everything any day. You do not seem able to understand that one does not necessarily impact the other. Maybe it does seem odd for you personally,from a subjective perespective. And, you may experience difficulty looking at life from a number of vantage points. But, objectively that does not mean it is so for others.

" Quite. But that doesn't mean you have to shut up about the harm. Really? Well, everyone who ever did anything bad in the name of religion had been taught to abide by that religion's teachings when they were yoiungewr. The pope, who condemns millions of women to poverty, ill-health, ignorance and misery with his anti-birth control edicts, was taught to be a good little Catholic all those years ago. And I needn't go on about people who murder doctors at abortion clinics, or suicide bombers... ".


Again, please do not confuse a belief in God with the clear (IMO) harm caused by people and the many world religion organized under humans. You seem to claim that you have faith in scientific reasoning....which is a good thing. If so, how could you continue to make such odd and unproductive associations? It runs counter to logic.
Many people in the world, who have chosen to believe in a God, (myself included) have no, or only loose, associations with any of the organized religions you continue to dwell on.

Yes, my belief comes solely from my childhood upbringing. I suspect if I was raised differently I would have different beliefs. But, this belief is personal in nature, and does not harm anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 01:33 PM

"I have nothing to pass on. All I can do is talk about it. I can't force anyone else under pain of ostracism or hellfire to agree with me. There is no equivalence between relgion and atheism, in spite of religion's wanting to find it".

Well, Steve, you certainly have proven the contrary here. You have tried to pass on your "non belief in a God" to others, and there is a growing number of Atheists who agressively do the same. To me, that is not very different from the Fundimentalist religious folks I see on TV, trying to convert folks to a belief in their version of religion. We live in fairly free world. Few Christian religions "force folks under pain of ostracism or hellfire to agree with them". Like you, they just talk, and try and find an opening to convert the unconverted to their way of thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 01:41 PM

Well, Ebbie, Professor Shaw is barking up the wrong tree to begin with. We should not demand from believers any "hard evidence" of god but rather the reasoning behind the belief. So if someone tells you that must believe in god, rather than ask, "Where's your evidence?" which will get you exactly nowhere, you should ask, "What are your reasons for believing in god?"

Then you can easily disprove each of them in turn if you are up on all the arguments commonly used in the debate of this topic e.g. Without god we couldn't know right from wrong, god is the first cause, the St. Elselm argument, etc. Frankly any self-proclaimed atheist who cannot soundly refute the arguments should stop proclaiming himself an atheist and start proclaiming himself a non-believer, i.e. I don't know about all the debate goobledegook, all I know is that I don't believe that crap.

Profesor Shaw's asking for "hard evidence" sounds to me like a cop-out, an inability to properly engage in the debate at the level that is the bread and butter of true atheism. My memory may be faulty here (and if it is, I apologize in advance) but I think it was he who asserted some time ago that atheism does not prove or disprove anything. Such an erroneous statement could only come from someone who simply lacks the debating skills necessary to be a true atheist. Maybe that is the true test of an atheist--can he or she debate the theist arguments without the cop-out of demanding "hard evidence"?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: framus
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 01:45 PM

Do most people who call themselves atheists not just do it as an excuse to argue with Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses at the front door?

You want to try being an athiest in a Northern Ireland pub - for a kick-off you have to be a protestant or a catholic athiest.

By the way, Stringsinger, I DO believe in the flat earth society.

Happy fighting.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 02:03 PM

"Yes, my belief comes solely from my childhood upbringing. I suspect if I was raised differently I would have different beliefs."

I think that's something you could dwell on much more. It's amazing how many people believe in the particular version of God that happened to be promoted in the purely-accidental place of their birth. Says a lot for questioning.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 02:09 PM

"Well, Steve, you certainly have proven the contrary here. You have tried to pass on your "non belief in a God" to others, and there is a growing number of Atheists who agressively do the same. To me, that is not very different from the Fundimentalist religious folks I see on TV, trying to convert folks to a belief in their version of religion. We live in fairly free world. Few Christian religions "force folks under pain of ostracism or hellfire to agree with them". Like you, they just talk, and try and find an opening to convert the unconverted to their way of thinking."

Who said anything about just Christians!

This post represents the standard scaredy-cat Christian response to atheism. After all the aggression done in religion's name we're the aggressors after all! I don't try to convert anyone to anything, as I have nothing to convert them to. Suggesting that it's rational to ask for evidence before you'll accept any assertions is not attempting to convert. It's attempting to get people to think for themselves. Rationally and critically.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 02:20 PM

///Do most people who call themselves atheists not just do it as an excuse to argue with Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses at the front door?///

I don't know. I won't answer my door unless I know who it is that's knocking (yes, I even removed the buzzer) but you said "most" atheists so I can't speak for the rest. In reality, I don't argue with anybody about this topic because nobody has actually told me that I must believe in god. I just think the counterarguments are good to know for your own edification.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 02:37 PM

///This post represents the standard scaredy-cat Christian response to atheism.///

I believe the proper technical term you're looking for is "candy-ass."

///After all the aggression done in religion's name we're the aggressors after all!///

Who's "we"? The claim wasn't that atheists are being aggressive here, the claim was that YOU are being aggressive here.

///I don't try to convert anyone to anything, as I have nothing to convert them to. Suggesting that it's rational to ask for evidence before you'll accept any assertions is not attempting to convert. It's attempting to get people to think for themselves. Rationally and critically.///

So then you ARE proselytizing. You ARE trying to convert them to something. You admit that you are "attempting to get people to think for themselves." Takes a lot of arrogance to think that you can do this with grown people. Has anybody here convinced you that you were ever wrong about anything? No. So what makes you think you can do the same? Arrogance, that's all it could be.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 04:00 PM

Josep, old chap, I have no idea how old you are, how experienced you are or how many forums you've been kicked off, but the thing is that no-one who is bold enough to actually disagree with you can do so without you acting like some kind of snappy dog in return. Lose the chip and be civil, otherwise a constructive conversation cannot be had. Carry on.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 04:00 PM

"Who said anything about just Christians!"

Um...well...ah...hmmm, Steve, you kinda did. I was directly answering your comment below...where you made the statement, and zeroed in on an example of RCs, and the Pope, whom I suspect are Christians...though are centainly not the only Christians or folks who claim to be led by a God.

"Really? Well, everyone who ever did anything bad in the name of religion had been taught to abide by that religion's teachings when they were yoiungewr. The pope, who condemns millions of women to poverty, ill-health, ignorance and misery with his anti-birth control edicts, was taught to be a good little Catholic all those years ago. And I needn't go on about people who murder doctors at abortion clinics, or suicide bombers."..

"This post represents the standard scaredy-cat Christian response to atheism. After all the aggression done in religion's name we're the aggressors after all!"

Good try to squirm out and put the onus on others.But, it does not work, Steve.

"I don't try to convert anyone to anything, as I have nothing to convert them to. Suggesting that it's rational to ask for evidence before you'll accept any assertions is not attempting to convert. It's attempting to get people to think for themselves. Rationally and critically.

Sorry Steve, again, nice try. From your posts, you do seem to have something to try and convert people "away from", passing their beliefs in God...to others, or their children. Oe, even defending their beliefs. For example, consider your recent statement below:

"I can respect any individual for holding any beliefs they like but I can't respect anyone who passes it on, or who defends this abominable practice, to impressionable people who are strongly discouraged from questioning."

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 04:07 PM

Steve, Just so we are speaking the same language, the definition of "belief", (from the free online dictionary) is below. It includes religious beliefs, and also much more, including what you accept to be true, your opinion or your conviction:

belief [bɪˈli¢°f]
n
1. a principle, proposition, idea, etc., accepted as true
2. opinion; conviction
3. religious faith
4. trust or confidence, as in a person or a person's abilities, probity, etc

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 04:09 PM

I'm sure professor shaw would love to have a religious person announce that he cannot tolerate anyone teaching their kids atheist positions. Rule of thumb: If they are your kids, you can teach whatever you see fit. If they not, butt out.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 04:12 PM

"I don't argue with anybody about this topic because nobody has actually told me that I must believe in god".

If anyone ever tells you you must believe in God, and if you need the help, I offer to assist you to kick their asses... Just let me know. :)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 04:14 PM

///Josep, old chap, I have no idea how old you are, how experienced you are or how many forums you've been kicked off, but the thing is that no-one who is bold enough to actually disagree with you can do so without you acting like some kind of snappy dog in return. Lose the chip and be civil, otherwise a constructive conversation cannot be had. Carry on.///

And does your characterization of me, professor, sound at familiar to you?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 06:15 PM

"I won't answer my door unless I know who it is that's knocking (yes, I even removed the buzzer)"

Just because you're not paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get you...

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 06:27 PM

"Without god we couldn't know right from wrong,"

Which god?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 06:31 PM

The other one.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 06:37 PM

So you don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 06:42 PM

Ed, old chap, if you want to pick me up on a quote of mine please be good enough to make it a quote I actually made. I said JUST Christians, remember?

The point about paasing on beliefs is hardly subtle.

[1] "I believe in God. I'm your teacher/parent and I know best. You are to believe in the same God and I'm going to tell you lots of wonderful stories about him and Jesus, which are true. After all, they're in the Bible. I've already had you christened (well before you could possibly have made that decision for yourself), so that's a start, and it means it won't be easy for you to get out, but you won't want to, will you, when I tell you how happy God will make you (if you're good, which basically means doing what I say). Now your mummy and your granny also believe in God, and we all go to church on Sundays, and you are going to come with us. Whilst there you will parrot out prayers that confirm the certainty of our beliefs, whether you understand the words of those prayers or not. At Christmas you will sing special hymns praising a tiny baby who didn't have a real father, but hey ho, what a nice story it is! Soon I'll be sending you to a faith school, in which you'll spend quite a lot of time being given religious instruction (and saying more prayers), all under a large crucifix nailed to the classroom wall above your head."

[2] I believe in God. When you're a bit older I'll explain why I do, but I'll also be telling you that a lot of people don't, or believe in things in a different way to me, and you can make up your own mind. I didn't have you christened because I didn't think it would have been fair to sign you up for something that you might have disapproved of later in life when you were old enough to make up your own mind. I'm not sending you to a faith school, but I've checked with the excellent school down the road that they spend a considerable amount of time educating pupils about world religions and the good and bad effects of religion in the world past and present. I want you to tell me immediately if anyone makes you bow your head to say prayers so that I can take the matter up with them. The school, just like me, will teach you (and not just in science) to ask critical questions of people who make claims about God or atheism (or anything else for that matter), and I hope you will mistrust anyone who makes any claim that they can't give you solid evidence for. After all, that's the true essence of genuine education. I hope that one day you will believe in the same God as I do, but if you decide that he's not for you I won't be disappointed but I will be pleased that you've been well enough educated to think for yourself."

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 06:43 PM

"So you don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster"

I don't. But, I see no harm if someone else does.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 06:47 PM

I don't believe that I exist, and Harvey definitely doesn't (or so he says).

The haggis does exist, however. I used to hunt thwem in the Pentlands when I was in the Scouts.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 06:52 PM

"Rule of thumb: If they are your kids, you can teach whatever you see fit. If they not, butt out."

Quite. We live in a world in which many children are taught to be sexist, mysogynistic, racist, dishonest, homophobic and other such lovely things. They are being taught all that by parents who are teaching "whatever they see fit." Grand. I spent 25 years teaching in inner city schools trying (apart from teaching science) to contest those positions. It's a bloody good job that I and thousands of other right-minded people didn't, and don't, "butt out". You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, have you? Are you about seventeen?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 07:54 PM

Of all the bad things you mention that can be taught to a child, whether at home, in a neighbourhood, or in school, sexism, misogynism, racism, dishonesy, homophobic views, a belief in a God seems relatively innocuous.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Amos
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 08:00 PM

The core belief in and of itself is innocuous enough until they start assigning patrician, authoritarian attributes to it, with extremely arbitrary views as to the nature of right action. Then it gets really screwy, because it undermines the individual's own ability to know good from evil, right from wrong, by bolloxing him up with an arbitrary moral code backed by theoretically infinite force, infinite damnation, and other horrendous distortions of the world.

With these elements added in the simple belief in "God" becomes a completely neurotic twisting of the soul.


A

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 08:09 PM

Just who would "they" be in your last post Amos?

I suspect extremes exist for just about everything. Luckily, the extermes are the exception in most cases, which I suspect is the case with parents passing on their belief in a God to others, including their children.

There are certainly cases where other social, economic and political agenda is intertwined in the messages. That is where the human folly associated with organized religion enters, not the belief in a God itself.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 08:16 PM

Belief in God, if it leads to affiliation with a major organised religion, exposes you to those bad attitudes. I mean, just to take but one example, just look at how all those sage, measured, thoughtful clerics oppose the ordination of women and the creation of women bishops. And that's just Christianity.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 08:43 PM

I agree with Ed T. Equating obedience to one's parents and to their church to obedience to a God can screw one up (just ask me). However, teaching a belief in God by osmosis is fairly benign, imo. It doesn't equal in malignity the role modeling some parents display to their children when it comes to passing-out-on-the-kitchen-floor drunk or the late night screaming and yelling coming from Mama and Papa's bedroom or a stream of late night visitors that Mama entertains or going to bed after a dinner of cold cereal - again - because no one cared.

If a child is lucky enough to have loving parents who also espoused a belief in God, he can make his own way to a God that is a comfortable fit.   Or not.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 08:44 PM

"Belief in God, if it leads to affiliation with a major organised religion, exposes you to those bad attitudes."

I suspect it could expose you to the bad organized religion stuff. And I guess if, and it is a big if, you are gullible, you could be caught in the spiral....and there is a danger with driving on the highway. A belief in democracy could also lead you into some bad stuff....so does that mean democracy is bad and should not be persued?

But, most folks in todays world (especially in the west) are independant thinkers and have gone beyond believing and supporting the bad aspects of organized religions....unfortunately, mainly from bad experiences. Increasingly, many folks take the time to interpret their own connection to God as adults, rather than following bogus leaders or brainwashing a conveniently self-serving set of messages, as in the past.

At an early age I exposed my two children to what I see as the positive aspects of my belief in a God. However, I carefully encouraged them to be free thinkers. My son of 22 claims to be an atheist, and I respect his free thought and decision (he is a very analytical and scientific thinker). My daughter of 24 is much like me, a believer in the Christian God, though a free thinker is an open and skeptical thinker, but she is not a follower of any organized version of religion. The belief in God (or not) has never been a hang up of any type in my immediate family.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 08:53 PM

"But, most folks in todays world (especially in the west) are independant thinkers and have gone beyond believing and supporting the bad aspects of organized religions....unfortunately, mainly from bad experiences."

I look forward to a billion Catholics walking out in disgust at the paedophile cover-ups, the repression of women in the third world and the fact that their leader was in the Hitler Youth (and that the Church connived in the Holocaust and in the escape of Nazi war criminals). Independent thinkers, eh. I don't think so.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 08:56 PM

I see one of the problems in the past (which likely exists in some areas to today) is parents who believe in a God, so not take responsibility in explaining their belief to their children.
They passed that responsibility over to agents of organized religion. Well, we have seen the folly in doing that in many religions around the world.

So, innocent and gullible children were offered up on a platter to those with another agenda. But, that in itself is not caused by a belief in a God. Similar situations developed in other areas where parents have not taken responsibility and care and pass it off to others.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 09:04 PM

"I look forward to a billion Catholics walking out in disgust at the paedophile cover-ups, the repression of women in the third world and the fact that their leader was in the Hitler Youth (and that the Church connived in the Holocaust and in the escape of Nazi war criminals). Independent thinkers, eh. I don't think so".

I walked away from that church many years ago, as I suspect (and hope) many others will also. But, I see it will only be when they begin to trust themselves (aka, independant thinking).

But, it has never weakened my belief in a God, just in organized religion, a trust that one of my parents had (my father was an atheist). That's because I can see that these terrible crimes were not caused by a belief in God....but by trusting others to guide you to the place where you feel comfortable that you should be as an invividual.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 09:46 PM

///"Without god we couldn't know right from wrong,"

Which god?///

The refutation is quite a bit simpler:

First, ask the person if morality originates from god. If the answer is yes (as it virtually always is) then we can conclude then that morality is whatever god says it is since it originates from "him." If this is the case then god can tell you to kill people, to cheat people, to molest little children, etc. because "he" now has decided that this is moral behavior instead of that loving thy neighbor stuff. So then, would you go out and start killing, cheating and molesting people because god now says that this is moral? No, you wouldn't.

So does morality emanate or originate from god? No. God has to follow the same moral standard that we humans do in order to be recognized as moral by humans. Anything less, is not moral. Therefore since god has to follow the same moral standard we do to be considered moral then we would indeed know right from wrong without god.

Now, should the person answer no--morality does not originate from god--then they've generously cut out all that philosophizing and have admitted up front then that we would know morality without god because it does not originate from "him."

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 09:52 PM

Morality originates from God? That's an odd concept, that's logic eacapes me.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 10:12 PM

"If the answer is yes (as it virtually always is) then we can conclude then that morality is whatever god says it is since it originates from "him.""

"Kill them all - let God sort them out" - from a crusading Bishop....

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Amos
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 10:14 PM

Just so. The "they", obviously enough, Ed, is those parents who use the terminology and icons of Christianity as a transport mechanism for their authoritarian instructions. Guilt trips, overwhelming icons, nefarious implications of no-responsibility for self, or default-guilt, are among the many tricks which add not to an individual's divinity, but only to their servility and degradation.

This is not an automatic consequence of a belief in God, but it sure can be a common interpretation in some circles.


A

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 10:47 PM

///We live in a world in which many children are taught to be sexist, mysogynistic, racist, dishonest, homophobic and other such lovely things. They are being taught all that by parents who are teaching "whatever they see fit." Grand. I spent 25 years teaching in inner city schools trying (apart from teaching science) to contest those positions. It's a bloody good job that I and thousands of other right-minded people didn't, and don't, "butt out". You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, have you? Are you about seventeen?///

First of all, I was talking about religious upbringing and you set up a straw man to prove your point thereby failing to prove your point. If a kid is raised with a certain religious belief, you, as a teacher, canNOT tell that child this religious belief is wrong. You have no right. If you do, you are overstepping your bounds and should be fired.

As for sexist, mysogynist, racist, homophobic views taught to children, if they cause disruption in the classroom, you as the teacher need to get them expelled or otherwise banished from your classroom. It is not your job to reprogram these kids. And since you label yourself in your typical arrogant fashion as "right-minded" (i.e. I'm always right) you can rest assured you've accomplished nothing other than to make things worse. You need to stop waving your credentials around like some kind of badge of perfection--nobody here knows you from Adam--and start listening to what people here are trying to tell you.

I also notice that your cavalier, dismissive attitude towards me a few posts ago has vanished and you now are compelled to question my age and knowledge-level in virtually every post and I suspect that derives from the fact that the more wrong-minded I show you to be, the less funny you find me. That's because the more you overestimate yourself and underestimate everyone else, professor, the harder you fall when those poeple continually knock you on your ass.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 11:19 PM

///Morality originates from God? That's an odd concept, that's logic eacapes me.///

It's an extremely common position taken by theists. I just encountered it in a book written by a man who was criticizing Hitchens and Dawkins. He had some valid points but at the most crucial part of his argument against these men, he resorted to the argument that morality emanates from god but, of course, failed to understand the gaffe he had committed and smugly thought he had thoroughly destroyed the arguments of these men. I don't remember the book offhand but maybe if I go back to that bookstore I'll see it again.

///"Kill them all - let God sort them out" - from a crusading Bishop.... ///

Which demonstrates that morals are indeed man-made. We can put whatever words we want in god's mouth to make them divinely inspired. That's why the bible is worthless for quoting because for every one person quotes, someone else can quote something that refutes it because the bible was written by men with vastly differing views who probably would have killed one another if they had been unfortunate enough to have known one another.

Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing. ---Thomas Huxley

Doing what little one can to increase the general stock of knowledge is as respectable an object of life, as one can in any likelihood pursue. ---Charles Darwin

It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning. ---Bill Waterson

Theologian: An uncommon individual who, though possessing finite abilities, has been called by God himself who, though possessing infinite abilities, requires the assistance of the former in explaining Himself to the rest of us.
---Donald Morgan

Nature! We are surrounded and embraced by her: powerless to separate ourselves from her, and powerless to penetrate beyond her. Without asking, or warning, she snatches us up into her circling dance, and whirls us on until we tire, and drop from her arms. ---Goethe

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it people will eventually come to believe it. ---Joseph Goebbels

Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do on a Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz

It will yet be the proud boast of women that they never contributed a line to the Bible. ---George W. Foote

Show me a population that is deeply religious, and I will show you a servile population, content with whips and chains, contumely and the gibbet, content to eat the bread of sorrow and drink the waters of affliction. ---H. Hubert Harrison

If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man's only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a 'moral commandment' is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments. ---Ayn Rand

Anyone who engages in the practice of psychotherapy confronts every day the devastation wrought by the teachings of religion. ---Nathaniel Branden, Ph.D. Psychologist

The world does not owe us a living, we owe the world a living, our own. ---Forrest Church

If you think education is expensive, try ignorance. ---Derek Bok, ex-president of Harvard

The truth which makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear. ---Herbert Agar

The worst tyrants are those which establish themselves in our own breasts. ---William Ellery Channing

When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord, in His wisdom, didn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked him to forgive me. ---Emo Phillips

The missionaries go forth to Christianize the savages—as if the savages weren't dangerous enough already. ---Edward Abbey

We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way. ---Viktor Frankl

Nothing is more despicable than respect based on fear. ---Albert Camus

What if a demon were to creep after you one night, in your loneliest loneliness, and say, 'This life which you live must be lived by you once again and innumerable times more; and every pain and joy and thought and sigh must come again to you, all in the same sequence. The eternal hourglass will again and again be turned and you with it, dust of the dust!' Would you throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse that demon? Or would you answer, 'Never have I heard anything more divine'? ---Friedrich Nietzsche

Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn't, it's that girls should stick to girls sports, such as hot oil wrestling and foxy boxing and such and such. ---Homer Simpson

If we don't play god who will? ---James Watson

If you were all alone in the universe with no one to talk to, no one with which to share the beauty of the stars, to laugh with, to touch, what would be your purpose in life? It is other life, it is love, which gives your life meaning. This is harmony. We must discover the joy of each other, the joy of challenge, the joy of growth. ---Mitsugi Saotome

And let that day be lost to us on which we did not dance once! And let that wisdom be false to us that brought no laughter with it! ---Friedrich Nietzsche

How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed.' Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.' ---Carl Sagan

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do that!"
He said, "Nobody loves me."
I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"
"Yes."
I said, "Are you're a Christian or a Jew?"
"A Christian."
I said, "Me too! Protestant or Catholic?"
"Protestant."
I said, "Me too! What franchise?"
"Baptist."
I said, "Me too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?"
"Northern Baptist."
I said, "Me too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
"Northern Conservative Baptist."
I said, "Me too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?"
"Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region."
I said, "Me too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879 or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?"
"Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."
I said, "Die heretic!" and I pushed him over.
---Emo Phillips

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 11:27 PM

"If a kid is raised with a certain religious belief, you, as a teacher, canNOT tell that child this religious belief is wrong. You have no right. If you do, you are overstepping your bounds and should be fired. "

So all those kids in Germany raised to despise certain races can not have their nasty beliefs overturned? It WAS a Religious belief and one Man was their God.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 11:30 PM

"that the more wrong-minded I show you to be"

A moralistic self aggrandizing judgment - i.e. only a matter of personal opinion, thus purely subjective emotional thinking.


"continually knock you on your ass. "

Be careful of your emotions running away - others may have different opinions... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 11:43 PM

Looks like quotes are popular...


"Atheism is a non-prophet organization."

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 11:59 PM

///So all those kids in Germany raised to despise certain races can not have their nasty beliefs overturned? It WAS a Religious belief and one Man was their God.///

Do you honestly believe that you could have been a teacher in Germany and told these kids they and their parents were wrong?

Look what happened to the Dixie Chicks just for saying they didn't like George Bush. The Bush administration not only cowed people into silence but the society as a whole wouldn't tolerate people questioning the war--even after we found it was started on lies. You weren't going to go into a classroom and tell any kids that the Bush and the war were wrong and you know it.

Like it or not, sometimes there is nothing you can do. And in the United States, like it or not, you as a public school teacher cannot preach for or against any religion to your students or you will be fired. It's the law, at least here in Michigan, and it's a right law. It's not a teacher's job to raise my kids--that's mine. His or her job is to teach my kids the 3 Rs.

///"that the more wrong-minded I show you to be"

A moralistic self aggrandizing judgment - i.e. only a matter of personal opinion, thus purely subjective emotional thinking.///

No, it isn't. It's the law. A teacher canNOT preach for or against religion in a public school. If professor shaw thinks he can tell my kids what he believes is right for them to believe, he is sadly mistaken and the law will back me. He's wrong and that's all there is to it. If you don't like that, take it up with the legislature.

///"continually knock you on your ass. "

Be careful of your emotions running away - others may have different opinions... :-)///

My emotions are perfectly fine, thank you. The more professor shaw talks, the more authoritarian he reveals himself to be. And I've noticed your attempts to argue for or against theistic arguments (I can't tell which you are attempting to do since your statements are very weak) leave a tremendous amount to be desired. So you might be wiser to refrain from comment until you know what you are talking about because at this point it does not appear that you do.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 12:05 AM

"an excuse to argue with Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses at the front door?"

When those people come around I act like I am so sick I can't hardly stand up and they leave promptly.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 01:32 AM

"No, it isn't. It's the law."

Only in YOUR country... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 01:33 AM

"So you might be wiser to refrain from comment until you know what you are talking about because at this point it does not appear that you do. "

Ad hominen. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 07:26 AM

Steve Shaw

Well, O gastropod,

Ah, the joy of arguing with a biologist. Far too many people call me a crustacean.

the point is that I find it increasingly frustrating to argue with someone who thinks that "random" means "unpredictable"

Previously -

Me:
do you agree with TIA's definition -

mathematical meaning is: not deterministically predictable, but following a probability distribution?

Steve Shaw:
I agree that Tia's definition is a valid mathematical one

It seems that you find it frustrating that I use the definition that you, yourself, have accepted.

and who fatuously attempts (no fewer than three times at the last count) to pin spurious religiosity to my opinions.

I have, at least as many times, asked you to produce any references or examples of what you mean and to give your definition of random. You have consistently failed to do so. You simply make declarations of what you believe. This isn't science, it is religion.
One of your earlier contributions was -
A mutation is miscopying of heritable material. If you want to demonstrate that any such miscopying is random you're going to have to show that there was no cause.
Rather reminiscent of Josep's debating style. On the God Delusion thread, he followed one of his bizarre pronouncements with -
I'm afraid I must DEMAND to be disproven not just dismissed.
Sorry, both of you, but the burden of proof is on you.

If you are going to get anywhere with you're campaign against the God-botherers, you are going to have tighten up your scientific reasoning or your not going to get much support.
So far, you've got Foolestroupe.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 07:30 AM

Foolestroupe

[jesop]"So you might be wiser to refrain from comment until you know what you are talking about because at this point it does not appear that you do. "

Ad hominen. :-)

Previously from Foolestroupe

Thus you demonstrate that you are but a close minded ignorant bigot, trying to pretend cleverness.

Pot, Kettle, Black?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 07:49 AM

As foolstroupe and I are the only Pastafarians on this thread, forgive me if we take the higher moral tone here... (Ok, I will, foolstroupe can carry on getting into battles with others.)

has it ever occurred to anybody that whilst rattling on about who is or what is an atheist.. an atheist may not bother with this thread as they don't feel it has anything to do with them?

Atheism can be an assertive position but it is also a "nowt to do with me guv'" position regarding religion. I have said before that for me, religion and stamp collecting have something in common; I know people who are into such things but am not curious enough to enquire further.

However, I don't have stamp collectors knocking on doors, telling me how to run my life, killing people for not liking the correct size and shape of stamps or thinking they have a right to influence laws.

So, if you are religious and use it as your moral code, then good for you. if you want me to use it as my moral code, go to Hell.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 07:59 AM

"Just so. The "they", obviously enough, Ed, is those parents who use the terminology and icons of Christianity as a transport mechanism for their authoritarian instructions. Guilt trips, overwhelming icons, nefarious implications of no-responsibility for self, or default-guilt, are among the many tricks which add not to an individual's divinity, but only to their servility and degradation.

This is not an automatic consequence of a belief in God, but it sure can be a common interpretation in some circles."

Well Amos, I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition (I have been waiting to say that for years, thanks for the opening)

Spanish Inquisition

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 08:53 AM

"It is not your job to reprogram these kids."

Since when is contesting these positions "reprogramming kids?" Gosh, and you have the nerve to accuse me of setting up a straw man! Going from your other comments about schools and classrooms I can see that you don't know much about education. Are you still a sixth-former?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 09:48 AM

"It's not a teacher's job to raise my kids--that's mine. His or her job is to teach my kids the 3 Rs."

I just spotted this gem. Have you ever been in a school?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mr Red
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 11:02 AM

Really? Show me an atheist who "knows." I've never met one in spite of years mixing in atheistic circles. Tosh!

Richard Dawkins. Now there's a man who doesn't "not know".

Our Steve Shaw has demonstrated the arrogance of ignorance. The bubble mentality. I ain't seen it, it works here. Therefore there is no other viewpoint.
Fundamentalist Religions also demonstrate a similar arrogance of the only view worth considering.

My original assertion that "Atheists know" is that most atheists I know prefer to know, and if that is not possible they are content to know that KNOWING it is an assumption, a theory that is yet to be proven, a work in progress, but the one they prefer. Though some exceptionally intelligent exceptions occur. And publish books on the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 11:16 AM

"When any man is wrapped up in himself he makes a pretty small package." John Ruskin

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 12:29 PM

///Rather reminiscent of Josep's debating style. On the God Delusion thread, he followed one of his bizarre pronouncements with -
I'm afraid I must DEMAND to be disproven not just dismissed.
Sorry, both of you, but the burden of proof is on you.///

On the other thread I presented an argument which was my logical proof. I wasn't making a claim. A claim has the burden of proof. I offered an argument and therefore was justified in requesting a counterargument. If all you say is, "You're wrong" then you are now making a claim and have the burden of proof. And remember, logical proof not empirical evidence--just a counterargument to the argument I had offered was all I wanted. No one offered such a counterargument and if I was so obviously wrong in their eyes then why couldn't they offer one? Likewise if my "pronouncements" were so "bizarre" why couldn't you then show me logically why they were unworkable? I'll be more than happy to go over that argument with you again point by point if you feel I shortchanged you in any way but I believe I answered everybody who posed opposing views.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 01:36 PM

Ed T said:

Of all the bad things you mention that can be taught to a child, whether at home, in a neighbourhood, or in school, sexism, misogynism, racism, dishonesy, homophobic views, a belief in a God seems relatively innocuous.Of all the bad things you mention that can be taught to a child, whether at home, in a neighbourhood, or in school, sexism, misogynism, racism, dishonesy, homophobic views, a belief in a God seems relatively innocuous.

As a "card-carrying" agnostic/sometimes-atheist, I have to agree with Ed T's last sentence.

And just as a sidelight comment of my own:

One advantage of being an agnostic is that you may go ahead and believe in a god, if it suits you. You just realize that no one can prove it, positive or negative.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 03:59 PM

"Really? Show me an atheist who "knows." I've never met one in spite of years mixing in atheistic circles. Tosh!

Richard Dawkins. Now there's a man who doesn't "not know".

Our Steve Shaw has demonstrated the arrogance of ignorance. The bubble mentality. I ain't seen it, it works here. Therefore there is no other viewpoint.
Fundamentalist Religions also demonstrate a similar arrogance of the only view worth considering.

My original assertion that "Atheists know" is that most atheists I know prefer to know, and if that is not possible they are content to know that KNOWING it is an assumption, a theory that is yet to be proven, a work in progress, but the one they prefer. Though some exceptionally intelligent exceptions occur. And publish books on the subject."

Well, all I can say is that you appear to be commenting from a position of ignorance about Dawkins' writings. He freely admits, as do all sensible atheists (note the caveat) that there is no certainty possible about the non-existence of God. We leave the certainty to religious people. It's been said so many times on these long threads but your personal agenda, whatever it is, seems to prevent you from listening.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Smokey.
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 04:37 PM

On the other thread I presented an argument which was my logical proof. I wasn't making a claim.

Your claim was that you were presenting logical proof. The counter-claims were that you were not.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Stringsinger
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 05:06 PM

There is no one that has all the answers to problems associated to religion or science.
But there are educated opinions. Dawkins has never pretended to have all the answers.
The only reason he has been attacked by the likes of Deepak Chopra is that religionists
don't like his conclusions.

A belief in a god is not innocuous since it in many cases it fosters intolerance, bigotry,
race discrimination and a close-minded approach to anything that disputes its existence.

Steve, most of the people who attack Dawkins have not read him.

The reason that discussion and dialogue on this issue is important is that many claims that are made by religionists need to be examined for their veracity and validity. It's not just a matter of belief but which ideas prevail and for what reasons in society. Today, there is a growing preponderance of religiosity that is standing in the way of scientific progress and tolerance.

In my personal experience, I find atheists to be among the most tolerant of people.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 05:52 PM

"A belief in a god is not innocuous since it in many cases it fosters intolerance, bigotry,race discrimination and a close-minded approach to anything that disputes its existence"

If you read my post carefully the statement was that compared to some awful stuff that Steve raised that children are exposed to a belief in God was "relatively innococuous".

The belief in a God itself is as noted. As I suggested earlier, it is organized religion, social, political economic attachments that transform this belief into bad things. Almost any aspect of life can and likely has fostered things like intolerance, bigotry,race discrimination and close-minded approaches. There were and are atheist societies (those led with no belief in a God) where alot of these bad things also happened and likely still happens....and alot worse. It is a sketchy theory to attribute these bad things to either to people having or not having a belief in a God.

History is filled with examples of intolerence, conflict and other bad things for many reasons, (sometimes conflicts between those who do not believe in a God with those who do, in other cases the reverse, or battles between those who claim to be tied to competing Gods). In many, if not most of these cases "the belief" was a scapegoat, used to support and fuel the cause. Societies and political leaders non't need much of a reason to do some bad things, or to demonize those who get in their way.

May I suggest that close mindedness is not limited to those who believe in a God. :)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 05:55 PM

Is it also fair to debate that many of those who do not believe in a God are intolerant of the views those who do?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 06:02 PM

"Dawkins has never pretended to have all the answers...
...Steve, most of the people who attack Dawkins have not read him."

Cheers for that. I'd go even further. Dawkins et al. have no answers, because there ARE no answers to the wrong questions. The main tenet of the atheist argument is that it's best to accept no-one's claims unless they can supply evidence for their claims. The claim of believers in God is that a supernatural being, who breaks all the laws of physics in order to exist at all, and who is far more complex and inexplicable than the things he's supposed to be there to explain, is in charge of the universe. I'm not going to say that's wrong, but I am going to say that I won't believe it until I'm confronted by evidence. Not ritual, hearsay, anecdote, threats of hellfire, tradition, bible, witness -- evidence. It's a reasonable request. One which has yet to be fulfilled.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 06:07 PM

"So far, you've got Foolestroupe. "

Oi! I'm not with them! I'm not wasting MY time campaigning against the God Bothers!

I've got nothing against God - it's his fan club I can't stand!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 07:07 PM

///"No, it isn't. It's the law."

Only in YOUR country... :-) ///

So what country are you from, Foolstroop?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Smokey.
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 07:09 PM

Don't tell 'im, Pike.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 08:05 PM

What's the matter? Afraid he's going to be proven wrong? In the US, a public school teacher cannot preach religion to the students or tell students not to observe any religion. He says that's only in my country. So I want to know what country he's from so we can determine that in his country a public or at least secular school teacher can preach religion to students or preach against religion. I've very curious to know what country allows a teacher to arbitrarily override parental upbringing.

So what country is this, Fool?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 08:22 PM

///"It is not your job to reprogram these kids."

Since when is contesting these positions "reprogramming kids?"///

If you're opening your big mouth to my kids telling them what's right and what's wrong, you're trying to reprogram them. It is not your job. You say you teach biology? Fine, shut up and teach my kids biology. I'll worry about the rest of it.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Smokey.
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 08:27 PM

It was a joke, Josep - wasted, I suspect..

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 08:33 PM

Sorry, I didn't recognize that ol' knee-slapper.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Fergie
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 08:42 PM

The test of an athiest is in my opinion very simple;
would an athiest change her/his fundamental belief when confronted with objective proof for the existance of a "diety"?

Believers must accept that there is not a scintilla of objective evidence of any kind, that a diety exists.

I posted the above comment to this thread almost a fortnight ago. Is there any theist amongst us can produce a scintilla of evidence that a god exists? If there is will they please post it soon.

Fergus

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 08:51 PM

"I've got nothing against God - it's his fan club I can't stand!"
Unfortunately, intolerence has and does exist in both the "believer and non believer" groups in all societies. But, luckily I suspect it is mostly at the fringes.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 09:17 PM

In spite of its ignorant arrogance the US does NOT 'rule the world', and sooner or later when it is just another 3rd world country and broke - all the rich people will migrate to a "Real Cuntry', don't you worry about that, the hard lessons will hit home with vengeance. China and India are bypassing the US already anyway, so hang in there and enjoy the ride.

We do have a lot of 'failed Yanks' turn up here and assume that our country is just part of the USA, and try to 'educate' our politicians and businessmen - we recently kicked out the arrogant bullying overpaid Yank idiot who was appointed to run Telstra - he ran the share price right down, and cut back on service, which encouraged many to leave the fold of an Aussie company and go to companies run by overseas interests who give better service and prices to the extent that an organization that was well loved is now not liked :-) and he took his millions of dollars golden handshake with him. Now the share price has started to rise, and Telstra has stopped trying to bully politicians in the same way that works in the USA.

In Australia, we have 2 separate schools systems.

We have the taxpayer funded State School system, Primary and High, in which teachers are not supposed to preach Religion during classes - but that didn't stop my Physics teacher insisting on all of us doing the Lord's Prayer if you hit him first period of the day. He was our 'Form Teacher', so we did usually 4 days out of 5 - we just shut up and tolerated it - so did most parents in the 60s. He was a devout RC and a great guy, well loved by all students - he would tell us - "you have to give this back in the exam - I don't understand all of why it is so, so just trust me" - and most of his class would get A s or Bs. I met him later, when he was teaching Formal Logic and he was a brilliant teacher, helping me grasp concepts that many here in this forum display a complete lack of. I was upset when he died of cancer, but he had smoked like a chimney.

We also have the 'Religion' period once a week (primary & secondary schools) where all the local pastors (or any other loud mouth self important clown with no teaching training quals who would not have been allowed to teach any other 'subject') were allowed by law to come in and continue the brainwashing conducted at Sunday School. Only a very few were allowed by their parents to go off and study maths or whatever. Personally I would have benefited long term life wise more by that....

Then we have the 'Private' School system - now also funded massively by taxpayer funds to win the 'Church Vote'. Most of these used to be the RC or a few other Religions such as CoE or Lutheran based schools - both Primary and Secondary. Most of them smear Religion into all subjects, as per their published prospectuses. There are also nowadays may other private schools, based on all sort of pedagogical 'principles' - any sort of brainwashing is tolerated - there are regular fusses when the State insists that students leaving these schools must be able to read and write (and not just major in 'theology', Lego or 'dancing to music', or 'orgonne color therapy', or whatever), and if they actually do subjects with 'Science Content' that certain formalized subject matter is taught and tested - we have Senior level tests that supposedly test if one has sufficient levels in various subjects to allow University entry.


I've mentioned here previously what happens when some of these students hit University and try to submit Science papers that only quote from the Bible ....

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 09:23 PM

"Fine, shut up and teach my kids biology. I'll worry about the rest of it. "

But 'teaching biology' by definition thus excludes the nonsensical 'Creationist/ID Bullshit' brainwashing, and the kids must be warned of this, that it is indeed NOT 'Science', in spite of what their misguided parents may bully them with ... :-P

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 09:24 PM

Oooo, serendipitous typo... sorry about that ... :-0

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 09:26 PM

>>>I posted the above comment to this thread almost a fortnight ago. Is there any theist amongst us can produce a scintilla of evidence that a god exists? If there is will they please post it soon. <<<


I know that my mental health depends upon my having a spiritual grounding. But don't worry, I'm not in any danger from any of you. I've not only heard your arguments before. I have made most of them myself.

I was a more strident and committed believing atheist than any of you.

But eventually I was broke, tired, lonely, I had lost a job I had been working toward for years, a sales job, basically for being to ethical.

I was planning to kill myself. Desperate, I tried my last resort. I prayed. I suddenly saw ways to turn things around. I was never that broke, tired or lonely again.

What do you call objective?

Bottom line it works.

There are literally millions of experiences like that.

12 Step programs, which have been scientifically proven to be effective treatments for drugs, alcohol, gambling and many other self destructive problems start with and REQUIRE the recognition of a higher power.

Bottom line it helps people. In many cases, including my own, it is the only thing that CAN help.

That is not to say that I agree with most of the things done in the name of Religion. Religion is a tool more powerful than high explosives, even nuclear explosives, unfortunately it is just as open to abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 09:29 PM

For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible. ~ Traditional Proverb

Many men go fishing all of their lives without knowing that it is not fish they are after. ~Henry David Thoreau

The foot feels the foot when it feels the ground. ~Buddha

The only Zen you can find on the tops of mountains is the Zen you bring up there. ~Robert M. Pirsig

Reason and faith are both banks of the same river. ~Doménico Cieri Estrada

A thousand men can't undress a naked man. ~Greek Proverb

No matter where you go or what you do, you live your entire life within the confines of your head. ~Terry Josephson

It is better to know some of the questions than all of the answers. ~James Thurber

You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. ~Author Unknown

Genuine tragedies in the world are not conflicts between right and wrong. They are conflicts between two rights. ~Georg Hegel

No snowflake ever falls in the wrong place. ~Zen

The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth. ~Niels Bohr

If I make the lashes dark
And the eyes more bright
And the lips more scarlet,
Or ask if all be right
From mirror after mirror,
No vanity's displayed:
I'm looking for the face I had
Before the world was made.
~W.B. Yeats

Men are probably nearer the central truth in their superstitions than in their science. ~Henry David Thoreau

Because they know the name of what I am looking for, they think they know what I am looking for! ~Antonio Porchia, Voces, 1943, translated from Spanish by W.S. Merwin

The fish trap exists because of the fish. Once you've gotten the fish you can forget the trap. The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit. Once you've gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words exist because of meaning. Once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can talk with him? ~Chuang Tzu


Alice came to a fork in the road. "Which road do I take?" she asked.
"Where do you want to go?" responded the Cheshire cat.
"I don't know," Alice answered.
"Then," said the cat, "it doesn't matter."
~Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven.
Jean Chretien

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 09:35 PM

Is there a belief that God does not exist?

If so that sounds like the basis for a religion to me.

Please note. I am neutral on the subject and I am not here to offend anyone and cause a controversy. It just seems ridiculous to me that people have to choose sides and argue the question.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 09:36 PM

"But 'teaching biology' by definition thus excludes the nonsensical 'Creationist/ID Bullshit' brainwashing, and the kids must be warned of this, that it is indeed NOT 'Science', in spite of what their misguided parents may bully them with ... :-P

Oh yes, I forgot a proverb:
To wash an ass's head is but loss of time and soap. French Proverb

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 09:51 PM

A bit of a drift...

According to Corporate Lobbyist Dick Armey, (while appearing on USA Capitol Hill to testify before a Republican hearing on climate change legislation) if there is a God, there cannot be climate change.

"We have sort of an eco-evangelical hysteria that's going on and it leads me to almost wonder if we are becoming a nation of environmental hypochondriacs that are willing to use the power of the state to impose enormous restrictions on the rights and the comforts of, and incomes of individuals who serve essentially a paranoia, a phobia, that has very little fact– evidence in fact."

"Now these are observations that are popular to make because right now it's almost taken as an article of faith that this crisis is real. Let me say I take it as an article of faith if the lord God almighty made the heavens and the Earth, and he made them to his satisfaction and it is quite pretentious of we little weaklings here on earth to think that we are going to destroy God's creation."

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 09:55 PM

>>>But 'teaching biology' by definition thus excludes the nonsensical 'Creationist/ID Bullshit' brainwashing, and the kids must be warned of this, that it is indeed NOT 'Science', in spite of what their misguided parents may bully them with.<<

I sort of agree with you here. Creationism is nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 10:06 PM

"Is there a belief that God does not exist?

If so that sounds like the basis for a religion to me."


This is the delightful irrational brainwashing that the Theists NEED to confuse people with.

That statement of yours demonstrates a typical confusion in Semantics & Rational Human Logic of those who eat their cake and want it still - Since Religion consists in believing (to the extent of unshakably KNOWing) that there are invisible powerful magic sky fairies who are beyond all human understanding, the mere denial of that position, by definition, cannot be a 'Religion'.

You never heard of Venn Diagrams in Formal Logic, did you? The Theist position is totally inside one circle - the a-theist position is all what is outside that circle, and never the twain can meet.

And then since it is claimed that Religion is 'beyond all human understanding', thus, by definition of those who hold that Religious Belief, 'mere' Rational Human Logic cannot apply to that Belief. :-)

The 'True' A-Theists - just refuse to accept the 'beyond all human understanding' bit, that's all, which places them totally outside that circle of 'Religious Belief'. Which is why they are considered a irreconcilably fatal hostile threat by those who take the 'beyond all human understanding' stance seriously.

Simple, isn't it? :-)

Now for those who are called 'Religious Atheists', they are not, they are 'Proselytizing Atheists' who are not really any different from 'Proselytizing Theists' - both NEED to 'convince others in order to convince themselves', like many of those who undergo various 12 Step programs - the actual 'Internal Belief' is irrelevant to the actual 'observed external behavior'.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 10:08 PM

QUOTE
"But 'teaching biology' by definition thus excludes the nonsensical 'Creationist/ID Bullshit' brainwashing, and the kids must be warned of this, that it is indeed NOT 'Science', in spite of what their misguided parents may bully them with ... :-P

Oh yes, I forgot a proverb:
To wash an ass's head is but loss of time and soap. French Proverb
UNQUOTE

Yep, you just can't debate rationally with Creationist/ID believers.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 10:08 PM

Is there a belief that God does not exist?"

Yes there is, and that is ok.

But, there are some that cannot leave it there. Some folks agressively try to marginalize those who disagree with this belief that there is no God and would take away the comfort the God belief gives to others. But, on the other side of the coin are some religious extremes who try the same with those who believe that God does not exist. A pity that such extremes exist in either movement.

"Can we all get along?" Rodney King quote

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 10:12 PM

"it is quite pretentious of we little weaklings here on earth to think that we are going to destroy God's creation."

He arrogantly forgot the Old Testament Prophets here (and that line about being 'fruitful', which by definition is the exact opposite of 'destructive') - they said that Israel would be destroyed and put into exile for going against God's Will... :-)

And the Earth will go on happily, a lump of rock spinning in space till the sun turns into a red dwarf and swallows it ... no real NEED for people, you see :-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 10:17 PM

"But 'teaching biology' by definition thus excludes the nonsensical 'Creationist/ID Bullshit' brainwashing, and the kids must be warned of this, that it is indeed NOT 'Science', in spite of what their misguided parents may bully them with ... :-P

Hopefully, you were capable of leaving intolerant views (like above and in some other posts) at the doorstep of the school before entering to provide a balanced perspective?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 10:18 PM

"Some ... would take away the comfort the God belief gives to others."

I see no need for that (except when they stick their d*ck into things like 'Science' and try to ignorantly 'control' it) - but when those very people with the God belief NEED to justify their own belief and NEED to wipe out those who disagree, try to 'take on the opposition' they have none to blame but themselves if they 'hurt their head' AND their faith ....

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 10:27 PM

"I see no need for that (except when they stick their d*ck into things like 'Science' and try to ignorantly 'control' it) - but when those very people with the God belief NEED to justify their own belief and NEED to wipe out those who disagree, try to 'take on the opposition' they have none to blame but themselves if they 'hurt their head' AND their faith ...."

Of course one can expect that...when folks go from having their own personal viewpoints...from whatever deduction... that there is no God, and go on public campaigns to spread their viewpoints to society(Books, TV appearences etc). Of course those with strong conviction to the contrary are going to take them on. That's reality in other situations, why would one expect it to be different in this case?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 10:29 PM

QUOTE
"But 'teaching biology' by definition thus excludes the nonsensical 'Creationist/ID Bullshit' brainwashing, and the kids must be warned of this, that it is indeed NOT 'Science', in spite of what their misguided parents may bully them with ... :-P

Hopefully, you were capable of leaving intolerant views (like above and in some other posts) at the doorstep of the school before entering to provide a balanced perspective?
UNQUOTE

1) Don't confuse ME with a 'teacher'. I'm not, but I used to be a Sunday School 'teacher' :-)

2) Religion and Science if blindly and stupidly ignorantly willfully mungled together, ARE intolerant of each other by the implacable exclusive definitions of each.

But there is no problem for those who can 'wear different hats' while holding onto to the two belief systems at once, moving between them when the limits of either are reached. The 'Intolerant Religious', by definition have to be intolerant of anything that defies their Totalitarian Infallible World View, or else they may just 'lose their faith'.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 10:31 PM

QUOTE
when folks go from having their own personal viewpoints...from whatever deduction... that there is no God, and go on public campaigns to spread their viewpoints to society(Books, TV appearances etc).
UNQUOTE

So only those who 'Believe in God' are allowed to freely speak out in a Society 'founded on Free Speech'? All the unbelievers just shut up!

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 10:39 PM

I did mistake you as a teacher, from some of your posts. My error.

I work in close association with scientists every day and have great respect for science and scientists...and do not doubt evolution. And, like many...possibly most...who also believe in a God, I have no problem balancing both, because a personal belief is just that, a belief and no more...no proof needed. That is why I am puzzled why some agressive atheists must always ask believers of a God to prove it? I take it to be intentional belittling of their personal faith. But, possibly it is something else...possibly a divide that some cannot transverse?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 10:42 PM

There is of course a historical parallel to a lot of what people think are their own personal 'creative' ideas - from long before Christianity was invented.

Plato had sought to elucidate and explain things from the supra-sensual standpoint of the forms, Socrates preferred to start from the facts given us by experience. Philosophy to him meant science, and its aim was the recognition of the purpose in all things. Hence he establishes the ultimate grounds of things inductively — that is to say, by a posteriori conclusions from a number of facts to a universal. In the series of works collected under the name of Organon, Aristotle sets forth the laws by which the human understanding effects conclusions from the particular to the knowledge of the universal.

Most 'Religions' run along the lines of the Plato School.

Science runs along the lines of the Socrates School.

A-theism - a modern invention, attempts to take the Socrates School of thought where Religion and the Supernatural is involved, which is why the untrained get confused in thinking that Atheism 'is some sort of Religion'.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 10:43 PM

98.463% of those who basically accept the science that is the basis for the continuously revised ideas of **evolution** would, if left alone, merely proceed WITH that science and make no particular effort to argue about presumed religious beliefs.
   It is when those WITH religious beliefs demand that their positions/claims be 'taught' in schools as alternatives to standard science, that difficulties develop. It is the attempt by the most conservative groups to assert that no matter WHAT science shows, Creationism has an alternate theory that agrees with Genesis, Bishop Usher and that museum in Kentucky, that raises the hackles of science oriented folk.

Science, properly done, is neutral. If it found mounting evidence of artificial layers of sediment placed by some Creator's Hand and bones of Homo sapiens mixed in the same layers with Pterodactyls, it would say so and there would be very wide belief that Something beyond human 'made stuff'. That is NOT what is seen, and thus is so reported.
This does not **prove** that some Creator did not 'start the whole process', but so far, the evidence just is not there.....and that is what should be taught in **science** classes. It is NOT appropriate that science classes and textbooks should be designed and edited as they are trying to do in Texas to give someone's belief system equal weight. That is for the home & church to explain...AT home and IN church. No one in a science class should be either asserting OR denying opinions about religious ideas of creation.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 10:43 PM

So only those who 'Believe in God' are allowed to freely speak out in a Society 'founded on Free Speech'? All the unbelievers just shut up!

No one is forced to shut up, on either perspective. But, if one takes one on, and belittles their belief, expect a reaction. To me, the key is respect for the personal belief of others (whether you can understand the logic of that belief or not), which often seems to be lacking.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 10:45 PM

"It is when those WITH religious beliefs demand that their positions/claims be 'taught' in schools as alternatives to standard science"

I do not live in a society where this is an issue. There is a clear separation of church and state. I guess it is in other locals, that I am unaware of..and that issue is foreign to me.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 10:49 PM

Ed

For many years, I wore 'two different hats' - now I wear only one - it just got too confusing and difficult trying to keep the two separate and stop compulsively mungling the 'subjective faith that knows all' into 'objective Science'.

I also now longer consider any possibility of me being an 'Atheist' - if you want/need a label try 'A-Spiritualist'.

Life is much simpler and easier for me now. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 10:56 PM

QUOTE
I do not live in a society where this is an issue. There is a clear separation of church and state. I guess it is in other locals, that I am unaware of..and that issue is foreign to me.
UNQUOTE

Yet. Just wait, it will turn up everywhere eventually, especially if the fanatics can get 'the thin edge of the wedge' in as they boast in their published material - they HAVE to stick their d*cks in, it's just PART of 'The Faith'.





I just wish they would keep their d*cks in their own pond, really ... :-0

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 11:03 PM

"(that) science classes and textbooks should be designed and edited as they are trying to do in Texas to give someone's belief system equal weight"

This is the very reason for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Religion.

If ONE set of Religious Beliefs MUST be taught in Science 'in the name of fairness and equal time for balance', then they ALL must be taught - the European Indian system, the Aussie Aboriginal system, the US Indian system, etc, etc, etc, AND the FSM system.

Refusal to accept any 'alternative' system but Genesis is absolute proof that the claim of 'balance' is just an outright lie.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 11:10 PM

In Australia, 'Religion Classes' in State Schools is proscribed by Law to be compulsory. In one state, the Govt introduced a trial 'optional' system. The Churches were wildly in favor (cause they were allowed to do more in that time) till Reality struck. Now the Churches want it abolished, because a greater number than the Churches considered 'acceptable' (and a much greater number than the few who 'fell between the cracks' before) :-) of parents opted to refuse permission for any RE classes.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Green Man
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 05:33 AM

I am jealous, the people who have a strong faith in whatevr religion have their answer to the big question. What happens after?

I don't know, so am drawn to discussions about religion just in case I might find that universal truth. I have friends who are of various faiths and who are variously devout or not. Do they sleep better at night because they profess to be religious? I don't know and I don't think that most of them even consider the question.

A religion is a community and supports its members and in some cases anyone who happens to need support. So, am I deprived because I am unconvinced?

Be Excellent to each other.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 07:02 AM

Foolestroupe
I guess there is alway a possibility of it being an issue in my society, but I have never seen any sign of it, and I do keep an ey to issues. Folks are very tolerant to each others beliefs, and church and state are clearly separated.

I can see you had conflict rationalizing your former faith with your views today. I have no such conflict, and it has never been an issue. Possibly it is easier because I have shed associations with organized religion years ago (as I saw no need for it, and did see harm within), and think objectively for myself.

Maybe I can give an example of what I see as belief, and why it is complex to proove...as one would tend to do in science. You and I may have a belief that our wives are more beautiful. I gues there likely is some time of a tes to prove which of us is right...taking various attractive features into consideration. But, even if that test was applied and we were proven wrong, I suspect it would not impact our belief that our wives were more beautiful.

Some of the non believers focus on what seems to be very improbable, according to science tests, when it comes to proving if there is a God. But, because you are dealing with a belief, all that does not matter to one who believes in a God. The belief is imbedded inside, and with most folks never comes up in any discussion. Sure there are very many historic accounts (for example in the Christian Bible( that may not make sense scientifically, and do not hold up to its rigid tests. But, that does not matter a hill of beans to those who hav a belief, likely established in childhood. If a historic account does not make scientific sense, it does not matter to me...as I take many historic accounts as having a broader message I can seek and learn from.

So, I go back to my assessment that a personal belief in God in itself causes little if any harm. In fact, in many cases it is personally beneficial for many, though not for all. The problem is with other aspects associated with organized religion....and examples are not difficult to find.

You have seemed to have found a place that works for you. Others have found a different place. I suspect neither is wrong. I could be wrong, but I detect some bitterness on your part. Could that be influencing you in your strong expressions that the children of those who believe in God should not be exposed to the belief? Why would you deny them the internal peace of mind that this belief has given to their parents? Most people, like you, want to pass on good things totheir children, not bad things.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 08:51 AM

500!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 08:53 AM

Yesterday afternoon, my neighbours daughter and husband visited to show us their new baby. It was obvious that the mother and father were on cloud nine, and had a belief that their baby was the most beautiful baby on earth, as new parents often see it.

Now the baby was not that cute to me. In fact, using my "cuteness baby scale" I expect that I could make a case, and prove the baby was not high on the scale of beauty (in fact, I found her to be kinda funny looking).

Should I have contested their belief and proved them wrong? Or, should I have (as I did) leave them with their personal belief and comfort that this baby was on the high side of teh beauty scale?

I use this example to reinforce a point....that I made in myb last post.

There is a theory that those who believe in God, and religious groups are increasingly getting more agressive in promoting their belief, and rejecting the opposite belief. Is that a valid theory? Or, are we just seeing more of it, because a small number of folks on the extreme side are better utilizing the medium, or media (which is never well done)to transmit their message. Could this be just a reaction to those who are using the "entertainment media" to challenge the belief in God? Or, are we just paying more attention to it. I suspect we need a bit more "scientific rigor" to this theory to accept that it has any validity.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 08:59 AM

Ed

That's fine for you, at this time in your life. But you sound like someone with whom I would have little hassle. However, you are a relative minority among those who believe - many need to convert others to justify this own faith, and there are those who need to dominate 'Science' to make it fit, just like in Galileo's day, to what they "KNOW".

You are lucky at the moment about what you say is 'tolerant' in your local group. So was Australia too - then fire and brimstone Billy Graham turned up to harvest souls and money. (Bloody arrogant Yanks again!) My parents took me with them to the big meeting at the country showground. Apart from a massive feeling of vague guilt, it just was pretty boring to us Lutherans.....

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 10:00 AM

"proscribed by Law to be compulsory."

Whaaaa?? How can that be? 'Splain, please.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 10:39 AM

"However, you are a relative minority among those who believe - many need to convert others to justify this own faith, and there are those who need to dominate 'Science' to make it fit, just like in Galileo's day, to what they "KNOW".

How do we know for sure, that I am in a minority versus the other agreeive folks you refer to? Could it be just as oikely that it is a local observation, or that this group (those to the extreme) is getting more visability now, then in the past, and their numbers have not changed? Could there be a scientific bias or inaccuracy in this statement?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 11:10 AM

"It is when those WITH religious beliefs demand that their positions/claims be 'taught' in schools as alternatives to standard science..."

Ed T...."I do not live in a society where this is an issue."
---------------------------------------------------------

I do....and here in the US we have dozens of major candidates for Congress and many more in local elections trying to get elected (in 2 weeks) with their conservative religious beliefs as prominent campaign positions. Sadly, many of these fundamentalist religious positions are also connected to extreme ideas aimed towards disruption of many ongoing economic, judicial and social change.
They have poorly thought out *slogans* which they use as 'revealed truth', and they distort and often lie about their opponents in order to get elected. The real 'power brokers' in the US Republican party are sometimes nervous about these 'loose cannons', but that's who won primary elections, and the attitude seems to be, "well, any Republican vote in Congress means one step closer to control of the money and power, and 'maybe' we experts can get what WE want, in spite of having a bunch of ding-bats to shepherd..."

I've been voting since 1960, and have NEVER seen anything like this!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 12:02 PM

I am not "up on" USA law when it comes to Church and State laws. I found these legal opinions and the article in the link below interesting.

"The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."
(USA Justice James Clark McReynolds,1925, Pierce v. Society of Sisters)

"(No USA government) "can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will, or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion," and that it could not penalize anyone "for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or nonattendance." (USA Justice Hugo Black, Everson v. Board of Education,1947),

From:
church and state in the USA

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 01:28 PM

"If you're opening your big mouth to my kids telling them what's right and what's wrong, you're trying to reprogram them. It is not your job. You say you teach biology? Fine, shut up and teach my kids biology. I'll worry about the rest of it."

Ha, I knew it. You don't know anyhing about schools. Might I suggest, if/when you have children, you consider home schooling? Actually, are you old enough to have children?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 01:36 PM

One of the reasons that the two threads are running simultaneously at such length is that
there is a growing population of non-believers, the third largest in some polls after Islam and Christianity. The true test of an atheist is to be able to express his/her views without rancor or ad-hominem but from a logically stated viewpoint. I think most atheists are pretty good at this. I see no personal need to dictate to others what to believe or stop them from going to church, synagogue, temple or mosque. That need is not what many of the atheists that I know have.

Hugo Black was brilliant as a jurist. Unfortunately, his dictum holds no great influence in America today. It's ironic to me as America becomes more "religionized" it becomes more
unethical and immoral.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Amos
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 02:00 PM

More than ironic, I think it is symptomatic.


A

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 04:37 PM

Ooh, never recommend home schooling. It is every adult's job to socialize all the children around them, and without that normalizing influence you'd be amazed at how ignorant some parents would keep their kids.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 05:51 PM

I was being sarcastic. I wouldn't recommend home schooling to anyone, ever. I just squirm at the thought of josep, when he's eventually old enough to have kids, being the bane of every teacher in the school.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 07:08 PM

QUOTE
"proscribed by Law to be compulsory."

Whaaaa?? How can that be? 'Splain, please.
UNQUOTE

Australia - not the USA, you parochial friend! :-).

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 07:14 PM

US law regarding religion in public schools

Obviously, this applies to atheism no differently. Teachers are strictly hands-off regarding the preaching of religion--pro or con.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 07:17 PM

Actually, we here have a theoretical separation of Church and State in the Constitution, but on a practical basis ....

When a previous recent Governor General went to church every Sunday, for the first time in Australia's history, it was no longer a private event, but because he (or perhaps it was his wife!) decreed it, became a State Event, and was advertised as such.

Parliament is opened with Prayer!

... and a lot of other 'incongruities', which at the time they were started, were not seen as such since CoE was effectively the 'State Religion' ... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 07:41 PM

Regarding extra-curricular religious student clubs, it should also be pointed out that teachers may not speak at these nor regularly attend them even if they sit silently. These clubs must be student formed, student led without feeling pressured or watched over.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 07:43 PM

Trust me, from experience, many teenagers can be highly coercive in impressing Religious views on their acquaintances.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 07:47 PM

I've just posted in the 'delusion' thread an interesting post - too long to repost here

source text and podcast

This is exactly the sort of problem an a-theist has with the magic sky fairy stuff. But most aren't really driven to 'save' everybody else - a few are, of course...

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 07:50 PM

oops - too soon ..

QUOTE
One of the reliable insights of philosophy of science is that scientific knowledge is virtually never incoherent. In science, a hallmark criterion of whether you can possibly be right is whether or not you are coherent. If you are coherent, you might be right. If you are incoherent or contradict yourself, then you are most likely wrong.

The beauty of this is that you don't even need data or peer-reviewed science to be sure: If an argument is incoherent or mutually contradictory, then you can be fairly confident that it is wrong or stated for entertainment purposes only.
UNQUOTE

I've been the target of incoherent attacks here ... "Yes mayor ..." :-)

"stated for entertainment purposes only"

Religious matters are not for entertainment - they are to convince people of their absolute correctness.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 08:05 PM

I didn't say we live in a perfect world. You can still resist. Being bullied by another kid is still better than being slapped around by a cop. The cop has all machinery of the state behind him. And it's the same with a teacher. No kid can stand up against that.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 08:34 PM

The link provided by josep to US laws regarding compulsory religion in places like schools is very good and instructive, but it has some problems.

Mainly, it is similar to jaywalking laws: it tells you what is allowed and forbidden, but it does not provide for surveillance and enforcement...nor could it. Just as no one can stop people from crossing roads 'illegally', they cannot control specific examples of ignoring 'imposed prayer' rules and similar problems.
In some places...especially in the US Southern states, where fundamental Christianity is 90+%, the rules are routinely ignored, and the minorities who object are commonly harassed and/or pressured to say nothing....and kids can suffer a LOT from peer-pressure to follow the majority. When courts and police and state legislators don't like the 'rules', it requires a serious situation or a very brave individual to file suit or complain.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 08:41 PM

Taoism
Shit happens.
Buddhism
If shit happens, it's not really shit.
Islam
If shit happens, it's the will of Allah.
Protestantism
Shit happens because you don't work hard enough.
Judaism
Why does this shit always happen to us?
Hinduism
This shit happened before.
Catholicism
Shit happens because you're bad.
Hare Krishna
Shit happens rama rama.
T.V. Evangelism
Send more shit.
Jehova's Witness
Knock knock, shit happens.
Hedonism
There's nothing like a good shit happening.
Christian Science
Shit happens in your mind.
Rastafarianism
Let's smoke this shit.
Existentialism
What is shit anyway?
Stoicism
This shit doesn't bother me.
Agnosticism
Maybe shit happens, maybe it doesn't.
Atheism
No shit.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 08:48 PM

///Mainly, it is similar to jaywalking laws: it tells you what is allowed and forbidden, but it does not provide for surveillance and enforcement...nor could it.///

Rubbish. If you encounter it, you report it. There's no way to stop someone from driving drunk, no way to stop someone from breaking into your house. But having a law gives you teeth when you report it.

///Just as no one can stop people from crossing roads 'illegally', they cannot control specific examples of ignoring 'imposed prayer' rules and similar problems.///

Nonsense. You report it. It's YOUR job to report it if it offends you and the law is on your side. If you take it, you deserve it.   There's your surveillance--you. What do you want? Cameras and microphones planted everywhere to spy on everything to make no laws are broken? Do your duty as a citizen and report it. If your neighbor is revving his motorcycle at 11:30 at night and you can't sleep, don't expect the cops to magically arrive. You have to call them and complain.

///In some places...especially in the US Southern states, where fundamental Christianity is 90+%, the rules are routinely ignored, and the minorities who object are commonly harassed and/or pressured to say nothing....and kids can suffer a LOT from peer-pressure to follow the majority. When courts and police and state legislators don't like the 'rules', it requires a serious situation or a very brave individual to file suit or complain.///

And this is nonsense too. I've lived in the south. I have family down south and I still vacation there every year. Nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 09:56 PM

QUOTE
///In some places...especially in the US Southern states, where fundamental Christianity is 90+%, the rules are routinely ignored, and the minorities who object are commonly harassed and/or pressured to say nothing....and kids can suffer a LOT from peer-pressure to follow the majority. When courts and police and state legislators don't like the 'rules', it requires a serious situation or a very brave individual to file suit or complain.///

And this is nonsense too. I've lived in the south. I have family down south and I still vacation there every year. Nonsense.
UNQUOTE

You may not have, and that is valid - for you. I have observed this sort of behavior personally in parts of Australia.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 12:30 AM

>>>>That's fine for you, at this time in your life. But you sound like someone with whom I would have little hassle. However, you are a relative minority among those who believe - many need to convert others to justify this own faith, and there are those who need to dominate 'Science' to make it fit, just like in Galileo's day, to what they "KNOW".<<<

I've lived for 12 years in the US "bible belt." Now I live in the same state as Billy Graham. So far as I see Ed is like the vast majority of Christians. The "relative minority" are the ones with the "need to convert" But they are the ones you notice because by their very nature, they draw attention to themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 01:18 AM

"the ones you notice because by their very nature, they draw attention to themselves"

I'll agree - but then the same has to be said about 'atheists', just to be fair ... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 08:55 AM

Ed T:

Thank you, thank you for the eloquent lesson on comparative religion!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 08:57 AM

Foolestroupe said:

QUOTE
"proscribed by Law to be compulsory."

Whaaaa?? How can that be? 'Splain, please.
UNQUOTE

Australia - not the USA, you parochial friend! :-).

My post had nothing to do with international differences. It had to do with the English language.

"Proscribe" means "prohibit".

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 09:13 AM

""Proscribe" means "prohibit"."

OK - I meant prescribe.... sorry tired, eyes play tricks.... it passed the spelling checker ... :-P

a : to lay down as a guide, direction, or rule of action : ordain
b : to specify with authority

Sorry about that Chief ....

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Stringsinger
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 11:44 AM

I know something about the "bible belt". Fundamentalist religion may not be the dominant view but it is enabled here by all manner of "Christians". Try to get elected to an office in the "bible belt' without endorsing the "bible".

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 12:14 PM

It's very difficult to get elected anywhere in this country if people know you are an atheist or profess no particular religion. Yes, it's stupid and ridiculous but that's America. Picking on the South is also ridiculous--they're no worse than anyone else. One poster said parts of Australia are as bad and I'll take his word for it because that's likely how it is all over the world. But I have no interest in electing an atheist who is going to preach atheism at people. I'd rather elect a quiet Christian than a loud-mouthed, know-it-all atheist.

All I ask is to respect my right to be an atheist so I don't have to disrespect you for being an ass.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 12:19 PM

josep...It is NOT nonsense. There are rules against 'reciting prayers to Jesus' over loudspeakers at high school football games, but it is routinely flouted in Texas.

What is nonsense is: "If you encounter it, you report it." and all the rest of your assertions that it either doesn't happen, or can be easily stopped by 'reporting it'!!

I don't know which parts of the South you visit, but there ARE many areas where not being a Baptist is looked down on and being an atheist is downright dangerous.

Obviously, not 'every' Southern Christian acts like that, and there are oases of relative sanity (such as Austin, Texas)...and there are even token attempts to enforce the laws in many places, but you simply have no idea what can happen if, for example, a Jewish family objects to their child's exposure to compulsory Christian prayers in school!

I, myself, belong to a group whose primary focus is woodworking, but whose national meetings (which I attend intermittantly) always begin with a prayer calling on Jesus! I have watched a couple of Jewish members manage to head for the restroom to avoid being in the room. It is just EASIER than a formal protest! One member has a little wooden string & stick puzzle he foists on new people....imprinted with Bible verses.

If I had time, I could cite dozens of similar examples, and not all in the South...it's just that Alabama, Texas, S. Carolina, Georgia, and several others, are the worst offenders. VERY SLOW progress is being made, but it will be decades before anything resembling universal fairness is approximated.....

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 04:17 PM

"There are rules against 'reciting prayers to Jesus' over loudspeakers at high school football games, but it is routinely flouted in Texas".

Not that I endorse that type of thing....but are there likely worse things going on in the state of Texas, and associated with football?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 04:36 PM

While I am not offended by them, but I don't get the purpose of putting up bus signs that say "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." In fact, I don't recall any bus sign that had any impact on what I do or believe.

It kinds of reminds me of the Pro Life, versus Pro Choice signs and campaigns run by extremists. They already likely have most of the people they would have any impact on in either camp already. There must be some type of a battle out there, on the extreme edges, for our minds and beliefs?


There's probably no God

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 05:02 PM

The point of the bus and billboard ads is to show that atheism is a valid alternative to any religion, and bring the idea out of the metaphorical and proverbial closet. Otherwise the only option is *which* religion, which can get to be rally annoying.

There is very little that is life-affirming about the antichoice movement. At least, affirming for the life of the person whose womb is involved.

The level of assumed Christianity here in Central VA is well over *my* head. One has to swim pretty hard to stay in one place...

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 05:07 PM

Well Ed, I agree that those signs on buses are 'bad form' and unlikely to change ANY minds. They are simply not useful or necessary.

And, there are many things going on associated with football in Texas that should be aired out .... there was even an attempt a few years ago by a mother to have a presumed competitor to HER daughter for cheerleader murdered. Football and related activities are something close to a religion in Texas, and calling on God & Jesus to help one side are only part of it...and in Alabama, the only difference is one of style and degree.

All we can reasonably hope for is a reduction in blatant proselytizing in public institutions and at public events.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 05:17 PM

"The point of the bus and billboard ads is to show that atheism is a valid alternative to any religion, and bring the idea out of the metaphorical and proverbial closet".

The part of the sign I like better is "Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 05:30 PM

*grin*....good point...

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 09:41 PM

///josep...It is NOT nonsense. There are rules against 'reciting prayers to Jesus' over loudspeakers at high school football games, but it is routinely flouted in Texas.

What is nonsense is: "If you encounter it, you report it." and all the rest of your assertions that it either doesn't happen, or can be easily stopped by 'reporting it'!!

I don't know which parts of the South you visit, but there ARE many areas where not being a Baptist is looked down on and being an atheist is downright dangerous.

Obviously, not 'every' Southern Christian acts like that, and there are oases of relative sanity (such as Austin, Texas)...and there are even token attempts to enforce the laws in many places, but you simply have no idea what can happen if, for example, a Jewish family objects to their child's exposure to compulsory Christian prayers in school!

I, myself, belong to a group whose primary focus is woodworking, but whose national meetings (which I attend intermittantly) always begin with a prayer calling on Jesus! I have watched a couple of Jewish members manage to head for the restroom to avoid being in the room. It is just EASIER than a formal protest! One member has a little wooden string & stick puzzle he foists on new people....imprinted with Bible verses.

If I had time, I could cite dozens of similar examples, and not all in the South...it's just that Alabama, Texas, S. Carolina, Georgia, and several others, are the worst offenders. VERY SLOW progress is being made, but it will be decades before anything resembling universal fairness is approximated..... ///

The Southerners I've met have been very nice and none have ever tried to foist their religion on me. As for praying at football games, I got some news for you--do you have the slightest idea how rampant christianity is in sports all the way to the pro level? Probably your favorite pro athletes are ardent christians. And football is probably the most infested.

And yes I'm well how racist and bigoted Texans are. I'm well aware that you will probably be killed if you complain about how racist and bigoted they are. But here's what I say--SO WHAT??? I think it was Franklin who said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Freedom, ironically, isn't free. Ask the civil rights marchers who paid the price for it. But if someone doesn't do it, it doesn't change. So sit there in silence and take it or get up and do something about it come hell or high water (and you can expect both) or leave the state.

Sorry but I am unsympathetic. You live there by your own choice. And if you don't stand up for yourself, who is going to do it for you?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 10:48 PM

As someone who has stood up - and watched those who would benefit more than me from the change turn on me, and seen how little progress was eventually made for what it cost me, I can understand why many just don't want to get involved.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Stringsinger
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 08:36 AM

Josep, it's time for us non-believers to speak out in protest against the bigotry of religious
indoctrination in the South and elsewhere. To say "so what?" to people being killed because of religious fanatics such as Schroeder is heartless. To say you are unsympathetic is probably not what you actually meant but if it is you should be ashamed of yourself. People didn't deserve to die because they wanted their civil rights. The true test of an atheist is to speak out when their civil rights are violated. To say that they get what they deserve for speaking out is a choice that shouldn't have to be made. No one should have to tolerate religious bullies ever.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 03:53 PM

Read, read!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 04:00 PM

When you see a sign that reads "KIDSEATFREE" go in and ask for your free kid seat.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 04:01 PM

Oops wrong thread:((

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 07:28 PM

Don't worry, Ed, it made just as much sense as many other posts here....

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: kendall
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 08:25 PM

For what it's worth, I am a Deist and I am still interested in how others think. I like to discuss many subjects, religion is one of them.
As I see it, religion and superstition are exactly the same thing. Both based on fear, ignorance and ego.
There is not one scrap of real evidence that the Jews were ever slaves in Egypt. However there is plenty of evidence that they were soldiers, mercenaries hired by Pharaoh to guard his northern border.When he put them to work building cities they revolted and left taking whatever wasn't
nailed down. How else could a gang of wanders whip everyone in Canaan?

Jesus never wrote a word. The creator never wrote a word. If you believe the story of Moses and the 10 commandments why did the all powerful creator need a mortal to write his message?

I know there are those who will argue and some will pray for my soul but none of it is logical and I can not have faith in anything that doesn't make sense to me.

There. You may disagree with me, but you can not tell me I am wrong because you have no proof.
Fire away.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: kendall
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 08:29 PM

Please don't try to use the Bible as proof. That sacred book is an in complete collection of myths and morality tales designed to keep the masses in line with fear. Most of it is taken from legends far older than itself. The Saga of Gilgamesh for instance.1000 years older.The Code of Hammurabi for instance.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Stringsinger
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 08:46 PM

Moses Ten Commandments were taken from the Code Of Hannarabi from the early Indus culture. Mythras was the Persian God whose birthday occurred on December 25, by the old calendars. He was reputed to have been born of a virgin birth. There are so many examples of mythology that lead to present day religious beliefs.

By the way, Thomas Paine was a Deist. The founding Fathers of the Constitution would be mortified at the way contemporary Christians have interpreted that document as a defense of their beliefs. Tom didn't have much use for atheists, however. He was pretty adamant about that in "The Age Of Reason". This is also true of Hitler who decried atheism as well.

Most of the testimony of the Apostles in the so-called Bible could not have historically written those chapters. Bart Ehrman has set that to rest in "MIsquoting Jesus" and his other books. The Bible was concocted, pieced and pasted together first by ignorant scribes who could copy but not read and later by clerics and priests who changed the stories around to fit their agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 08:50 PM

"How else could a gang of wanders whip everyone in Canaan?"

Sadly it appears now that they may not have. The evidence found in the ground from the cities named in the Bible, show that the cities fell into disuse over a much longer period of time than claimed in that book, with little evidence of any common catastrophe consistent with a band of armed marauders surging rapidly thru the land.

It is known that there was a political rewrite of biblical history, when a certain King, trying to reinforce his claim that he had a right to rule not only the tiny scrap of land he did, but that all his neighbors also 'belonged' to the same cultural group that he had a Divine Right to rule. Amazingly his priests 'found some old forgotten books in the temple' that supported his claim!

Another one of the many 'conspiracies' of political rewriting of history in biblical History.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: kendall
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 08:56 PM

How could Hitler decry atheism and still butcher 12 million human beings?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 08:59 PM

"How could Hitler decry atheism and still butcher 12 million human beings? "

He believed that he was God and had the Divine Right to do whatever he bloody well liked. He was worshiped as God by Schoolchildren in song and story in the classroom.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 09:02 PM

Research has recently shown that strong wind from the correct direction will 'part the waters' over the appropriate geographical area, allowing people to scurry across, and flooding the area when the winds change. Similar to a tsunami, but different cause.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 11:44 PM

///Josep, it's time for us non-believers to speak out in protest against the bigotry of religious
indoctrination in the South and elsewhere.//

So who's stopping you?

///To say "so what?" to people being killed because of religious fanatics such as Schroeder is heartless.///

Again, so what? I don't control how people react. They'll probably want to kill you--especially in Texas which I think is the worst place on earth for civilized people. But if you don't stand up to them, nothing will change. So stay silent and suffer or speak up and suffer. I'd rather suffer getting beaten fiar and square than to let someone walk all over me. At least I can be proud of mysef.

///To say you are unsympathetic is probably not what you actually meant but if it is you should be ashamed of yourself.///

I meant it and I feel no shame whatsoever. You choose to live in a hell-hole then suffer. If you don't like it, speak out against it. If you're afraid to do that then leave. How many other situations are you ever in where you get that many choices?

///People didn't deserve to die because they wanted their civil rights.///

I never said anyone deserved to die. I don't control how people react. If they kill you, they kill you. I can't do anything about that. It's the price you pay sometimes for doing what is right. I've watched too many punk out when they should have stood up and I find it despicable.

///The true test of an atheist is to speak out when their civil rights are violated.///

Okay, then, speak out and take whatever lumps come your way. Welcome to the world.

///To say that they get what they deserve for speaking out is a choice that shouldn't have to be made. No one should have to tolerate religious bullies ever.///

I never said anybody deserved it. The only time you deserve what you get is when you're too afraid to speak out. But when you speak out and don't expect retaliation, that comes close to deserving it. Of course there's going to be retaliation. That's should be why you do it--to show the world why you had to speak out. If you die, you die. If you're not willing to die for what you believe in then you don't really believe in it. Would you die for your family? Of course, if you didn't then you really don't love them. It's the same thing here. Sometimes the issue is bigger than you.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 12:03 AM

"The only time you deserve what you get is when you're too afraid to speak out."

Several millions did not speak out once before and died - some of them trusted the Man as they had fought in WWI with him. Then we had Pol Pot ....

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 12:56 AM

>>Research has recently shown that strong wind from the correct direction will 'part the waters' over the appropriate geographical area, allowing people to scurry across, and flooding the area when the winds change. Similar to a tsunami, but different cause. <<

Has recent research also shown that a man can live for several days in a fish?

If you want to poke holes in the accounts of the Bible you don't need to be so elaborate.

Just say that people are prone to exaggerate and a thousand years is a long time for a story to grow in the retelling.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 01:50 AM

"Has recent research also shown that a man can live for several days in a fish?"

This is as logical and relevant a question in this discussion as "Has research shown that Rip van Winkle could sleep for years?"

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 01:52 AM

"If you want to poke holes in the accounts of the Bible you don't need to be so elaborate."

I'm tolerant of other's beliefs enough to accept that a myth can have a grain of fact buried in it from long ago.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 02:00 AM

The myth of the great deluge in many human cultures can be traced right back in human belief systems to the eclectic belief that Atlantis was submerged by a great catastrophe from space - and that they were being punished for being 'wicked'....

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: kendall
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 03:53 AM

Keep talking folks.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: kendall
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 04:06 AM

By the way, I am not trashing anyone's belief system, I'm simply telling you mine. In fact, I envy those who have a belief in a compassionate, loving caring God. It's just that when I look around at the the horrors that go on, rape, murder, brutality and innocent children starving to death while we throw away almost as much food as we eat I have to wonder, if there is this God, is he/she/it asleep? I just can't reconcile the two.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 06:29 AM

"I'm tolerant of other's beliefs enough to accept that a myth can have a grain of fact buried in it from long ago".

Does it matter if it (worldly accounts from the past in the bible, especially the older parts) is seen to be based on fact? Or, should one look at the message?

Could some be looking at the dooghnut, while others are looking at the hole?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 06:37 AM

dooghnut = Doughnut = Donut= Tim Hortons = Crispy Creme = taste good
=Baked Goods = Do taste Good = do good = dog good = God good = God nut (where could that lead? :)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 07:08 AM

"Does it matter if it (worldly accounts from the past in the bible, especially the older parts) is seen to be based on fact? Or, should one look at the message?"

Yes, it matters a lot when the stuff you're talking about is being peddled as truth. If stuff is stories provided to make a point, like Aesop's Fables, good, but don't pretend it's the truth. or try to twist it around saying that the message is the truth, etc. It isn't honest. Gospel truth and all that! I contend that Christians are discouraged from questioning the veracity of the Bible for the same reasons they're discouraged from questioning the veracity of all the other aspects of doctrine. There's a strong whiff of authoritarianism about it all.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 11:38 AM

Steve,

I think most Christians do not that the Bible as the literal truth.
That is not logical, a lot of the Bible is self-contradictory.

But there is a large sect that does try to take it literally they tie themselves in knots and make up things on their own like "The Rapture. It is unfortunate that these people are very loud and they tend to try to apply their same twisted logic to politics.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: kendall
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 01:03 PM

Mary Magdalene was not a whore as it was charged by some long dead Pope. They just can't accept that she was so close to Jesus as to be a threat to the men.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 01:32 PM

"I contend that Christians are discouraged from questioning the veracity of the Bible for the same reasons they're discouraged from questioning the veracity of all the other aspects of doctrine"

No one was ever made any successful attempts to discourage me questioning anything, nor have I ever peddled anything to anyone on any aspects of a God belief, and I aconsider myself a questioning Christian since youth.

Joe Offer seems to post that people in his parish question or ignore many aspects of what Rome seems to say. I suspect that, unlike in the past, many Christians question and debate most aspects of their belief. Could you be refering to your experience in the past?

And, could you be confusing the term Christian with the christrian extreme, those some folks refer to as the Chriatian right? I suspect you would not want to be lumped together with all Atheists? Does it make sense to lump all Christians in the same group, when you speak of some?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 01:44 PM

If people kill you, they kill you, I can't do anything about that? Sounds awfully like some religious fatalism... of *course* you can do something abotu that. I mean, really. What a lousy attitude.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 04:36 PM

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep - PM


//"So who's stopping you?"//

Ultimately those who would commit acts of violence against you for saying what you believe.

//"Again, so what? I don't control how people react. They'll probably want to kill you--especially in Texas which I think is the worst place on earth for civilized people. But if you don't stand up to them, nothing will change. So stay silent and suffer or speak up and suffer. I'd rather suffer getting beaten fiar and square than to let someone walk all over me. At least I can be proud of mysef.//

Still, the lack of compassion in saying "so what" makes me wonder if you have a sense of justice.

//I meant it and I feel no shame whatsoever. You choose to live in a hell-hole then suffer. If you don't like it, speak out against it. If you're afraid to do that then leave. How many other situations are you ever in where you get that many choices?//

I don't choose to live in a hell-hole and I don't choose to leave a country who wants to make of it a hell-hole and the fact that I would have to suffer for this sounds very paternalistic and punitive. This "welcome to the world" philosophy is fatalistic and in a sense complacent since it assumes that this is the way things have to be.

//I don't control how people react. If they kill you, they kill you. I can't do anything about that. It's the price you pay sometimes for doing what is right. I've watched too many punk out when they should have stood up and I find it despicable.//

There is a margin of action that can take place to determine how people react. The price of murder for doing what is right is immoral. This is truly despicable.


//"Okay, then, speak out and take whatever lumps come your way. Welcome to the world."//

The fact that one has to take lumps for expressing his/her belief is regrettable. It also emphasizes injustice. To accept that is tantamount to endorsing it. It's a world that too many fatalists excuse and even unwittingly collaborate in creating.

//" If you're not willing to die for what you believe in then you don't really believe in it.//

I think this is an oversimplification. There are different ways in believing in something.
Gallileo believed in his telescope but protected himself against his death so that his wisdom could be later shared by science.

"If people kill you, they kill you" is a statement of denial in that it absolves you of any responsibility to create a just society that doesn't condone killing.


// ''Would you die for your family? Of course, if you didn't then you really don't love them. It's the same thing here. Sometimes the issue is bigger than you."//

But ultimately isn't it an issue about you defending your position?

The fact that anyone has to die for expressing a belief is immoral, particularly in the U.S. which claims "freedom of speech".

OK, the true test of an atheist is to posit a world where these punitive and authoritarian
views of the world are questioned and replaced by a sense of fairness and justice and not endorsed or excused by "religious fatalism". This is true morality.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 07:58 PM

A man is not what he says, a man is what he does.

Talk is cheap. Whining is the cheapest of all. I'm not fatalistic, I'm realistic. If you come in here whining about how intolerant your community is but you aren't doing anything about it--two words: SHUT UP!

You're not going to be known by your lofty condemnations under an alian in some internet forum; you're going to be known for what you did about the situation, which in your case is NOTHING!!

What a bunch of candy-ass whiners you people are.

///Gallileo believed in his telescope but protected himself against his death so that his wisdom could be later shared by science.///

That's right--he continued to publish writings on his discoveries while under permanent house arrest. He didn't whine in private and stay silent in public. He continued to do what he could.

///I don't choose to live in a hell-hole and I don't choose to leave a country who wants to make of it a hell-hole and the fact that I would have to suffer for this sounds very paternalistic and punitive. This "welcome to the world" philosophy is fatalistic and in a sense complacent since it assumes that this is the way things have to be.///

I never said that. I said that's how things ARE. Doesn't matter if it's fair--deal with it--no whining.

///The fact that one has to take lumps for expressing his/her belief is regrettable.////

Oh, wah!!! It's been happening for centuries. Go cry to Medgar Evers who took a bullet for speaking out. That's why he's remembered today--for his bravery. If he lived in silence, we wouldn't know his name.

///It also emphasizes injustice.///

So you're going to whine about it??? Great way to get rid of injustice--whining.

//To accept that is tantamount to endorsing it.///

I never said accept it; I said expect it. You're already accepting it by living in fear and silence.

///It's a world that too many fatalists excuse and even unwittingly collaborate in creating.///

The fatalistic ones are the ones who cower in silence while the world around them goes to hell. They whine about it but don't do anything.

How to stand up to bigots

I should also point out that the lady in this story received many death threats but she never backed down.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 08:12 PM

"Twelve Year Quest to Change the Name of "JAP Road" ... I should also point out that the lady in this story received many death threats but she never backed down. "

Passes the 'true test' of Intolerance and bigotry... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 08:43 AM

Sometimes I think we're alone in the universe, and sometimes I think we're not. In either case the idea is quite staggering.
Arthur C. Clarke

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 08:57 AM

"I think most Christians do not that the Bible as the literal truth.
That is not logical, a lot of the Bible is self-contradictory."

So when Christians tell all their little children those baby-Jesus stories at Christmas, for example, they unfailingly make it clear that they are not actually true? I don't think so. And get 'em young is the way to keep up the membership, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 09:02 AM

"So when Christians tell all their little children those baby-Jesus stories at Christmas, for example, they unfailingly make it clear that they are not actually true? I don't think so"

I am a Christian. And, I do not recall ever telling my children baby Jesus stories at hristmas. In fact, we talked mostly about Santa Claus....and never once did I reveal that I was Santa.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 09:06 AM

,,,and never once did I reveal that I was Santa. And, I haven't seen any harm that I caused to the children helped raise to adults from not telling the full truth about Santa.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 09:09 AM

I think it was Kendall who said, in part:

I have to wonder, if there is this God, is he/she/it asleep? I just can't reconcile the two.

That dilemma doesn't hang on the existence of God, but on the characteristics assigned to him/her.

If you believe in an omniscient, omnipotent god, then you may have that problem you speak of. But there are other possibilities that allow for his/her existence even with all those wrongs:

1. That God is not omniscient, so he/she doesn't know about the wrongs you speak of.

2. Or that God is not omnipotent, and so, knowing, he/she cannot fix everything up.

3. Or that God really is not that involved with humanity, and so doesn't care, and so doesn't do anything about those wrongs even though he/she could, because it's beneath his/her notice.

Frankly, I am not convinced of even the existence of a god, so those qualifications don't come up, but it would be possible to believe in that existence even with the evils you point out. The limited god avoids the dilemma.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 11:43 AM

Well, Ed, I recall being terrified that Santa wouldn't come if I was naughty. Poor message there I reckon. Unlike the God delusion, we're allowed to grow out of the Santa delusion without penalty as we grow up.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 12:02 PM

"Well, Ed, I recall being terrified that Santa wouldn't come if I was naughty. Poor message there I reckon".

Are you now naughty? If not, it sounds like it was a good message IMO. Did you also have a fear that God would not be with you, if you were naughty? If so, I suspect you also got over that as you grew up.

"Unlike the God delusion, we're allowed to grow out of the Santa delusion without penalty as we grow up".

Are not atheists, or other alternative believing or non believing folks, not "allowed" to grow out of this so called delusion without penalty?

IMO, folks are pretty much free to chosse whatever delusion they wish to choose. My son says he is an atheist, and I have not seen or heard of any penalty imposed on him by anyone.

If not, what is this penalty you speak of? (Outside, of being a member of a church, which I suspect believing would likely be a criteria for membership (even there, with most churches, one could likely attend without penalty). What penality was imposed on you, when you "grew up", and out of what you call the "God delusion" (I not you still capitalize God, could that be the penalty, old habits?
:)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: kendall
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 01:04 PM

I don't believe in a loving, caring compassionate GOD who cares for me.My question is, how can anyone believe it with all the proof to the contrary around them? Is it ego? they just can't face mortality?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 01:24 PM

Are not atheists, or other alternative believing or non believing folks, not "allowed" to grow out of this so called delusion without penalty? - No, that's the problem. We are accused of having no morals, and so on.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 02:20 PM

Ed T

,,,and never once did I reveal that I was Santa.

WHAT?! You mean it was YOU all the time?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 02:57 PM

From the NY Times:

Atheists Debate How Pushy to Be

Unity is not a feature of atheism (as any human endeavor).

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Smokey.
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 04:24 PM

I never believed in Santa - we had gas fires. There was, however, more apparent evidence for his existence than that of God.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: gnu
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 04:55 PM

Kendall... "... they just can't face mortality?"

Ahhhhyup.

Any other questions about the universe ya want answered?

BTW... answers are a nickel a piece after the first free one. Subject to local sales tax as required by law. But, I have a BOGOF special coming up so you may want to save up yer questions.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 06:06 PM

Ed, there are plenty of penalties in several world religions for demurring and you know it. Catholic children (of which I was one) are brainwashed into thinking that theirs is the only true faith and that hellfire awaits those who dare demur. Mortal sin, remember? It isn't only the authoritarian doctrine, it's the pull of the family and church community too. Believe me, this is very difficult to resist, and it's a facet of faith that the Church is rather glad is there. In many cultures, Muslims who fail to adhere to strict codes imposed by their religion are, er, in deep doo-dah to say the least. It's all very well your saying or implying that everyone of religion is free and unfettered in the matter of turning away, but it simply ain't true. If it were true there would be no organised religion.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: kendall
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 07:55 PM

I'm a recovering Baptist. When I was 8 or so, I strayed a few times to the Mormon church. I remember telling my Baptist Sunday school teacher that the Mormons told me the wise men were named Caspar, Melchior and Balthazar. She said "WE don't believe they had names."

Another time I asked my minister this; If I am good I go to heaven, right"? He said "Yes". And I added, "If my Father is not saved he goes to hell, right"? Again, "Yes."
Then I asked him, "If my Father is in Hell, how can I be happy in heaven"? He couldn't give me an answer, but his face said "I don't know, go away."

I did.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 08:52 AM

"there are plenty of penalties in several world religions for demurring and you know it. Catholic children (of which I was one) are brainwashed into thinking that theirs is the only true faith and that hellfire awaits those who dare demur". I accept there is brainwashing and threats from the RC church. And historically there were penalties fore RCs who no longer believe in the RC teachings. But, in today's world I cannot imagine anything significant that the RC church could or would do if you professed a disbelief in God. Maybe you would no longe be a member, but that would hardly be a penalty, as what would be the point". But, if you refer to Islamic run governments...I suspect you could find penalties.But, if that is the case you would have to more closely define your throry.


"It's all very well your saying or implying that everyone of religion is free and unfettered in the matter of turning away, but it simply ain't true. If it were true there would be no organised religion".

The last sentence is a huge jump, and I suggest simply does not hold water. It follows logically if you are making a case that without injecting God into a persons early thinking there would be fewer believers in God. But, taking it beyond does not make logical sense.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 09:13 AM

So why do organised religions lay such great emphasis on getting their members in scarcely before that first whack on the bum by the midwife has worn off? Because if they don't get you before you understand what you're letting yourself in for they very likely won't get you at all. I'm a plain sort of chap and all I want to know is, if religion is so true, why don't the big faiths do the honourable thing and refuse to allow anyone to sign up before adulthood? Afer all, I can't vote or join the Campaign For Real Ale before I'm 18, for very good reasons. What very good reason has religion got for railroading people to join whilst they're still in nappies?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 09:29 AM

"sign up"

I must have missed that, I don't recall ever signing up to any God related thing, except maybe to a kid participating in a church walk-a-thon.

Parents d what parents do. I expect they begin to pass on many of their values, ethical codes and their belief or non belief in a God (and religion,or not) to children when they are young.To me, it is no more than that... and it does have an impact.

IMO, suggesting there is a "spooky church organized plot" to brain wash children as they are born puts one more in a conspiracy theory group than the logical thinking alternative one.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: wysiwyg
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 10:14 AM

The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary.

My confession:

I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees, Christmas trees... I don't feel threatened.. I don't feel discriminated against.. That's what they are, Christmas trees.

It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, 'Merry Christmas' to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu . If people want a creche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to.

In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.

In light of recent events... terrorists attack, school shootings, etc.. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave, because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about.. And we said okay..

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.'

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.

Are you laughing yet?

Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.

Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.

Pass it on if you think it has merit.

If not, then just discard it... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.



My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully,

Ben Stein

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jeri
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 10:30 AM

Some of that was written by Ben Stein (Dec, 2005), and some was added later, by somebody else. Ben Stein's "Confessions for the Holidays"

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 11:20 AM

I am very suspicious whenever somebody sends me an email with titles as "Read What George Carlin Said About Liberals" or "This is one pissed off housewife in New Jersey!" These are written by conservative hacks and shills and somehow get passed around from one person to the next. When they come to me, they get deleted. Even if I ever found myself agreeing with the content, I damned well it wasn't by George Carlin or George Washington or George Clooney or George of the Jungle. I doubt George Carlin ever railed againsst illegal immigration and ended it with, "We have to take our country back!" That is usually a tip-off that you're reading a conservative rant.

The "pissed off housewife in New Jersey" was funny because it was a super conservative rant that basically stated "I hate all Muslims. I don't give a shit how bad we are treating them. I don't care if George Bush lied to get us into Iraq, it was the right thing to do so shove your whining liberal democrat bleeding heart tree hugging kumbabya singing anti-American complaints up your ass!" So I went to several political forums with a posted reply to this "blog." Lo and behold, the writer of the blog responded to me. But he was mad because it was taken from his website, which he sent me the link to. I kept referring to the writer as "she" which really torqued him off but I said that it's being passed around as being written by a woman. Several other people also stated that they had received the same email. So they pass around conservative rants and disguise them as "this is the venting of the ordinary John Q. Public" and do this without the permission of the actual author. This guy knew nothing about his blog being passed around under false pretexts.

Someone else sent me anti-Obama cartoons he claimed were taken from Australian newspapers demonstrating that even the Australians know about what a sham and an impostor we have in the White House and the email ends with "THANK YOU, AUSTRALIA!" All I could do was shake my head and roll my eyes. The cartoons had "Times-Picayune" printed on them--a Louisiana newspaper. Yeah, thanks, Australia.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: kendall
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 12:31 PM

Ben Stein has some very convoluted logic.

Steve, they want the little ones because they believe that if a child dies unbaptized it will go to hell. Such twaddle.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 01:55 PM

Go to Jeri's link (at Snopes.com). Ben Stein's original essay was about celebrity worship. The first 5 paragraphs in WysiwyG!'s post are approximately Ben Stein's (there are some changes introduced), without his intro. I agree with kendall's comment on the logic.

As it happens, I liked Stein's essay this morning: Let Us Pledge Not to Give In to Hate.

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jeri
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 03:25 PM

And because some people don't want to click on the link to Snopes, this is what he actually wrote:

[Stein, December 2005]

Herewith at this happy time of year, a few confessions from my beating heart:

I have no freaking clue who Nick and Jessica are. I see them on the cover of People and Us constantly when I am buying my dog biscuits and kitty litter. I often ask the checkers at the grocery stores. They never know who Nick and Jessica are either. Who are they? Will it change my life if I know who they are and why they have broken up? Why are they so important? I don't know who Lindsay Lohan is, either, and I do not care at all about Tom Cruise's wife.

Am I going to be called before a Senate committee and asked if I am a subversive? Maybe, but I just have no clue who Nick and Jessica are. Is this what it means to be no longer young. It's not so bad.

Next confession: I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are: Christmas trees. It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, "Merry Christmas" to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu. If people want a creche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship Nick and Jessica and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him?

I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where Nick and Jessica came from and where the America we knew went to.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: kendall
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 04:52 PM

I don't know who they are either.And, I don't want to.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 05:36 PM

Well, while this is an interesting thread, it has certainly crept...

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 06:57 PM

["sign up"

I must have missed that, I don't recall ever signing up to any God related thing, except maybe to a kid participating in a church walk-a-thon.

Parents d what parents do. I expect they begin to pass on many of their values, ethical codes and their belief or non belief in a God (and religion,or not) to children when they are young.To me, it is no more than that... and it does have an impact.

IMO, suggesting there is a "spooky church organized plot" to brain wash children as they are born puts one more in a conspiracy theory group than the logical thinking alternative one.]

If some ignorant becassocked git splashes water over your head and pronounces you a member of the faith in front of relatives and "God", you're signed up. If some ignorant armed git chops your foreskin off within days of your birth in a big ceremony, you're signed up. In both cases, good and proper. In both cases you will be assiduously followed up all through your childhood by being force-fed doctrine and prayers in faith schools and/or your family until you can bleat the whole bloody thing out like a parrot. It's a damn sight more than just signing up, which is merely my euphemism for it. I can't understand why you can't grasp this.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 07:40 PM

"...you will be assiduously followed up all through your childhood by being force-fed doctrine and prayers in faith schools and/or your family until you can bleat the whole bloody thing out like a parrot. It's a damn sight more than just signing up, which is merely my euphemism for it. I can't understand why you can't grasp this"

Well, Steve, I can grasp what you say, but cannot see it as logic. IMO, you take an extreme stance (much like the extreme religious folks you seem to dislike) and try and generalize it to a very broad spectrum of people and cases all around the world. IMO, this puts your extreme theory more in the camp of those with conspiracy theories than logical camps.

It is not at all surprising and is logical that people who feel comforted by organized religion (I am not one of these people) would freely (with or without pressure from any church) wish to pass on the comfort they feel to their young...much the same as they and others pass on many other non-religious life lessons they have acquired. (I suspect you would do no less with your non belief in God conclusions...that you feel is right... to your young with good intent, if you had the opportunity).

To put this forward as a organized religion conspiracy is, IMO, just poorly thought out, but not at all difficult to grasp. The reason behind your ire on this topic is much more puzzling, and difficult to grasp, as you seem to be a reasoned thinker on other issues.

Please understand that no one seems to be saying here that an early exposure to religious thought does not have a profound impact on whether you believe in a God or not. I suspect such an early exposure to your non God belief would have a similar impact. However, real life shows that people do have choices, and many do abandon that belief. Many others, like me, come to the conclusion they have a personal belief, but no longer wish to be associated with organized religions.

The world and its wide spectrum of peoples should not be lumped into one category, for the convenience of the conclusion, that you could have based your theory on.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 07:54 PM

BTW, Steve,
I suspect if you visit churches (which you likely don't), you will find most of the faces are older, rather than younger. Would this not be one reason to rethink your "lifetime without religious choice theory"?

However, I suspect before one declared this to be a trend, more investigation would be needed.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 08:03 PM

"It is not at all surprising and is logical that people who feel comforted by organized religion (I am not one of these people) would freely (with or without pressure from any church) wish to pass on the comfort they feel to their young..."
Well, warm words all right, but not accurate. It's not comfort that's passed on, it's dogma stated as truth. Think of any Christian prayer and you will see it stuffed with bogus truth and bogus certainty. I worried a lot about what information my kids were receiving and I wasn't going to make an exception for religion. It is not right that young children are fed stories as if they were fact and then discouraged from questioning, asking for evidence. It's what big religions always do and no amount of accusing me of indulging in conspiracy theory will change that.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 08:10 PM

OK, Steve, your point taken.

I believe we have reached a point in this aspect of the discussion to agree to disagree on that.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 08:19 PM

I visit churches and cathedrals at every opportunity. They are part of my heritage. I also listen to religious music and I wouldn't be without my recording of Bach's B minor Mass or any of Mozart's sacred music. I love the music of Hildegarde of Bingen and of Martin Codax and have several favourite recordings of plainchant and other medieval and renaissance sacred music. I've been to several concerts which featured that Bach mass as well as the St Matthew Passion (complete with lunch break) and the Mozart Great C minor Mass and his Requiem. I have a great recording of Vaughan-Williams' G minor Mass which I love, and what's not to like about Fauré's Requiem? I heard a performance of it in Exeter Cathedral just recently. I'm thinking of having Mozart's Ave Verum Corpus motet played at my funeral (not any time soon). You'd be amazed at what some of we conspiratorial atheists get up to.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 08:43 PM

Sound s like a good experience Steve.Nice to hear of it.

Oddly enough, I never had a desire to have a funeral when my life ends. Never seen any real point in it, beyond bringing closure to close relatives and friends (and, I expect many successfully). IMO a modest piece in a local newspaper notifying friends of my passing and summarizing my accomplishments in life would be enough. But, while I may share our wishes in this regard, beyond that, I supposed I would not be in a position to decide:)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 11:50 PM

Maybe we should specify what kind of atheist we're talking about. You have the steve shaw kind who are resentful of their religious upbringing and rebelling against it now because they can and then you have the kind like me who never had a religious upbringing, never went to church, never read the bible unless we had one of those little gideon new testaments they hand out on street corners.

I take no satisfaction from rebelling simply because I have nothing to rebel against. I'm not a hardline materialist. I think there is a universal consciousness that dreams this reality as well as all of us. You can't pray to it because it can't change anything. As though a character in one of your dreams can pray to you and make you change your dream. This consciousness needs to experience everything bad as well as good so it's not going to change the bad even if it could. That might be unfair to the innocent people who are caught up in these rotten circumstances but that's how it is. There might be innocent characters you dream about who get caught up in something bad you dream about or ina nightmare but they're really you anyway just as we are all really bit players of the universal consciousness that dreams us. It's easier to accept than believing in a moral god that refuses to act to save an innocent soul despite all the praying, beseeching and cajoling people do to get it to act and all the promising they give the rest of us that this creature who does nothing to help us actually loves us.

I guess the deists were sort of right. The atheists are wrong. Atheism itself--as a group of logical arguments--is a very useful tool--but most atheists are just rebelling, thumbing their noses now that they are adults and no one can whack their pee-pee for it. The theists are wrong. Their whole system is nonsensical and badly thought out. The philosophers and the deists are really the most correct. The philosophers maybe a little more than the deists.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 05:55 AM

"All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth."

Unknown source

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: kendall
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 07:06 AM

I don't really care what the popular interpretation is, I decide what is true by what makes sense.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 07:33 AM

"I don't really care what the popular interpretation is, I decide what is true by what makes sense".

What would popular mean?
From which well do you draw your interpretations from, to make that decision?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 08:42 AM

This is going off the thread a bit but can I have opinions about Jehovah Witnesses. I am not saying anything for or against the religion but I would be interested to hear your points of view. My youngest son's girlfriend is Jehovah and she talks about it in a way that I am not used to, in fact I don't really know much about it at all apart from not allowing blood transfusions. Instinctively I think of the Watchtower and try to brush off some of the things she says but I really can not seriously accept what she believes.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 12:10 PM

"Maybe we should specify what kind of atheist we're talking about. You have the steve shaw kind who are resentful of their religious upbringing and rebelling against it now because they can"

Ha bloody ha. How do you know I rebelled against it? As it happens I ever so quietly dropped the bloody thing. And I can't rebel now because I haven't been part of it for thirty or more years. Your simplistic analysis is absolutely typical of those Catholics (even though you're not one - clearly something's rubbed off) who love to brand non-silent ex-Catholics as bitter, resentful and militant. I'm no more of those things than anyone else who happens to disagree with the Catholic church, whether they're ex-Catholics or men from Mars. Finally, if you dig around the threads enough (I can't be arsed), you will find that I've said that my own Catholic upbringing wasn't particularly repressive. I don't like any religion but I happen to know more about Catholicism, for obvious reasons, than the others. That's all.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 12:37 PM

Professor Shaw writes:

"Ha bloody ha. How do you know I rebelled against it? As it happens I ever so quietly dropped the bloody thing. And I can't rebel now because I haven't been part of it for thirty or more years."

This is what he earlier wrote:

"If some ignorant becassocked git splashes water over your head and pronounces you a member of the faith in front of relatives and "God", you're signed up. If some ignorant armed git chops your foreskin off within days of your birth in a big ceremony, you're signed up. In both cases, good and proper. In both cases you will be assiduously followed up all through your childhood by being force-fed doctrine and prayers in faith schools and/or your family until you can bleat the whole bloody thing out like a parrot. It's a damn sight more than just signing up, which is merely my euphemism for it. I can't understand why you can't grasp this."

You seem to be contradicting yourself, prof? Were you force-fed doctrine or were you not? If not, what are you so upset about? Also the tone of righteous indignation in the above statement is impossible to ignore. It jumps out in your face.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 02:32 PM

Just for laughs I thought I'd get back to the actual thread title...

Tests of atheism:

-When you or someone you love is very ill, and you neither pray nor are comforted by the prayers of others, you pass the test.

-When you want something very badly that is not under your control to get, and you neither pray for it nor desire the prayers of others, you pass the test.

Any others?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 04:10 PM

When you are rolling the dice and only think of probabilities?

Shaw,

If it is not obvious to you that you are resentful, I urge you to reread what you have said on these threads. You have been far from a neutral observer.

What you have been saying seems like a cry for help. Or maybe like a young male trying to get the attention of a young woman by dipping her pigtails in an inkwell.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 05:31 PM

I think that goes under the heading of Wanting something and not praying for it...

Remember the movie The Island, when the clones escape and hear someone mention god, and ask, what's god? And the human says You know when you want something really really bad, and you ask for it? Well, god is the guy who ignores you.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 05:44 PM

When my father lay dying for several months of last year, he never prayed nor asked for prayer. It never occurred to me to offer any. The hospice did send a clergyman around to pray and we didn't object because he seemed like a nice fella who wanted to comfort us. Because I wasn't raised religious, I felt no urge to tell him to get lost. I just figured, "Well, do your thang, dadz, can't hurt, I guess." He sang a death song over my father and that was actually kind of nice. I liked it. At the funeral there were no clergy. No clergy at the burial either--just family.

No clergy came to visit the grieving widow afterwards since my mom doesn't know any and didn't need any coming around. The dying was a lot harder on us than the death itself.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 05:47 PM

Some very thought provoking writings on religion and believing

(Author is Paul Lutus

If you have time and are so inclined, browsing his site is fascinating....yes, he IS basically non-religious

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 06:15 PM

["If some ignorant becassocked git splashes water over your head and pronounces you a member of the faith in front of relatives and "God", you're signed up. If some ignorant armed git chops your foreskin off within days of your birth in a big ceremony, you're signed up. In both cases, good and proper. In both cases you will be assiduously followed up all through your childhood by being force-fed doctrine and prayers in faith schools and/or your family until you can bleat the whole bloody thing out like a parrot. It's a damn sight more than just signing up, which is merely my euphemism for it. I can't understand why you can't grasp this."

You seem to be contradicting yourself, prof? Were you force-fed doctrine or were you not? If not, what are you so upset about? Also the tone of righteous indignation in the above statement is impossible to ignore. It jumps out in your face]

Talk about plumbing the depths of ignorance and stupidity. Do you think it's *Catholics* who hack kids' foreskins off? Why would I get upset about what some religion totally unrelated to my personal experience does? You are clearly lacking in education about world religions and their rituals. Are you of the age of majority yet?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 06:19 PM

"Shaw,"

Steve will do, actually. Don't be so bloody stupid.

"If it is not obvious to you that you are resentful, I urge you to reread what you have said on these threads. You have been far from a neutral observer.

What you have been saying seems like a cry for help."

And what you have been saying betrays the fact that you appear to be a patronising twat. I say (for now) that you only appear to be. I do like to leave people scope to recant.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 07:33 PM

///Talk about plumbing the depths of ignorance and stupidity. Do you think it's *Catholics* who hack kids' foreskins off?///

I don't know, do they? It's widely practiced in the Western world.

///Why would I get upset about what some religion totally unrelated to my personal experience does?///

That's what I'm asking you! Were you force-fed doctrine or not? You never answered the question. Instead you went off with insults that appeared to be trying to get me off this tack. Won't work. Answer the question, please: We're you force-fed doctrine as a boy or not?

And why do you insist that you are not rebelling when you're every world is a vilification of Catholicism--even to the point of accusing them of rubbing off on me. Clearly you meant that to be an insult. It's not having the intended effect because I didn't grow up resenting having religion forced on me.

Clearly, it was forced on you. Clearly you are very--I would even say extremely--resentful of this. Anyone who questions you on this point is treated to insults and deliberately condescending remarks. But remember, professor shaw, you made it our business when you force-fed us your anti-religious doctrine.

Personally, I see no real danger in religion. You have your nutjobs but they exist in every sphere of life. If people want to pray before a football game, I really don't care. Go ahead and pray. If they want to go to church then go to church. If they want to pound their bibles on the street they can knock themselves out doing so. If they want to talk to me about Jesus, I'm all ears--talk away. I just want the state to stay out of it.

I want religious folk to know that I as an atheist don't care what they do. I'm not going to rail against it. I was at an art museum some months back and a lady was there with her daughter, about 10, and they were looking at the religious paintings so popular in Europe at one time and the lady told the girl what the Ascension was. "Is that really true?" asked the girl, clearly skeptical. "Yes, it's true," said the lady. Now, that isn't the answer I would have given but I wouldn't have told her no that's not true either. I would have said, "Does it sound true to you?" Then she can do her own mental processing. Atheists talk so much about "free-thinking" but often in their way are just as dogmatic as religious nuts. Let the girl make up her own mind even if I don't agree with her conclusion. That's what free-thought is all about. It means leaving people free to be religious if they want to be and to reject if they want to--not because I said so. All I ask in return is that they respect my position since I respect theirs.

///You are clearly lacking in education about world religions and their rituals. Are you of the age of majority yet?///

I'm far from lacking in education, professor shaw. But I'm also seeing clearly how uneducated you truly are.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 07:48 PM

I think allowing people to make up their own minds is laudable. However, there is a danger in any religion that attempts to evangelize or force their ideologies on others. The danger must be self-evident to anyone who has taken note of those who have been killed because of someone who is a true believer as killer. Not to see this is naive at best and stupid at worst.

Religion brings with it a sense of "rightness" that can be used to do bad things.

I was never force-fed doctrines of any kind. I searched many religious paths and found them wanting. They had a common denominator. They demanded obedience and total acceptance. Sure it's easy to say let people do this or that based on their beliefs but the problem is that there are too many nut-jobs in religion to be one-offs. A reasonable person would examine what the effect of religion has on this erratic behavior such as murder and the justification of it.

Less then murder is the condemnation and rejection given by religious believers to those outside the fold. I think atheists have got to be the most accepting of people because they don't use religion as a tape measure for a person's morality.

Free thought is not free when there are those religious folk who condemn it and they are too numerous to mention today.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 08:13 PM

"I'm far from lacking in education, professor shaw."

But clearly lacking in the sort of education that tells you where to use capital letters.

"We're you force-fed doctrine as a boy or not?"

Or the sort of education that tells you where apostrophes should go.

"when you're every world is a vilification of Catholicism"

Nice misuse of "you're" there, but I'll forgive you the typo following. I almost never attack people for their blatant illiteracy, but I will should they dare attack me for being "uneducated." Very dodgy, young man. I recommend you avoid. You are in a glass house.

To the substantive issue. Of course I was force-fed doctrine. Every kid who attends a faith school in whatever religion is force-fed doctrine (we could stop calling it doctrine, actually, which is rather respectable, and call it what it really is - lies), and a good number are force-fed it by their parents as well. But in my case it was not particularly repressive as my parents cared not a jot about my church-avoiding shenanigans once I was past about fifteen. You talk like a typical faithful Catholic, disappointed and insecure to see those who demur voicing their views. I'm bitter, resentful and militant, eh? Yeah, right. Listen up, young man. I've never voted Conservative in my life but I express opinions about the Conservative party that are every bit as vitriolic as anything I say about the Catholic church. The implication in your attack is that, somehow, as an ex-Catholic, I'm not entitled to voice my views lest I risk being subjected to particular scorn. Well sod that. The Catholic banana boat last floated out of my dock over thirty years ago and resentment I have none. Your trouble is that you can't distinguish resentment from objective criticism. Grow up.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 08:15 PM

///I think allowing people to make up their own minds is laudable. However, there is a danger in any religion that attempts to evangelize or force their ideologies on others. The danger must be self-evident to anyone who has taken note of those who have been killed because of someone who is a true believer as killer. Not to see this is naive at best and stupid at worst.///

Is it better when they are killing each other over ethnic hatreds or land disputes or tribal customs?

///Religion brings with it a sense of "rightness" that can be used to do bad things.///

Atheist also often exude a sense of "rightness" and that makes them as prone to do bad things as anyone else.

///I was never force-fed doctrines of any kind. I searched many religious paths and found them wanting. They had a common denominator. They demanded obedience and total acceptance. Sure it's easy to say let people do this or that based on their beliefs but the problem is that there are too many nut-jobs in religion to be one-offs. A reasonable person would examine what the effect of religion has on this erratic behavior such as murder and the justification of it.///

You're setting up a straw man. Of course religion produces nuts. So does politics. So does anything. I've never had a person who belongs to an organized religion threaten to kill me because I was an outsider. I don't expect it will ever happen. If you have to rail against religion on the off-chance that some unglued nut might want to kill you, you have a pretty weak excuse.

///Less then murder is the condemnation and rejection given by religious believers to those outside the fold.///

They can do whatever they want. I can't change them. I wouldn't if I could. It's their choice. Aren't you doing the same thing?

///I think atheists have got to be the most accepting of people because they don't use religion as a tape measure for a person's morality.///

Many of them use lack of religion as a measure of intelligence and place themselves above believers. They are just the same people. They are what they hate.

///Free thought is not free when there are those religious folk who condemn it and they are too numerous to mention today.///

Free thought is free. If they choose not to engage in it, too bad for them. But no one's stopping you from engaging in it but you.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 08:28 PM

Heheh.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 08:38 PM

////To the substantive issue.///

I type fast and I don't proofread what i write. I really don't care if it's all that correct. Your nitpicking on this point doesn't score you points, professor shaw (although lower case here has always been deliberate). But feel free to engage in that foolishness if it makes you feel superior--you have to snipe at something, I suppose.

////Of course I was force-fed doctrine.////

So you lied earlier when you stated that your religious upbringing was all that repressive. Sounds repressive to me.

///Every kid who attends a faith school in whatever religion is force-fed doctrine (we could stop calling it doctrine, actually, which is rather respectable, and call it what it really is - lies), and a good number are force-fed it by their parents as well.////

Good, we're starting to scratch the surface of the truth of your problem. I sense a dislike of one's parents. But then I might have disliked mine had they force fed lies to me as well.

///But in my case it was not particularly repressive as my parents cared not a jot about my church-avoiding shenanigans once I was past about fifteen.///

After mentioning parents shoving crap down kids' throats you then make sure to mention that yours didn't do that--after you turned 15 that is. What were they like before you turned 15? What lies did they force-feed you?

///You talk like a typical faithful Catholic, disappointed and insecure to see those who demur voicing their views.///

Quite the contrary. I'm rather enjoying this. I think you know you came on too strong--thought you'd get more support than you did--and now your pride, as usual, won't let you back down and admit you were out of line. So you're just going to plow ahead like a bull in a china shop and everything else be damned. Tell me if I'm getting warm.

///I'm bitter, resentful and militant, eh?///

Yes, we know.

///Yeah, right.///

"Yeah" isn't a proper word, Mr. Education.

///Listen up, young man. I've never voted Conservative in my life but I express opinions about the Conservative party that are every bit as vitriolic as anything I say about the Catholic church.////

I grew out of that when I realized my political opinions were no more enlightened than anyone else's.

///The implication in your attack is that, somehow, as an ex-Catholic, I'm not entitled to voice my views lest I risk being subjected to particular scorn. Well sod that.///

I don't imply anything, professor shaw, I state it outright: you're not an ex-Catholic. You're still that angry, little boy who got force-fed lies and had to swallow it, who couldn't rebel for whatever reason so you're going to do it now--just let 'em try and stop you!

///The Catholic banana boat last floated out of my dock over thirty years ago and resentment I have none. Your trouble is that you can't distinguish resentment from objective criticism. Grow up.///

There has been nothing objective in your invective. You are clearly resentful and you sure can get nasty when you're called on it.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 08:54 PM

Why did I even THINK I could insert something a little different and interesting into a thread when it's been hi-jacked by two guys who just want to trade long-winded repartee' and insults? Silly me....

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 09:25 PM

Excuse me, but how can it be up to person A to decide whether person B is an ex-anything? That is up to the individual. I am reminded of the people who say that you can't convert out of judaism. For crying out loud, get back to the reason part.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 09:26 PM

>>Shaw," Steve will do, actually. Don't be so bloody stupid.<<

You consider it stupid to address you by your posted last name? Mr. Shaw, Who is acting stupidly?

"If it is not obvious to you that you are resentful, I urge you to reread what you have said on these threads. You have been far from a neutral observer.

>>>What you have been saying seems like a cry for help."

And what you have been saying betrays the fact that you appear to be a patronising twat. I say (for now) that you only appear to be. I do like to leave people scope to recant. <<<

I like that you use the word "And." It is a tacit admission that you agree with my statements.

You obviously have huge chip on your shoulder about religion. You don't have to take it out by being rude to people having a civil conversation.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Smokey.
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 10:29 PM

This is like watching a pair of pathetic would-be bullies in the school playground picking on the 'odd' boy, who I find myself mostly in agreement with. Carry on, Professor.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 07:15 AM

Excuse me! I'm being called a liar by some immature kid who sees things only in black and white and I'm accused by someone else, who thinks I'm being rude, of crying for help! This thread is turning into the biggest belly-laugh ever. Hey, Smokey, thanks for the capital P by the way. I feel so much better for that! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 08:46 AM

As I see it we are all in the same boat all coming to the same end and my morals tell me that is why I should be as good and nice as possible to everything and everyone for that reason. Possibly it is because I lost someone close to me and I am bitter and angry. So if there was a God I would be first in line to take issue with him or her about quite a few things.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 09:05 AM

This thread just hit a low spot with a personal attack and I'm no longer interested in it. Bye.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 09:13 AM

"Yeah" isn't a proper word, Mr. Education.

I know I shouldn't respond, but just to say that "yeah" is a perfectly good word. I won't be using it in my next scientific paper, of course (come to think of it, I won't be using "won't" either). Yet again, the w*nker w*nks.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 09:49 AM

"I'm far from lacking in education, professor shaw."

But clearly lacking in the sort of education that tells you where to use capital letters.


Perhaps he worships at the church of the second cummings.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 12:13 PM

///You obviously have huge chip on your shoulder about religion. You don't have to take it out by being rude to people having a civil conversation.///

But he sure can cry about your uncivil attitude if you criticize him.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 12:59 PM

OK, kids, that's enough. Let's get back to the issue.

I thought of another test: if something absolutely horrible happens to a good person you know, and you don't think that it must have happened *for a reason*, you pass the test.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Smokey.
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 03:10 PM

But he sure can cry about your uncivil attitude if you criticize him.

Grow up, Josep - you're just throwing bait out so that you can misinterpret the response to score points. It really does look pathetic from here, and I'm surprised your personal attacks are tolerated.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 08:20 PM

Don't worry, Smokey. His attacks don't bother me at all. Well, OK, a little bit. About as much as that fly that keeps landing on your bare knee when you're trying to have an afternoon kip in the garden in your deckchair. He's a big babby.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 09:00 PM

///I thought of another test: if something absolutely horrible happens to a good person you know, and you don't think that it must have happened *for a reason*, you pass the test. ///

Depends what it is, doesn't it? What if he was driving drunk? I'd say it happened for a pretty good reason. What if he was texting or trying to call someone on his cell? He could still be a good person and do something stupid, right?

Now if he was driving down a road and a boulder crushed him or hit hit a deer at 70 mph, there could be myriad reasons why that happened. Be specific please. What reason are you alluding to?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 09:13 PM

Do you mean the "it was god's will" thing? Well, obviously if a person says that, they are not an atheist if his use of "god" is meant in a standard Western way. But suppose he says it was karma--recompense for something the guy did in a past life--he doesn't pass the test? He could be an atheist and believe in reincarnation. After all, I'm an atheist who believes in reincarnation. I don't necessarily believe in karma but I see no reason that it might not be true. I don't have to believe in a god to hold these beliefs. In fact, Buddhists hold these beliefs and don't believe in a god.

So this test of yours sounds more like an anti-religious test rather than an atheist test if I am catching your drift correctly. So what, in your view, constitutes an atheist?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 09:54 PM

This ties into a dispute I had on youtube concerning the moon landing. I sided with the people who thought it was faked. The point is, I don't necessarily believe it was fake but I wanted to make a point that even people who think of themselves as scientifically minded are prone to accept things on faith. I asked why we should believe in the moon landing since it is the govt that makes the claim and why should I believe a govt that lies to us over and over again?

One guy insisted the rocks were older than any found on earth. I found two sites that claimed the rocks were dated at 4.417 billion years which is within the range of earth's oldest rocks. Another said the rocks had micrometeorite pits and such that could only have resulted from prolonged exposure on the moon. I never read this on any website so I asked him for a source but never received one. I told him that since I am not a geologist and admittedly don't know squat about the subject, how could I know his statement was true even if the samples did have all this pits? If I accept it because some geologist or other said so, aren't I just accepting it on faith? I mean, the guy could be wrong, couldn't he?

He resorted to the kind of retort we commonly see here at Mudcat--"Obviously, you're not very bright." This, of course, was not an answer so I asked him outright: "If geologists who examined the rocks are lying, how would YOU know? Are you qualified to know anything about the moon rocks without being told." He said the Russians examined them and didn't have any objections. Well, of course they wouldn't since nothing about them can be proven one way or another.

I tried another tack: what if we sent an unmanned robotic craft to the moon secretly and it brought back samples of rocks which were then hidden until the highly publicized moonshots had taken place and then the rocks were paraded out and said to have been collected by the astronauts. "Could that have happened?" I asked. "Can that possibility be eliminated?" It took some effort but he finally admitted it was possible but highly unlikely. I agreed that it was highly unlikely but the point is, isn't his belief that the moon landings took place ultimately based on faith? Isn't his accepting the word of people who have a vested interest in maintaining the illusion--if we assume for a moment that it is an illusion--no different than someone who accepts the pope's word?

Another guy wrote me and said people gave their lives for those missions so "have a little respect." So, I should be cowed into silence the way Bush & Cheney cowed people into not criticizing the Iraq War because our brave soldiers have died there and I would be spitting on their graves to question the righteous of a war these assholes lied to get us into?

So maybe the true test of an atheist is: What does he accept as fact that he truly knows to be a fact instead of assuming it so because others he considers to be better informed have told him it is a fact? Because if he accepts their word on it, he's buying on faith. Or is he?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Amos
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 10:01 PM

Or what if this good person had just been unjustly demeaned by his boss or jilted? If he then has a terrible traffic accident, it is reasonable, I think, to say his suppressed state had something to do with it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 06:32 AM

True Test of an Atheist?

If you have no back up position, just in case a God shows up before you.... I suppose your firmness in a non belief may then be considered a bit more firm (but, maybe you just never thought of having one, which may just indicate you are merely slack).
:)

But, as humans, are we ever really that sure of any one thing?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 07:13 AM

No we can't, though religious people in their prayers, hymns and proclamations (and in what they tell their cildren in school) give a very good impression of being absolutely certain. The whole question of testing atheists is bogus. It isn't atheists who need to be tested. We are not non-believers. We are the creation of believers. Once believers start believing things they must have another category for those who don't subscribe to their ludicrous ideas. We were here all the time and we didn't need a name. I hate "atheist" but go along with it because it's hard to have the debate unless we have a label. It stinks because it defines a whole body of people on the spurious grounds of religion. Atheist is bad enough. Non-believer is even worse. But we're too nice to believers to do it the other way round: give them all the negative names instead of us. Any ideas?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 08:04 AM

"But we're too nice to believers to do it the other way round: give them all the negative names instead of us".

I don't know Steve. Some of your posts seem to indicated you blerted out a few negative terms for religious folks and organizations and related practices you rebel against.

Anyway, its quite difficult to come up with a term that fits and is liked by all folks. Even many here seem to come from a different perspective. Keeping it simple and descriptive, rather than complex makes sense to me. Though there are individual differences on perspectives, it seems like it would be difficult to change a branded term. Theist and Atheist, when it comes to discussions like this, seems to sum it up "in a nutshell" pretty well, IMO.

Did the Pro choice and Pro life branding change really alter the fact, or public perception that these folks are pro abortion and anti abortion? Not with me, anyway.

If it quacks like a duck, is it clearer to call it a bird?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 12:36 PM

"I don't know Steve. Some of your posts seem to indicated you blerted out a few negative terms for religious folks and organizations and related practices you rebel against"

I just wish that these bloody believers would cease and desist from accusing us atheists of rebelling. We disagree with their delusional belief systems and we put the argument. We're not rebelling against them. It's that lot rebelling against common sense if anything.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 12:38 PM

I don't understand how it would be desirable or sensible to define atheists apart from the spurious grounds of religion because atheists only exist because of it. If there was no such thing as theism, I wouldn't be an atheist, I wouldn't need to be.

I don't mind being called an atheist or a non-believer. What I hate are atheists who turn atheism itself into what amounts to a religion. What is the point? As an atheist, I'm not supposed to believe in a theistic or personal god and that is as far as it goes. Any further than that, e.g. there is no continuance of consciousness after death, is beyond the bounds of atheism and has nothing to do with it since a god isn't required in this instance.

Hence, I do believe that atheists should be tested because many who call themselves that are not. They are radical materialists who don't know the first thing about atheist debate and have never cracked open a book on the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 02:26 PM

"I don't understand how it would be desirable or sensible to define atheists apart from the spurious grounds of religion because atheists only exist because of it. If there was no such thing as theism, I wouldn't be an atheist, I wouldn't need to be."

Yep.

"I don't mind being called an atheist"

We have to put up with it for the sake of believers' convenience.

"or a non-believer."

Nah. Totally inaccurate characterisation. To be rejected.

"What I hate are atheists who turn atheism itself into what amounts to a religion."

Yes but I'm not sure I trust what you're calling a religion here. I haven't seen any examples of any atheists who act as though atheism is a religion. Beware of exasperated believers telling us that what we have is no less a religion than what they have. All we have is the simple requirement for evidence, not faith. That ain't complicated enough to be called a religion. Believers calling atheism a religion is wholly a manifestation of their insecurity. They can't bear not to define us on their terms at all times (as with the terms "atheist" and "non-believer").

"As an atheist, I'm not supposed to believe in a theistic or personal god and that is as far as it goes."

Nah. You're still caught in their silly trap. An atheist says to a believer that they have an interesting idea there, but I want to see evidence as I don't tend to rely on faith, thanks. I can't dismiss your idea for certain but I'm so confident that you're deluded that I can happily live my life in a state of complete disregard for it. Well, except for all those silly crosses and other icons that you insist on pushing in our faces at every opportunity, which are a bit hard to avoid.

"Any further than that, e.g. there is no continuance of consciousness after death, is beyond the bounds of atheism and has nothing to do with it since a god isn't required in this instance."

Just tell yourself what an honour it will be to return to stardust and you'll live a happy life. Thinking (without evidence of course) that there's consciousness after death, or reincarnation, or whatever other wacky ideas are currently fashionable, is falling into the religionists' trap of conceit. We just have to be so special that this can't possibly be all there is. It's the greatest human conceit of the lot, and it's the reason we have religion in the first place. Reject.   

"Hence, I do believe that atheists should be tested because many who call themselves that are not. They are radical materialists who don't know the first thing about atheist debate and have never cracked open a book on the subject."

It doesn't mean they're not atheists. Being an atheist isn't complicated and you really don't need to have read books about it (you hate atheists who try to turn it into a religion, remember? You seem to want it both ways). I'll tell you what. You set the test paper then.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Smokey.
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 04:37 PM

The only meaningful test of atheism (pointless though the idea is) would be to test for theism and see who failed. I strongly suspect that a great many who claim to be believers are not, but the whole idea of an atheist secretly being a believer is just too daft to laugh at, though I daresay it's happened on rare occasions.

So what's the true test of a theist?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 06:10 PM

It's daft all right but I've been accused of it on just about every thread of this nature I've ever posted on. It's yet another of those rather desperate ploys used by believers when they realise that they don't actually have an argument.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Smokey.
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 07:24 PM

If they were secure in their beliefs they wouldn't need an argument. I certainly don't need one for my absence of belief, nor do I need any logical justification.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 09:20 PM

///Yes but I'm not sure I trust what you're calling a religion here. I haven't seen any examples of any atheists who act as though atheism is a religion.///

Here in the US there is or was The Atheist Church. On the Bill O'Reilly program several years ago, he interviewed an atheist and at one point asked him if atheism is a religion in and of itself and the man said (stupidly) that it was--at which point O'Reilly (hardly a mental giant) demolished him. It might be on Youtube somewhere. There are atheists, at least in America, who openly regard atheism as a religion all their own. It's the emperor's new clothes.

///Beware of exasperated believers telling us that what we have is no less a religion than what they have.////

I don't need to listen to them when I can listen to self-proclaimed atheists saying it.

////All we have is the simple requirement for evidence, not faith.///

I don't ask for evidence. I want them to advance a logical argument which I will then disprove. If you study atheist debate tactics,it's quite easy to do. Paolo Dezza can get pretty fancy with his pro-god arguments but these too can be deconstructed. All pro-god arguments presuppose god's existence. All of them can be rearranged as, "If god doesn't exist, then how come...." Most of them are not that blatantly stated but they may as well be. Dezza disguises his presupposition quite cleverly using relativity and what not but if you examine it closely, it will fall apart. I used to have it somewhere, I'll see if I can find it.

///That ain't complicated enough to be called a religion.///

Which is what O'Reilly said and he was right.

///Believers calling atheism a religion is wholly a manifestation of their insecurity. They can't bear not to define us on their terms at all times (as with the terms "atheist" and "non-believer").///

When atheists help them along in this delusion, you can't blame them for concluding it.

///An atheist says to a believer that they have an interesting idea there, but I want to see evidence as I don't tend to rely on faith, thanks. I can't dismiss your idea for certain////

And that's all the believer has to hear to conclude that you took the long way around to end up where he has always been. Ask for a logical argument. WHY does he believe god exists. You won't get a logical response because there isn't one. Then you demolish it and hand it back to him a pile of mush. Don't be mean about it, but pick it apart. You haven't disproven that god exists but you have destroyed his argument, which is just as good.

///Just tell yourself what an honour it will be to return to stardust and you'll live a happy life.///

But that's just another belief without any foundation. It's just more dogmatism and I am trying to get away from dogma by using logic and logic says it ain't so.

///Thinking (without evidence of course)///

But your statement that we return to stardust is without evidence.

///that there's consciousness after death, or reincarnation, or whatever other wacky ideas are currently fashionable, is falling into the religionists' trap of conceit.///

I wish that were true. I used to believe when we were gone, we're gone. But once I had a logical argument that consciousness necessarily survives the death of the body I tried like hell to counter it but I couldn't. And I haven't found anyone who can. I thought mudcatters might but they turned out to be the worst lot I've ever run across. I ask for a counterargument and got called a conceited asshole making bizarre claims. Well then DISPROVE IT!!!! That's all I ask. I don't want to come back to this dying planet. But I'm afraid I will. I think the eternal dirt nap is the pinnacle of conceit. "I've lived my life and now it's all over and I get my eternal rest" (sounds like religion, doesn't it?) But nothing is ever that easy. When it sounds too good to be true, it isn't. You're coming back--like it or not.

///We just have to be so special that this can't possibly be all there is. ///

Actually, I think that is exactly the case. A conscious being is the most special thing there is. This universe was made for us--all conscious things. I hate to say it but I think that is exactly the case. We're not getting off the merry-go-round no matter how sick it's making us.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Smokey.
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 11:09 PM

Why would anyone want to disprove your belief, Josep? You have every right to believe whatever you like, yet you demand 'counterargument' in the same manner as the worst kinds of believers and non believers.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 11:39 PM

Because an argument is not a belief. An argument is an argument. The purpose presenting in an argument in a forum--a public meeting place for open discussion--is precisely to get a counterargument. The attitude I received--like yours--was truly a disgrace

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Smokey.
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 11:52 PM

Well, let's not go through all that again, it was tedious enough the first time. Regarding belief, I took the conclusions of your 'argument' to be your belief. You refused to clarify the argument itself.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 05:12 AM

There is plenty of evidence that unto stardust we do indeed return. We see stars exploding into supernovae, taking everything with them in that great big recycling that the universe indulges in. We know that corpses in the cold ground begin to return to their simpler elements and that all it would take to project those elements back into the great beyond would be our sun swallowing them up and throwing them out as it enters its last hurrah. We've seen it happening to other stars and everything we know about what goes on inside stars suggests that it'll happen to ours. Evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 05:53 AM

"This universe was made for us--all conscious things."

Hard to see how this squares with your alleged atheism.

As for your claim that consciousness survives the death of the physical body, you have no evidence for that. It's an interesting speculation all right, but the burden is on you to produce evidence, not for others like me, who think you're totally wrong, to disprove it. Note that I don't ask you to prove it - I ask you for evidence. And I'd rather not rely on your thought experiments.

"I think the eternal dirt nap is the pinnacle of conceit. 'I've lived my life and now it's all over and I get my eternal rest'"

Whatever this means it doesn't apply to me. All I said was that once I croak I'm more than happy for that to be that (OK, I can't be happy as such once I have croaked, but let's just say that the prospect makes me happy). I won't be resting because I won't *be*. Whether anything will be eternal, well, I'd better go and read my Einstein I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 06:50 AM

Stardust.

That's it.

Not only does it appear to be the best hypothesis from which to base future study, but has a far greater glory and power association than any crummy old heaven concept!

I too have an issue with "eternal" as a word, although only insofar as I could have an issue with "infinite." At least infinity can be a way of describing certain mathematical states. If the big bang is taken as a believable concept, (and my own PhD research led me to be overpowered by the logic) then eternity flies in the face of reason every bit as much as the bit about a bloke getting all the animals in a boat and then screwing his own daughters.

I like the idea we are all stardust. Heavy element formation through supernovae is the key evidence and although I am sure the concept will be refined and may not be as simple as we think, at least it will be refined and maybe even thrown out? Who knows?

At least scientific reason is willing to be tested and set aside as necessary. You don't need faith, just reason and intelligence.

You know, the eastern religions that include reincarnation appear to be closest to the mark. From stardust to here; what were our base elements doing for the last few billion years? (Not having their strings pulled by a sentient concept, that's for sure....)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 10:09 AM

I can't quarrel with the idea that the elements contained in this body of mine will be recycled and may well end up in some other living thing, a sentient being even, but to be honest that happens now anyway. That's the best I can offer for reincarnation, I'm afraid. Anything else is way too wacky for me. Anyway, I don't want to be a slug.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 10:43 AM

"I can't quarrel with the idea that the elements contained in this body of mine will be recycled"

One should not rule out the possibly that some bodies (including bodies of thought) may be just "too grizzly" or toxic to be easily recycled?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 10:47 AM

Ah well, that is where such faiths take leave of reason. Unless somebody wishes to enlighten me, I assume the religious interpretations of reincarnation require you to be whole in yourself and in the body of a sentient being.

The stardust principle would have you starting as hydrogen turning to helium, through carbon to iron and beyond. Your position would vary as the molecules that become you have varied... Perhaps via a galaxy or two, eventually in The Oort Cloud for a few million years followed by crashing at various times into the earth, a bit of you in a dinosaur's tooth whilst another part of you was beneath the earth's crust. Reality turns out to be more wacky than religion after all!

Oh and the you bit? Not my field so don't know the facts but I recall reading that the essential "you" changes quite a few times over your lifespan. The electrical pulses in your neural networks reigniting continuously to form memory, even though the cells holding the memory change all the time.

So.. What part of you goes to Heaven?   Oh, I remember.. the bit that worked hard for a pittance in this world in return for a better life next time. Exploited by the rulers, aided and abetted by their propaganda agents, the religious leaders. Sadly, not the part of you that was born because that has been a guitar string, gas in a canister, a dog's left gonad, a coffee cup and part of page 3 of a novel in a second hand book shop for the last 20 years.

I could start a religion with that you know.. I might call it Reality.   It would have a twist though, it would change hypothesis to match knowledge rather than the other way around, which would be a difficult transition for many people who push religious teachings on others. No matter, at least it could have a decent moral code, and for many, that is all they ask of a religion...

Methinks the true test of an atheist is to realise this.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 11:05 AM

OK so maybe I'm too lazy to read all 677 posts here but could anyone tell me what the true test of an atheist is? (in a nutshell)
Is it a mandatory test?
What is a passing score?
Where does one take such a test?
and WHY?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 11:27 AM

I already suggested that it's calling out YOUR name when they climax, but it didn't take...

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 11:39 AM

Is it a voluntary-mandatory type of test.

You are tested to see if you can pee higher than other posters. The gate is lowered a bit for the pissingly-challenged. Mudslinging is allowed. But, you are not permitted to throw your underwear at other posters....unless they give you prior consent.

If you are up to taking the test, we will send uranalysis to you by Peony Express.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 11:48 AM

BTW, you are allowed to spray your golden self in the direction of others being affirmatively tested....but, you not allowed to dribble any drivel towards your own position.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 12:24 PM

>>could anyone tell me what the true test of an atheist is?<<

This is from the initial post.

>>So why the morbid fascination with a discussion about faith or a survey about religion? If you truly do NOT believe why not just go your way and leave those who do to wallow in their collective imagination? Could it be that you really do have some part of your being that is not convinced that there are things beyond you knowledge that do or may have a real existence? That would put you in the agnostic boat and not in the atheist category. Or is it that you have a deep-seated hostility against God and or religion? Do you feel superior to those who believe and want to rub their noses in it? Why the seeming fascination?<<

I think that Slag's analysis has been supported by the actions of some on this thread, especially Mr Shaw. Though others have been true Atheists by slag's definition, just here to civilly discuss the matter.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 01:11 PM

And, there may be others like me...the "threadingly challenged" group (aka, just stupid)...who mixed up the thread topics....intending to post to unrelated threads, like "ground beef"...and posted things, that seemed kinda related, but out there, and wacky:)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 01:19 PM

And, please...Do Not attach special meaning to the "threadingly challenged" posts, and go out and start a new movement or religion to follow. There are already plenty of movements, and religions to choose from, with associated Gods and/or worldly prophets to follow, with web sites book deals, and books to sell, and TV appearences to slot in. There is enough of that out there to satisfy our worldly needs.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 01:19 PM

What actions?

The premise in that first post is just nonsense. People with enquiring minds think about and discuss all manner of things that might not directly affect their day-to-day lives, but we're interested because we see other people being affected. Most of my immediate family is affected, for example. I'm interested in what affects them because I'm not a self-centred moron living in a bubble. I think about and talk about the effect of Hitler on Europe in the middle 20th century but that doesn't make me a secret Nazi. As for you, you're just one of those bitter, resentful non-ex-Christians. The buggers get everywhere you know.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 01:27 PM

"People with enquiring minds"

Quire = archaic variant of choir.

Question: Are we all singing "in the same choir"?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 02:54 PM

///An atheist says to a believer that they have an interesting idea there, but I want to see evidence as I don't tend to rely on faith, thanks. I can't dismiss your idea for certain////

That's not an atheist; that's an agnostic.

And an agnostic, having declared that he can't say for certain, can then go ahead and believe (just for himself) that there is a god. OR he can go ahead and believe (just for himself) that is is NO god. In either case, he can't prove it, and admits it--and goes further, that he believes that NO ONE can prove either proposition, even though he chooses to believe one or the other.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: gnu
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 03:10 PM

ED... you got post 666! I'm just sayin...

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 04:10 PM

Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia, fear of the number 666

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: gnu
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 05:44 PM

Christianity... fear of the devil.

You be one scarey dude, dude. But not to atheists.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 06:01 PM

Seems like a clear case of misfeasance to me.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 06:34 PM

[///An atheist says to a believer that they have an interesting idea there, but I want to see evidence as I don't tend to rely on faith, thanks. I can't dismiss your idea for certain////

That's not an atheist; that's an agnostic.

And an agnostic, having declared that he can't say for certain, can then go ahead and believe (just for himself) that there is a god. OR he can go ahead and believe (just for himself) that is is NO god. In either case, he can't prove it, and admits it--and goes further, that he believes that NO ONE can prove either proposition, even though he chooses to believe one or the other.]

Absolutely wrong, Dave. There is not a self-respecting atheist on the planet who can say for certain that God does not exist. Dawkins freely and cheerfully admits that he can't be certain that God does not exist. But there is no fence-sitting here. The reason I can't say for certain that God doesn't exist is the same reason as the one that makes it impossible for me to say that an orbiting celestial teapot doesn't exist. A proposition has been put that is utterly implausible but which can never be utterly disproven (the proposers make very sure of that). What I can say is that no evidence has ever been put for the proposition and, as a result, I consider that the possibility of its being true is vanishingly small, and, as such, it has no effect on the way I live my life. Agnostics are not like that. They admit that they are in a position of wavering. I think they need to get off the fence, but that's just me being intolerant. I hope I've explained that that is most decidedly not the position I'm in.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 06:53 PM

Likely the nmost reliable information on the Atheist movement versus individual perspectives, can be found through this organized atheist site.


Atheist Alliance International

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 07:02 PM

Right - Flying Spaghetti Monsters, and all - undisprovable, but not worth positing as a reasonable explanation for anything.

I like the fact that the FSM has taken off, and some atheists are calling themselves Pastafarians...

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 07:28 PM

////"This universe was made for us--all conscious things."

Hard to see how this squares with your alleged atheism////

Because there is no god. WE make this universe and we make it every instant. Creation wasn't something that happened billions of years ago or 6000 years ago or whatever, it is happening right now. And then it's annihilated in the same instant and replaced in the next instant by a new one that is almost identical to the one that existed the instant before and then it too is annihilated in the same instant it was created. What is doing the creating? Your consciousness. Your consciousness is the creator of the universe. It doesn't seem like it but it is. The Gnostics were quite creative about it: they called the Creator the demiurgos or builder. He creates the material universe but is blind and ignorant. He thinks he is all there is but ignorance is his chief characteristic. Many who fancy themselves Gnostics think like theists and assume the demiurgos was some actual being that created the universe billions of year ago. The demiurgos is you, your consciousness specifically, and it creates the universe out of ignorance and thinks it is top dog. And it creates this universe over and over and over again--every instant (an interval too short to be measured) and doesn't even realize it.

Ever ask yourself why atoms don't decay? They should but they don't. I'm not referring to radioactive decay of a substance by alpha particles I'm talking about why atoms don't decay.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 07:40 PM

Show me your evidence. Alternatively, whatever it is you're on, can I have some please?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 10:54 PM

Physicists were perplexed in Bohr's day about why atoms didn't decay. Why doesn't an electron orbiting a nucleus spiral into the nucleus? Bohr postulated that electrons have fixed orbital patterns of fixed radii. In other words, the angular momentum of the electrons was quantized. It was either an entire this or an entire that but nothing else.

This idea intrigued a very brilliant prince of the French royal family named Louis de Broglie (pronounced "de Broy"). In the 1920s, he was plucking a guitar and watching the strings vibrate. As a note died away, he realized that the note remains constant. Plucking an open A remained an A until the string ceased to vibrate. It didn't start to decrease in pitch as the string slowed down. Now why was that? Prince Louis realized that the string was confined--or stationary--and unable to propagate through space and so its frequency or vibratory rate was fixed.

Hence a discrete frequency spectrum can be determined for the stationary vibrations of the guitar string. The lowest frequency would determine the pitch. The higher frequencies would represent the harmonics. Every sound has a fundamental vibration and overtones (or harmonics). These harmonics are amplified differently and therefore determine the timbre (or aural characteristics) of the sound. Suppose, thought de Broglie, that electrons orbiting around the atom do the same thing. Each has its lowest energy state, which is stationary, and its higher orbits for its excited states, which are also stationary. These, in turn, determine the atom's identity. The lowest orbital, n=1, is the standing wave. At n=2, the wave must have twice the circumference of n=1 and n=3 must have three the circumference and so on. These are discrete states and cannot change so an electron can't start to spiral into the nucleus because that would involve occupying orbitals on non-discrete states and these do not and cannot exist.

The philosophical implications are stunning: the identity of an atom is simply the function of patterns of its confined waves. Nothing in the environment affects this pattern. Because of that, this standing pattern has no past, no memory. The wave pattern is dependent on its existence solely by the conditions of its confinement and does not interact with its environment. The pattern is simply regenerating itself over and over and over again each instant. In other words, there isn't a wave pattern persisting from A to B but the wave pattern at A ceases to exist and is instantly replaced by a new but identical pattern at B that, ironically, has no connection to the pattern that existed at A. At a future Point C, the wave pattern at B will instantly cease and be replaced by a new, identical wave pattern. There is a discontinuity in the pattern that separates it from the environment and from its past. It is simply being regenerated or rebuilt every instant. No matter where in the universe that atom is, its wave pattern will be the same—the environment will have no effect on it.

In other words--matter is waves. Prior to de Broglie, physicists thought only light exhibited the wave-particle duality. De Broglie proved all matter does. After all, once we stop thinking of an electron as a particle zipping around a nucleus, we realize it is actually a wave with a specific circumference and that circumference absolutely MUST contain the whole wave exactly or two whole waves exactly or three. You can't have 0.5 of a wave or 3/7 of a wave. You have either the exactly the entire wave or you have none. The orbitals can only have certain sizes or wavelengths depending up the angular momentum of the electron.

So at any orbital, the electron isn't actually moving as a particle would but rather it is a standing wave. If if drops to a lower level, its wavelength gets longer but the frequency decreases and hence has less energy. So where does the energy go that it just had at the higher orbital? It's released from the atom as a photon. That's why radio waves, infra-red, visible light, UV radiation and gamma rays are all the same thing.

Louis de Broglie submitted this idea as a Ph.D. thesis and was awarded a Nobel Prize for it in 1929--the first time anyone had ever received a Nobel Prize for a Ph.D. thesis.

De Broglie's idea was experimentally proven by Davisson and Germer whose diffraction experiments with electrons produced the same patterns as X-rays and led to the formulation of a wave equation by Austrian physicist Erwin Schroedinger that describes all matter and gave birth to quantum mechanics, which is beautiful stuff.

So the material universe isn't material at all, it's just wave packets of energy flashing and having flashed are then gone and instantly replaced by a "new" wave packet that is identical to the preceding one but not really connected to it and is not affected by anything external.

Since consciousness is not extinguished by death (or you could not be conscious now), you must remember all your experiences and re-live all your sensations. This is where our perception of an external world comes from and it will continue on for "eternity" (it has an end but repeats like a phonograph record on a turntable that keeps returning to the beginning and playing to the end over and over). These experiences and sensations also cause the illusion of a "self." We all see the same world through "consensus" because consciousness is unitary. But because we are ignorant, blind, we can't see things as they truly and mistake this created world as absolute and that there is nothing else.

The true consciousness is "upstream" of us and therefore unknowable. We live in duality--they are the poles of the battery that fuels this perception of a world (and remember, physics already accepts experimentally that matter is both particle and wave). But this undifferentiated consciousness is not dual so perceiver and perceived are joined but we cannot know this superposition. Only when it differentiates into these two states can we comprehend it at all.

There is really nothing to experience and no one to experience it. It is an illusion--a dream--of undifferentiated consciousness trying to grasp its own nature. It's like a fingertip trying to touch itself. It can't but since it is all there is, it must "delude" itself into being both a toucher and the touchee. Hence it dreams us.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 01:32 AM

Actually cosmological data from space does show a decay of neutrons in atoms in the range of One 10 thousandths of 1 percent region.

It is remarkably small after 14 billion years but decay is evident.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 05:38 AM

"You see, that's the problem with most religions; they are not adventurous enough. The reality is far more wondrous, exciting, awe inspiring and HUGE..."

That's spot on. I'd also add that, contrary to what religion would have us think, the reality is also wonderfully *ordinary*. Have a look round outside your house and I hope you'll see what I'm getting at. There's absolutely nothing constraining about everything in the universe conforming to natural laws (as opposed to supernatural ones). Believe in the ordinariness of nature and we'll keep looking. Believe that someone supernatural imposed it all and we might as well give up.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 05:40 AM

Sorry Josep; Atoms can decay. They can also anti decay.

The problem is twofold;

1. Since Bohr's groundbreaking work, it has been shown that orbits etc are arbitrary descriptors, more like analogies. (Spin being another analogy.) Trying to see the relevance of quantum mechanics in a non quantum scenario, (for instance, the universe we can observe) ultimately leads to confusion and gets you no further. hence anti decay is difficult to describe.

2. Sad but true, the giants on whose shoulders scientists stand have had their work refined and even totally contradicted. But to most of them, that would not be a problem. Einstein set the scene for and proved the rationale for quantum probability, and then spent the rest of his life regretting it as he had huge problems with the revelation this meant. Causing Bohr to tell him to stop telling God how to roll his dice! A couple of years later, Bohr's wonderful description of an atom looking like a solar system with orbiting electrons was shown to be inaccurate, but no matter, as a metaphor it works quite well.

An important point here that perhaps shows the difference between clinging to a theology and not doing.   If Bohr's thesis was a text that was to be accepted rather than challenged, it would 1) have the status of the bible and 2) stifle advancements as a result.

Newton's Principia was a holy grail for a couple of hundred years, but the central plank, that of a steady state with real time and distance lasted till Fred Hoyle died, and by then, the rest of the world had embraced the stunning concept of relativity in relation to the birth of time itself, or the big bang as it is known.

You see, that's the problem with most religions; they are not adventurous enough. The reality is far more wondrous, exciting, awe inspiring and HUGE...

By the way, I am a Pastafarian for two reasons; 1) the work I do these days for the government means they appear to have to know my religion and this is available under freedom of information, so couldn't resist it. 2) My in laws can no longer accuse me of not having faith. (Although I reckon they suspect me of taking the piss....)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Amos
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 10:12 AM

Josep:

That was most poetic, sir. Excellent entertainment.

There's a lot of experience, though, that would tend to disprove your assertion that the universe is nothing and no-one.


A

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 10:19 AM

I'm ok
In truth i say
I'm ok
In truth i say
I'm ok
With my decay
I have no choice
I have no voice
I have no say
On my decay
I have no choice
So i'll rejoice

"Grandaddy
O.k. With My Decay"

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 10:30 AM

The universe is of course, nothing and no one. Sorry Amos.

A bit tongue in cheek here. The late Douglas Adams makes this point nicely when working out the average population of the universe.

if there is intelligent life out there, then it follows there would be an average population of the sentient beings running things there. Our few billion, another planet's couple of million etc.

Now.. there are an almost infinite number of potential worlds out there, in fact the helix of galaxies could suggest a number that really is as near as damn it infinite.

We know there are some planets with zero population. We have been to the Moon, sent exploration probes to many other planets locally. So.. not all planets are populated, hence the number of populated ones must therefore be finite.

To get the average, you would be dividing a finite number by an infinite (ish) number. The average is therefore zero.

So, the universe is nothing and no one. In fact, it proves we statistically don't exist. If we don't exist, the old dude with the white beard doesn't stand much of a chance either....

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 07:09 PM

///Sorry Josep; Atoms can decay. They can also anti decay.///

You're not believable without a source much less a name.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 07:32 PM

Are you talking about electron capture? That's not the same thing. I'm talking about atoms simply wearing out. Atoms do not wear out.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 11:21 PM

So, in the final analysis, we should accept atheism on faith???????????

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 05:51 AM

"To get the average, you would be dividing a finite number by an infinite (ish) number. The average is therefore zero"

The "ish" is the problem innit.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 10:17 AM

You are not believable without a source or a name eh?

Well, the earth is roundish, a greyhound is not a cat, a computer sits in my study.

Don't believe it?

Ok, my name is Steamin' Willie, (the clue is in the thread entry.) My source is, well, I did say I have a relevant (ish) PhD, so at least two academic institutes have published my findings as plausible.

Didn't realise a knock about fun thread on a fold related website was the place to start citing. You'll want me to use Endnote to type in an entry next. Anyway, I am not trying to convince you, just pointing out the nearest we have to facts at this point in time.

I like using "ish" as terminological inexactitudes aid debate. (Getting all Churchillian today..)

In answer to Steve Shaw, well yes, it is. Douglas Adams was a bit more adventurous and stated there were an infinite number of worlds. Josep would not wish us to be technically inaccurate so I put the "ish" in there. I suppose you could say that if it is a number that is more than we can know, then by definition it is infinite. So it does hold that there are zero worlds out there....

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 10:24 AM

You have two PHDs in relevant (ish) fields and you are citing Douglas Adams as an authority on astrobiology?

I think I see why you have not been taken seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Amos
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 11:25 AM

Wilie:

Thanks for the brill recapitulation. I take it all back: the universe is obviously no-one and nothing, and all that experience is an illusion fooling itself about being perceived even though illusory...



A

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 01:38 PM

Please pardon my prejudice against Douglas Adams,

I have been a Science Fiction fan for a long time and I find that his expressed ideas to be mostly mocking of Science Fiction. It may be noted that the average is not zero, nor can it be as long as there is at least one populated planet.

I learned what decimal fractions were and what the word zero means at a very young age. Armed with that knowledge, I am prepared to say with some authority that Adams' claim that the average number of populated planets is "zero" is bullshit. No doubt it is clever bullshit. But it certainly is bullshit.

It is no doubt a small number. But since we live on a populated planet, it is not zero.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 04:36 PM

Steamin' Willie asserted:

. So.. not all planets are populated, hence the number of populated ones must therefore be finite.

Not so. Infinity less one (or four hundred million or six hundred three trillion) is STILL INFINITY.

Which is why the whole concept of infinity as applied to real existence is ludicrous.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Smokey.
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 06:49 PM

Which is why the whole concept of infinity as applied to real existence is ludicrous.

I think that's what Douglas Adams was trying to demonstrate..

But back to testing atheists - branding irons and the rack have proved quite effective in the past for wheedling out those closet Christians.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 07:33 PM

Can anyone expand on quantum entanglement?

There is some puzzling stuff on the web about it....(not that I am endorsing any theories. I just feel it is an interesting branch off area of science (physics) that could lead to interesting knowledge in the future.

Here is a brief explanation that I came accross:
quantum entanglement

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/31918/

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 11:22 PM

"Quantum entanglement" Seems to me to be much like the uncertainty principle, but less certain. If I understand the explanation you posted, to describe each of these particles you simply add three more dimensions to the graph, but I fail to see how you do not lose information with each iteration of the process.

I also see out ability to measure the relationship of one subatomic particle to another light years away and limited and very unlikely, if not impossible.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 11:45 PM

I also see OUR ability to measure the relationship of one subatomic particle to another light years away and limited and very unlikely, if not impossible.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 03:29 AM

Eventually, it got through.....

Smokey got it. Quoting Douglas Adams was perhaps my way of saying it is difficult to take this thread too seriously, as there is no test for an atheist. There is no test for not being a stamp collector and as my idea of being a non stamp collector is not to have to subject myself to being tested, and as atheist means in the grand scheme of things, irrreligious, then there is no test of an atheist. It is a non stance, a stance against a stance if you wish.

The fact that Mr Adams channelled his contempt of religion through his comedy is a by product.

Somewhere above, I did acknowledge the difficulty of infinity as a concept. By the same token, infinity minus one is an oxymoron. It is to make the unquantifiable a quantity. That concept has more to do with religion than reality...

Only the one PhD mate. Only threw that in at your request for source.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 05:01 AM

Just took the dog for his morning walk. Wandering down the lane past the horses, cold sun shining on the river, misty fields full of stubble after the harvest etc etc. Presumably this is what is meant by God is in his heaven?

Sadly, my mind was on other things. Many people hate being taken out of context. I have been attempting to avoid being in context in the first place, and by 'eck, it didn't half flush out a few stereotypes...

Just to keep relevant to the more recent posts; (we'll deal with testing atheists later...) Quantum entanglement may lead to better understanding, and if it does, it will take better minds than mine to make the leap. (Presumably what the media call a quantum leap, if irony is your game.) However, my exceedingly limited understanding, mainly through taking an interest in my son's masters course than anything from my past, has me thinking that you need to define the barriers of dimensions first, quantify the number of dimensions, (Penrose et al define this as the number that gravity has an effect through) and ask yourself if string theory contradicts or sits with your thought train.

Like theology, we are grasping at straws (or strings) to make sense of what we don't quite understand. The difference being that the hypothesis is tested by peeling back layers till either sense or failure break through, rather than using antiquity of text as a measure of authenticity.

Jack questions our ability to measure the relationship of one subatomic particle to another light years away as being very unlikely if not impossible. Our best understanding is that it is impossible, in that we cannot measure interaction within the confines of our test laboratory. That said, if we observe an effect in the lab', there is every chance there is an effect similar many light years away if the sub atomic particle has a "brother" elsewhere in the galaxy. The bit that fazed Einstein was that this is instantaneous rather than cause and effect.

At a more fundamental level, to measure is to affect. If the idea of a zero population, (if you divide by the mathematical aberration "infinity" the mathematical answer is zero, sorry,) freaks you out, then Heisenberg's assertion that nothing exists till it is observed will blow your mind. It did mine. Einstein and Schroedinger tried taking the piss with the cat analogy, but inadvertently strengthened the argument.

Noticed something here? A true test of an atheist. I appear to be willing to see ideas knocked in the head, regardless of the standing of the originator.

Especially if it is me. I recently congratulated somebody whose thesis undermined a small but significant hypothesis of mine, one which is used at a practical level in engineering. He says he refined my equation but he is being kind. his alteration increases the likelihood of a successful design by measurable degree, making commercial success more likely and that, rather than making me feel glum, excites me more than anything else has this year, (apart from the cricket.)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 11:19 AM

Could a message be:

"just when you feel you understand anything with certainity, something new, that you did not factor into your understanding, kicks you in the head"?

I suspect that's why it is good to leave room for humbleness in the wisdom of science and reason, as well as in the area of religion.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 11:29 AM

An alternative definition from the Urban Dictionary:

Humble:
When one wishes to hum and mumble at the same time. Only gifted people can do this. Others are just uncool. Humble is a skill that only gifted people have.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 02:00 PM

>>When one wishes to hum and mumble at the same time.<<

I don't know about how gifted he is vocally but it seems like a pretty good description of Bob Dylan's singing.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 08:45 PM

Yeah, humble old Bob Dylan. Proof of atheism is to believe in Bob Dylan.

Sorry. Long weekend.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 01:43 PM

I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time. -Isaac Asimov

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 05:05 AM

Asimov could also recite huge sections of the torah, and I am aware that his guide to the bible is or was standard text in the USA school system? (Correct me if I got that wrong.)

One of the issues I have with many people (and their institutions) who profess religious faith is the assumption that everybody is like them or needs to be convinced to be like them. I suspect if polled, most US Christians would think Asimov was a Christian because of his guide, whilst US Jews would speak movingly of the "boy done good."

I notice the local vicar in the parish magazine pointed out that The UK is 92% Christian. Allowing for the Methodist church up the road, (this is Epworth, the birthplace of Wesley) you are still about 4,000 short of your bums on pews of a Sunday.

if this organisation can happily delude itself as to the thoughts of the population, why should they be given any credibility in the first place? The government body I interfere with these days has, of course, policies for equality and diversity. These have to be administered by somebody and the lady who does so just happens to be a lay preacher. Sorry, but I pissed myself laughing at her waffle about embracing diversity in this "Christian country."   (Over 35% of our staff are Muslim.) Oh, and one Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That'll be me then.

My point? Asimov as ever made a succinct point, a point that is wasted on those who have their faith turn into bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 08:14 AM

You talk of bigotry and you tar all Christians with the same brush.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 09:22 AM

Not so.

Just those pompous enough to push their creed beyond the boundaries of themselves. Ditto any other religion.

But of course, if you say I do, enough people will believe it so. You disappoint me, I thought you were looking for answers but every now and then you stick the knife in, and in a way that is easily predicted.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 10:54 AM

Nah, that's not a knife.

THIS is a knife.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: olddude
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 10:56 AM

Make me an angel that flies from Montgomery
Make me a poster from an old rodeo
Just give me one thing that I can hold on to
To believe in this living is just a hard way to go

-John Prine-

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 10:59 AM

OK, that wasn't a knife either.

Rather less dramatically, these are knives.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Stringsinger
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 11:22 AM

Josep says, "There are atheists, at least in America, who openly regard atheism as a religion all their own. It's the emperor's new clothes."

These are not real atheists.

Bill O'Reilly? You actually believe anything is credible that is said on his show?

An atheist church is an oxymoron. There are some atheist groups who meet in church facilities but they don't regard atheism as a religion. If there are those who claim atheism as a religion, they are frauds.

You can't get past the meaning of a-theism, a rejection of theology or theism.

We have people in the U.S. who would promote their own version of Sharia Law. I call them the Hypochristians. (From the term hypocrites). The true test of an atheist is to stand up to these religious bullies whether they are in pulpits or those protesting in front of abortion clinics and killing doctors.

To say that not all Christians believe alike is a redundancy simply because by their belief, they enable the more radical fringe nut-jobs. It's like being a little bit pregnant.

This applies to other forms of religion as well.

Where the doodoo hits the fan is when anyone professing or attacking atheists starts in on them like the Pope who had the temerity to decry atheism as if he were somehow a moral authority that had any credibility whatever.

Evangelicals have a problem in that they encourage anti-theism among atheists.

As our democracy is more and more in decay, speaking out when prejudice and religious
dogma is foisted on our society (sometimes by violence) is essential today. This is why we have such a long thread here.

There is no atheist church, just the unwillingness of religious practitioners to accept that
people don't have to believe in any religion to be responsible and moral members of a society. The religious people create an atheist "church" to foster their assumption that people need to believe in any religion. They don't.

So, sleep in on Sunday mornings.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 12:51 PM

If you are just railing against individuals or small groups I will gladly agree that some believers do bad things. I am not willing to defend people I don't know. I am sorry that your local vicar is so ill-informed, but if he is not meant to represent religion as a whole, I don't see his relevance in the discussion. I am sorry I did not understand the point of view you were trying to portray. I am sorry that I still don't.

I also believe that hypocrisy and being poorly informed are not Christian monopolies. US politics is proof of that.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 05:11 PM

////Josep says, "There are atheists, at least in America, who openly regard atheism as a religion all their own. It's the emperor's new clothes."

These are not real atheists.

Bill O'Reilly? You actually believe anything is credible that is said on his show?

An atheist church is an oxymoron.////

Google "Atheist church" and see what comes up. It exists. Actually many of them exist throughout the US. Face it: some atheists are dumbshits. You're not helping things by denying that. "Those are not real atheists" indicates that you have set yourself up as getting to decide who is an atheist and who is not by asserting that real atheists are infallible and those that aren't can't be real atheists. It's an absurd, ludicrous position to take.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 06:35 PM

I remember Bush II saying that he knew we weren't patriots and he wasn't even sure we could be citizens...

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 06:44 PM

Atheists Don't Have No Songs.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 06:59 PM

I dunno about a religion. But, consider this:

If an atheist group were to encourage or recruits persons struggling with their faith in a God, would that group be cult like?

I suspect cults are not always spiritual. But, could also be be non-spiritual?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 07:09 PM

"'Those are not real atheists' indicates that you have set yourself up as getting to decide who is an atheist and who is not by asserting that real atheists are infallible and those that aren't can't be real atheists."

Being an atheist is a very simple thing to be. It means that you have gleaned that there is no evidence for this "God" that some profess to believe in, and, as such, he is of no interest to you whatever when it comes to the way you live your life. Anything added to that is fake. A church, a religion, doctrine, a "belief system" - all fake. It's easy enough to see who isn't a real atheist. You don't have to set yourself up. And I've never heard an atheist(except possibly for you) assert that he or she is infallible. In fact, one of the fundamental differences between believers and atheists is that believers are drenched in unquestioning certainty (just look at some of the words in their prayers and hymns, which they even teach to tiny children) whilst atheists cheerfully recognise that there can never be proof for the non-existence of God. Atheists don't deal in certainties, which is why it's foolish to think that some think they may be infallible. We'll leave that to Cardinal Rat.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 07:57 PM

"believers are drenched in unquestioning certainty"....

Well, maybe some, maybe even most, but it's not reasonable to speculate this is so for all. It's hardly logical or fair to brand all "believers" in all gods as having the same viewpoint. Just as it is not reasonable to state thre is no diversity of viewpoints among the many world atheists.... regardless of ones own personal viewpoint.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 08:06 PM

It isn't exactly speculation, Ed. It's a reasonable assumption that anyone who teaches their dogma to little children as truth, via stories, bibles with pretty pictures, lessons in faith schools, prayers and hymns, are drenched in unquestioning certainty and are aiming to pass that certainty on. I don't exactly see the major religions dissuading their adherents from indulging in this either.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jeri
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 08:27 PM

Steve, you're trying too hard to polarize people, and you sound more rigid than anyone else here.
I was raised with religion, and questioning was encouraged. Maybe your experience was different, but they ALL are different.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 08:28 PM

>>>It's a reasonable assumption that anyone who teaches their dogma to little children as truth, via stories, bibles with pretty pictures, lessons in faith schools, prayers and hymns, are drenched in unquestioning certainty and are aiming to pass that certainty on. <<<

No it is not a reasonable assumption at all. You do not know the hearts and minds of others. Lots of Christians have doubts, there are lots of questions in most denominations. When I went to Sunday School, bible stories were called just that.

Are you sure it is not you who is demonstrating unquestioning certainty? You seem to be pulling these assumptions out of your butt.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 08:44 PM

"Steve, you're trying too hard to polarize people, and you sound more rigid than anyone else here."

Actually, if you read what I say in this thread and that other biggie, you'll see that I'm exceptionally laissez-faire. Each to his own. But I want evidence, that's all. Religion can be big trouble, far more so than atheism, so I want evidence. What's so rigid about that? Tell you what. I must have asked for evidence at least twenty times in these threads but I never get any. The believers here rigidly refuse to give it.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 08:53 PM

">>>It's a reasonable assumption that anyone who teaches their dogma to little children as truth, via stories, bibles with pretty pictures, lessons in faith schools, prayers and hymns, are drenched in unquestioning certainty and are aiming to pass that certainty on. <<<

No it is not a reasonable assumption at all. You do not know the hearts and minds of others."

What's hearts and minds got to do with it? Even the good Lord said that by their fruits shall ye know them. You can think and internally feel what you like but it's what you do that counts. Religion makes little children repeat these things parrot-fashion until they're blue in the face. I've been an atheist for over thirty years but I can still chant out prayers full of religious certainties. Repetition drilled them into my brain. Go on, tell me that was meant in a benign spirit. I don't think so! You don't reword your big prayers for little children. Our Father art in heaven whether you like it or not. Going home secretly questioning tenets of your faith is one thing. Proclaiming them out loud as certainties, and making your kids do the same, is entirely another. I really don't know why you can't see how rotten that is.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 08:57 PM

"If an atheist group were to encourage or recruits persons struggling with their faith in a God, would that group be cult like?

I suspect cults are not always spiritual. But, could also be be non-spiritual?"

Pure fantasy. Atheists are the most cheerfully-disorganised people you'll ever meet. We are simply not interested in forming groups, cults or whatever.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 09:02 PM

Are you saying that people have "unquestioning certainty" and they don't believe it in their hearts and minds? You are not an atheist. You are a loon.

>>>Actually, if you read what I say in this thread and that other biggie, you'll see that I'm exceptionally laissez-faire.<<<

Its pretty clear that YOU don't read what you say in these threads. Certainly you don't check it for logic or consistency.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 09:28 PM

////Pure fantasy. Atheists are the most cheerfully-disorganised people you'll ever meet. We are simply not interested in forming groups, cults or whatever.////

So I'm the only person here who acts like he's infallible, eh? You sound like you speak for everybody. You can tell us with all certainty what harm religion does to every single child out there. You can tell us with complete certainty what every believer really thinks and really wants to do. You can also tell us with utter certainty what is in the hearts of all the "real" atheists. Heck, you even go so far as to say what it is "we" think and how it is that "we" behave. And whenever this is brought to your attention, you so blithely knock it aside and say with yet more utter certainty, "I've been nothing but fair, open-minded, understanding, even downright laissez-faire, if I do say so myself."

In truth, sir, you have been anything but. And thanks for speaking for me as an atheist but, really, I would prefer that from now on you speak only for yourself. Unless, of course, I'm one of those people you don't consider a "true" atheist in which case I can only say thank you. Apparently, stringsinger and smokey have no problem letting you speak for them and that's probably for good reason but it ends there.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Smokey.
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 10:04 PM

What time's the bingo start?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 04:38 AM

8.00pm, to give Catholics time to get back from mass.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 04:54 AM

I don't know..   We have religious people convinced atheism is a belief system in itself, we have atheists concurring...

Pardon me for asking, but.. if you are irreligious, if you haven't thought about it and dismissed a theological stand, if you only give religion a thought when it affects you, such as door knocking, wanting to get your kids christened because it is a tradition, get married in church because many blushing brides want the church because their mum was married there etc etc etc..

What term should you use to describe this huge number of people?

Me? I prefer being irreligious to atheist or agnostic or whatever, because I have never to my knowledge sat and wondered "I wonder if this Jesus dude really did do the conjuring tricks? I wonder if Lazarus really was full of maggots? I wonder if he did rise from the dead and jump on a cloud a few weeks later? I wonder if his mum was a virgin? In wonder if the concept we call God does notice or give a fig about individual humans? Did Noah get everything in a boat and screw his daughters?

For me, there is little reason to dig any further than the ludicrous concept of the actual questions.

Some here are saying that to be an atheist you have to have considered and rejected. I don't reject any more than I reject either of the choices whether the local Womens' Institute should make more jam or make a nude calendar.

I have stated many times that scriptures can be a wonderful moral compass if you choose to use them as such. I don't call that hating Christians or any other belief, yet I appear to be dismissed as such.

I don't point and laugh at my wife for being a church bell ringer, yet I don't pull the buggers myself. I have a mate who is a Morris dancer, whatever floats your boat and no thanks, but I don't hold him up to ridicule. Neither do I ridicule individuals for professing belief. I rant against organised religion and their malign influence, brain washing and control mechanisms, but hey, as an ardent Sheffield Wednesday supporter, I can't understand the fascination with Sheffield United.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 06:33 AM

"We are simply not interested in forming groups, cults or whatever"

Wrong again Steve. There are many atheist groups, and some of them, tough not all seem to take on an advocacy role (check out the American Humanist Association.

I suspect (though I do not know this for sure) some also explain their theories, and such, (if you dont like belief) to their children at an early age.

I was not saying that all, or most atheists belong to a group (I try and stay away from generalities...try it, it's fun). But, it would seem that many athiests around the world belong to a group.

atheist groups

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 08:54 AM

Give me some membership figures then, Ed. Are humanists the same as atheists anyway? It wouldn't occur to me to join them, not for one second. Anyway, if they have "theories," they ain't atheists of the kind I know and love. In the words of Butch Cassidy (or was it the Sundance Kid?), who are these guys?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 09:03 AM

"Are you saying that people have 'unquestioning certainty' and they don't believe it in their hearts and minds?"

Huh? Where does that come from?

"You are not an atheist."

Tell me why I'm not.

"You are a loon."

And you're just rattled and frustrated. Have a nice lie down.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 09:32 AM

"So I'm the only person here who acts like he's infallible, eh?"

Ah, I didn't think you'd like that bit much. Hey, but just read some of your earlier posts up these threads, all that telling us we were WRONG....heheh.

"You sound like you speak for everybody."

Of course I don't. You'd like me sound like I do so that you can chuck the bowling ball at me. I'm superglued down, unfortunately.

"You can tell us with all certainty what harm religion does to every single child out there."

I've never said any such thing. In fact, I've even said that it didn't really do me much harm. But if you believe that telling children that myths are true is good for them, let's hear how you justify it.

"You can tell us with complete certainty what every believer really thinks and really wants to do."

Never said this either. I haven't a clue what goes on in the minds of intelligent people who profess to believe. It's a mystery to me. And I haven't a clue what they want to do. You sound cross and appear to be scattergunning aimlessly.

"You can also tell us with utter certainty what is in the hearts of all the "real" atheists."

Maybe it's a persecution complex I have due to all these people telling me I'm not an atheist. Tee hee.

"Heck, you even go so far as to say what it is "we" think and how it is that "we" behave. And whenever this is brought to your attention, you so blithely knock it aside..."

As I've said several times, no atheist (until you came along) in all my years of rattling on about all this has ever challenged my general stance. I could be wrong (please note that I said that) but I think the views I express about the probable non-existence of God are pretty mainstream-atheist.


"...and say with yet more utter certainty, "I've been nothing but fair, open-minded, understanding, even downright laissez-faire, if I do say so myself."

Well, I remember the laissez-faire bit (hardly a sinful admission) but I can't recall saying the rest. Trouble is, jojo, you like to say what you would have liked me to say, but you actually pretend I've really said it. I'll let you know the first time you get that right, but in the meantime I do enjoy your efforts.   

"And thanks for speaking for me as an atheist but, really, I would prefer that from now on you speak only for yourself."

How about other consenting adults as well? Do I have your permission?

"Unless, of course, I'm one of those people you don't consider a "true" atheist in which case I can only say thank you."

How would I know? Tell us about it instead of just telling us we're all wrong.

"Apparently, stringsinger and smokey have no problem letting you speak for them and that's probably for good reason but it ends ther"

Oh, I don't know. I might have dozens of others up my sleeve before it ends.

Thanks for the entertainment, jojo!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 09:32 AM

>>Are you saying that people have 'unquestioning certainty' and they don't believe it in their hearts and minds?"

Huh? Where does that come from<<

You need to read your own crap and to read the things you pretend to be responding to.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 09:34 AM

Shaw,

You need counseling. You really do. There are plenty of places to get it besides church. Go get some.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 09:58 AM

No, really, tell me where that came from. Please tell me which particular crap bit it was. There are so many, you m]know... As for the second of those two nice posts, I can see the steam comin' out from here...

You're not the Pope by any chance, are you?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 10:02 AM

you know

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 01:29 PM

It's true that organizing atheists is like herding cats, but some of us would like to see atheism get organized and get into politics, to keep the christianity and other overt religiosity out of it. Politics, that is.
I do know that one of the atheist groups has an actual lobbyist in Washington now. I'd like to see a lot more of that.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 02:07 PM

I think that the Democrats and the ACLU tries to represent the views of Atheists in that they fight for individual rights of all kinds.

>>to keep the christianity and other overt religiosity out of it. Politics, that is.<<

I don't think that you need an atheist lobby to do that. I believe in the spirit of the 2nd amendment. Most reasonable people do. Jesus said "Render onto Caesar what is Caesars."

The Constitution of the USA and Jesus' words are on your side of the issue.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: John P
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 02:44 PM

The Constitution of the USA and Jesus' words are on your side of the issue.

Unfortunately, a large number of elected officials aren't. I don't know how they get away with it, but they do.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 03:22 PM

In this country there are very few limits to free speech by or about politicians.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 03:57 PM

"It's true that organizing atheists is like herding cats, but some of us would like to see atheism get organized and get into politics, to keep the christianity and other overt religiosity out of it. Politics, that is.
I do know that one of the atheist groups has an actual lobbyist in Washington now. I'd like to see a lot more of that."

Hmm. The trouble with getting organised and getting into politics is that you soon get to be part of the establishment. Then you'll end up with accommodating, constructive, establishment atheists...and then, marginalised, the real ones... It's as well to remember that atheists have no creed to bind them all together. There isn't that glue. And long may it be so.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 04:54 PM

I'm hoping that the lack of tolerance for silly beliefs trumping reasonableness will provide enough glue.

At least the true test has changed with time, I'd hate to have to die undr torture to prove my point.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 05:08 PM

Mrrzy, I think that "silly" in this case is a matter of point of view. The torture was certainly wrong but so was "the cultural revolution" under the Atheist Mao.   

I don't think having religion makes people bad. But bad people sometimes us it as an excuse.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 05:27 PM

"Give me some membership figures then, Ed."

Well, if you are curious,(and I am not, nor have any reason or interest to learn of it), I suggest it would be on your initiative and interest to find such membership figures.

I was merely showing the error of an earlier statement (that I referenced was not factual) Some folks may have no interest in forming groups, like you, others clearly do, to join in the organization circus, as noted by at least one other posting Atheist (specifics normally beating out generalities again). And, you know where organizing groups will lead.

Thankfully, I have no organized group to claim to represent or speak for me, or interpret dogma for my benefit:).

It won't be long before you are putting on Atheist bingo to support the "lobbyng loyalists, not to mention gathering the troops to defeat the God believers somewhere around the universe

And, then there's deal'ng with your own internal scandals, as I suspect Atheists, not being perfect (nor claim to be infallible), are not immune to individual human frailties. :)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 05:37 PM

It won't be long before you are putting on Atheist bingo to support the "lobbying loyalists, not to mention gathering the troops to defeat the God believers somewhere around the universe.

Some will, others will just go quietly about their business, yet others will go from website to website spewing verbal abuse disguised as humor leading the charge for the rational using irrational tactics.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 05:55 PM

"'Give me some membership figures then, Ed.'

Well, if you are curious,(and I am not, nor have any reason or interest to learn of it), I suggest it would be on your initiative and interest to find such membership figures."

I'm not in the least bit curious. You started it. You alleged it and I'm sceptical, but I'm not that bothered. Piss or get off the pot. I'll be in the other room.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 05:58 PM

Does the phrase 'Godless Communism' ring a bell?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 06:02 PM

"We (all atheists)are simply not interested in forming groups, cults or whatever"

>>Wrong again Steve. There are many atheist groups, and some of them, tough not all seem to take on an advocacy role (check out the American Humanist Association. <<

If there is one Atheist group of two people then it disproves his point but....

Then he asks for membership figures?

Ed, You know he is not going to back up his own statements. He thinks that is your job. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 06:13 PM

It wasn't me who started on about groups and memberships thereof. It's quite boring and Ed couldn't deliver anyway. And, Jackie boy, it wasn't me who added to a quoted quote with an extra bit in brackets. Do you do that with bible quotes too if they don't quite fit your agenda? I've seen it done. Jacko, how would an "atheist group" of two people actually work? I think we should be told...

Sorry, but your post deserves it: tee bloody hee!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Smokey.
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 06:18 PM

Is it my turn to be chairman this week, Prof, or yours?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 06:55 PM

Well, then, Shaw, when you refer to atheists as "we" perhaps you would be so kind as to give us some numbers. How many is "we"? Just you, smokey, and stringsinger? Since atheists don't form groups, who is "we"? No need to make this harder than it is although that seems to be your specialty.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 06:56 PM

'Ave a go, Smokey, I'm playing two nights in a row and could do with some levity. Actually, a good start on the levity front would be with Wacko Jacko's statement (no added brackets from me, note!): "...yet others will go from website to website spewing verbal abuse disguised as humor..."
I wouldn't dare to do it, but I'd love to reword that, in the light of Jack's erudite and civil contributions lately, as follows: "...yet others will go from website to website spewing verbal abuse at atheists and generating, undeliberately, boundless humour..."

Of course, the website-to-website bit apropos of Jack is inaccurate, but it was with me too. He reminds me more and more, with his explosively intemperate outbursts, of that other "Jack," the one in Father Ted. Tee hee!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 06:57 PM

"It wasn't me who started on about groups and memberships thereof"

Sorry wrong again Steve, and the thread records will prove it for observers.   

Surely, these (unproven) allegations (let alone the emotional and somewhat rude remarks) do not present a good test, or examaple, of a reasoned Atheist, debater, or even mudcatter...one that you may want us to believe you represent.

Oh well, you could just say "piss off" to anyone who holds you to a test and ignore reality....if it feels good, and works for you, why not?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 07:14 PM

If there were no God, there would be no atheists. --G.K. Chesterton

Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God. -- Heywood Broun

In some awful, strange, paradoxical way, atheists tend to take religion more seriously than the practitioners. --Jonathon Miller

It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists. --Mohandas Gandhi

Some atheists express their rage against God although in their view He does not exist. --C. S. Lewis

If atheism spread, it would become a religion as intolerable as the ancient ones. --Gustave le Bon

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 07:15 PM

how would an "atheist group" of two people actually work? I think we should be told.

Lets start with the definition of the word "group."

Definitions of group on the Web:

    * any number of entities (members) considered as a unit
    * arrange into a group or groups; "Can you group these shapes together?"
    * (chemistry) two or more atoms bound together as a single unit and forming part of a molecule
    * a set that is closed, associative, has an identity element and every element has an inverse

Say, two Athiests, say Smokey and Smarty Shaw, regularly get together to share believer jokes over warm beer and call themselves something suitably modest such as "the true arbiters of the one true truth and representatives of all non-aligned Atheists" That would be a group, a "unit" if you will, of two.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 07:18 PM

I don't know what numbers you'd like, joeyboy. Hundreds. Thousands. Bugger, I've forgotten, numbers what of. I have a sneaky suspicion that you think that the only atheists in the world are the ones who post on Mudcat. It's a little world here and there's a much bigger one outside the door and I am firmly of it, believe it or not (you have to be at my age as the www wasn't invented until well past my mid-life pseudocrisis). I talk the atheistic talk with a lot of people (as you can imagine), though I do lots of other things as well. Would you like to buy my CD? I can cheerfully concede that some poor atheists may well form themselves into groups but if they do I have no idea why they do. When I say "we" I'm simply assuming that the people I'm bracketing myself with share the same, irreducible, big atheistic idea. I'm not including their wacky or unwacky variations and nuances. I talk about the people who play in my session as "we," but the term is seriously circumscribed. I am happy to think that you are an entirely different breed of atheist to me and that you would rather speak for yourself (you have your reasons). All I can tell you is that every other atheist I've ever met (so far) holds to the same big idea: the possibility that a being exists who breaks all the laws of physics, who must be far more complex than the complex things he's supposed to be there to explain, and for whom there isn't a scrap of evidence, is vanishingly small. I'm happy to bracket people who agree with me on that simple notion as "we." If you have a different take, pray tell us instead of just telling us all the time that we are all wrong about everything in the world.

Hey Joey, have you ever hung around outside a gymnasium...?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 07:20 PM

"yet others will go from website to website spewing verbal abuse at atheists and generating, undeliberately, boundless humour."

Surely you not mock and not have me mock? How "undeliberately" hypocritical of you!!

By the way does your use of made up words indicate that you believe in neither God or dictionaries?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 07:22 PM

>>>I don't know what numbers you'd like, joeyboy. Hundreds. Thousands. Bugger, I've forgotten, numbers what of. I have a sneaky suspicion that you think that the only atheists in the world are the ones who post on Mudcat. It's a little world here and there's a much bigger one outside the door and I am firmly of it, believe it or not (you have to be at my age as the www wasn't invented until well past my mid-life pseudocrisis). I talk the atheistic talk with a lot of people (as you can imagine), though I do lots of other things as well. Would you like to buy my CD? I can cheerfully concede that some poor atheists may well form themselves into groups but if they do I have no idea why they do. When I say "we" I'm simply assuming that the people I'm bracketing myself with share the same, irreducible, big atheistic idea. I'm not including their wacky or unwacky variations and nuances. I talk about the people who play in my session as "we," but the term is seriously circumscribed. I am happy to think that you are an entirely different breed of atheist to me and that you would rather speak for yourself (you have your reasons). All I can tell you is that every other atheist I've ever met (so far) holds to the same big idea: the possibility that a being exists who breaks all the laws of physics, who must be far more complex than the complex things he's supposed to be there to explain, and for whom there isn't a scrap of evidence, is vanishingly small. I'm happy to bracket people who agree with me on that simple notion as "we." If you have a different take, pray tell us instead of just telling us all the time that we are all wrong about everything in the world.

Hey Joey, have you ever hung around outside a gymnasium...? <<<

Nope, not loony at all... Not one little bit.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 07:22 PM

Ed T, Those are great quotes!!!!...and true as well. So called 'atheists' just insist on making fools of themselves, with no embarrassment at all....sorta like 'suicidal and proud of it'!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 07:27 PM

////Me? I prefer being irreligious to atheist or agnostic or whatever, because I have never to my knowledge sat and wondered "I wonder if this Jesus dude really did do the conjuring tricks? I wonder if Lazarus really was full of maggots? I wonder if he did rise from the dead and jump on a cloud a few weeks later? I wonder if his mum was a virgin? In wonder if the concept we call God does notice or give a fig about individual humans? Did Noah get everything in a boat and screw his daughters?

For me, there is little reason to dig any further than the ludicrous concept of the actual questions.////

I wonder what the original author had in mind when he wrote it. The trouble with atheists is that they assume he was either deluded or a shyster and that it's all lies and falsehoods. But I question this. Virgin birth is far older than the Christian religion. What does it mean at the root? When the Egyptians watched the little dung beetles hatch from the dungballs their parent buried in the earth, it seemed to the Egyptians that these little beetles were emerging from Mother Earth rather than from a parent. They were virgin-born. The only-begotten son.

To quote Hor-Apollo, the 5th century Egyptian priest: "To denote the Only-Begotten of a father, the Egyptians delineate a scarabaeus! By this, they symbolize an only-begotten because the creature is self-produced, being unconceived by a female."

Not for nothing did Church Fathers Augustine and Ambrose, among others, refer to Jesus as "the good scarabaeus."   Augustine wrote: "He is my own good beetle, not so much because he is Only-Begotten, not because he himself, the author of himself has taken on the form of mortals, but because he has rolled himself in our filth and chooses to be born from this filth himself."

The one born from a virgin is the one who comes to transform us. His beetle form is representative of transformation--the dung beetle making the dungball. The Egyptians represented their god Kheper as a potter with a scarab for a head. According to this website:

http://www.kheper.net/

"The word Kheper means evolution, metamorphosis, transformation, coming into being."

Here's one image. Most other images simply depict him as a scarab:

kheper

It's not a person who transforms, it is our consciousness. It is what transforms and is also the transformer. The disservice organized atheism (and yes, it is organized as much as people as Mr. Shaw will deny it) performs is that it basically makes a mockery of these scriptures without trying to find any meaning to it. To them, some unscrupulous idiots used them to pass off a historical Jesus, therefore it is all lies. The message that consciousness is not ripe yet and is waiting to transform and be transformed is lost, trodden over. And hence, the state of world such as it is is as much a product of organized atheism as much as of organized religion. Both are guilty of the exactly the same crime.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 07:32 PM

Mrrzy, I think that "silly" in this case is a matter of point of view. - Sure - and I don't fight the non-silly beliefs. But it's downright silly to deny evolution, for instance.

The torture was certainly wrong but so was "the cultural revolution" under the Atheist Mao.    - Your point being? Torture is always wrong? No arguments there...

I don't think having religion makes people bad. But bad people sometimes us it as an excuse. - That isn't the problem. Without religion, bad people will find another excuse. The problem is that GOOD people are told to use it as an excuse to do bad things. That is what I fight.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 07:41 PM

>>From: Mrrzy - PM
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 07:32 PM

Mrrzy, I think that "silly" in this case is a matter of point of view. - Sure - and I don't fight the non-silly beliefs. But it's downright silly to deny evolution, for instance.<<

I think denying evolution is silly too but people have a right to believe and express it. That is part of the constitution. They don't have the right to have it taught in public schools.

>>The torture was certainly wrong but so was "the cultural revolution" under the Atheist Mao.    - Your point being? Torture is always wrong? No arguments there...<<

I thought you were blaming Christians for torture, if not, my mistake.

>>I don't think having religion makes people bad. But bad people sometimes us it as an excuse. - That isn't the problem. Without religion, bad people will find another excuse. The problem is that GOOD people are told to use it as an excuse to do bad things. That is what I fight. <<

Again, we don't have the right to fight religion (2nd Amendment) but we do have the right to fight bad people doing bad things.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 07:59 PM

"'yet others will go from website to website spewing verbal abuse at atheists and generating, undeliberately, boundless humour.'

Surely you not mock and not have me mock? How "undeliberately" hypocritical of you!!

By the way does your use of made up words indicate that you believe in neither God or dictionaries?"

Your first sentence appears not to make sense according to the traditions of standard English. And no word in my post was invented by me. Don't even try to pick me up on grammar or spelling or word meanings. I'll bloody have you for breakfast if you do that. I've graciously ignored loads of your mistakes in your posts to date, so let's keep it that way, shall we?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Smokey.
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 08:12 PM

Funny old thing, the English language - did you know the word 'gullible' doesn't appear in any English dictionary published before 1968?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 08:15 PM

"...Those are great quotes!!!!...and true as well. So called 'atheists' just insist on making fools of themselves, with no embarrassment at all.."

gee GfS, those quotes are NOT 'great', they are just 'slogans' and catchy phrases, because they are totally over-generalized and not 'true' because there are so many exceptions to them. I would bet that WAY more atheists do NOT spend much time going on about it.

   It is religious proselytizers who spend inordinate amounts of time asserting their beliefs and trying to convince others (often using intimidation) to pay attention. Embarrassing themselves? I assume that anyone from either side who overdoes lobbying for their position looks silly ...to everyone but themselves. *I* see Hitchens and others, whom I basically agree with, wasting their time and looking foolish trying to convince believers to not believe....but guys who stand on street corners and wave bibles and shout verses at passing cars look even more foolish...to me at least.

   'Obvious' atheism is usually in response to years of being inundated with claims by religious folks who are not content with their freedom to BE religious, and insist on pressuring others.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 08:16 PM

Huh? I'm sure Gullible's Travels was written before that...

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 08:17 PM

GfS asks:

Does the phrase 'Godless Communism' ring a bell?

Yes, one of the most effective two-word propaganda phrases ever coined, right up there with "tax-and-spend liberals"*...and "voodoo economics," I suppose.

-Joe-


[* "tax-and-spend" is one word, and "liberals" the second ]

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 08:27 PM

I kind of agree there, Bill, but I'm not sure about the Hitchens et al. bit. It's very tempting to accuse someone who's just writing down his opinions, even as a polemic, of trying to convert others. I think Dawkins and Hitchens and co. are simply articulating their ideas in the brave new world of free speech. They are not mainstream so they stand out and appear to be preachifying, but I don't think that's accurate. Their aim is to get people to think for themselves instead of being told by religions how to think, to demand evidence and to be very sceptical of any notions put to them that are unsupported. I don't think they are trying to get people to become atheists. That's the odd thing about atheism. It doesn't have a mission to convert. Religions like to get their followers to see atheism as a terrible threat, but the real threat to religion lies not in atheism but in the growing ability of people to think for themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 08:41 PM

>>>I've graciously ignored loads of your mistakes in your posts to date, so let's keep it that way, shall we? <<<

No, you've been rudely pointing out mistakes by others. I was just giving you a little of your crap back. I don't give a damn if you point out my typos. Go ahead if that amuses you. But before you blame it on God, those mistakes are not His. They are mine.

"undeliberately" is a word in your dictionary is it?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 09:25 PM

Yes, Steve... I agree that Dawkins & Hitchens intend to simply show people how to 'think' for themselves and they actually make a good case...that is, if you already agree with them.
What I see is them, Hitchens especially, employing some bad tactics and 'locking horns' with representatives of religious groups and 'sounding' just as unyielding.

*I* know the difference between the arguments of the two sides, but for those who cannot even comprehend what good, fair and logical thinking consists of, the 'feel' of ardent, concerned atheists can often sound just as opinionated and subjective as that of strident believers.
It is awkward for me to even seem to criticize them, because it is just tactics I question. I DO agree that the points they make need to be made and available, and someone needs to coherently explicate the fallacies used by extreme proselytizers of various religions....but I am just concerned that Hitchens energizes his opposition as much as he 'clarifies' to the 'atheist choir'.

I dunno.... I would not deprive anyone of their 1st amendment (in the US) right to free speech, but I'd sure like to discuss strategy with some folks....

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Smokey.
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 09:31 PM

It's not like me to split hairs, but there's no such word as typos :-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 09:57 PM

Again, we don't have the right to fight religion (2nd Amendment) but we do have the right to fight bad people doing bad things.

The second amendment is about the right to bear arms, not about freedom from religion.

And we do too have the absolute right to fight religion - we are not the government. We the people have the right to be against anything we want to be.

And I fight good people doing bad things too. And for that, you need religion. I am quoting somebody, FYI.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 10:05 PM

You are right Mrrzy, But I know there is an amendment that applies. :-)

They have a right to speak.

I know no way to legally abridge that. Nor would I if I could.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 10:08 PM

Sigh....


Definitions of typos on the Web:

    * A typographical error (often shortened to typo) is a mistake made in, originally, the manual type-setting (typography) of printed material, or more recently, the typing process. The term includes errors due to mechanical failure or slips of the hand or finger, but excludes errors of ignorance. ...
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typos

    * typo - misprint: a mistake in printed matter resulting from mechanical failures of some kind
      wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

    * Typo is a free, open source blogging engine written in the Ruby programming language, using the Ruby on Rails web application framework released under the MIT License. Typo can use any of the various SQL databases supported by the Ruby on Rails framework.
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typo_(software)

    * typo - A compositor; A spelling or typographical error; To make a typographical error

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Smokey.
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 10:15 PM

Thanks Jack, you just won me a bet..

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 11:36 AM

Hee hee, fell right into that one, didn't they!

Anyway, yes they have the right to speak, but when they speak nonsense, we have the right to point and laugh.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 12:10 PM

Billy Dee: "gee GfS, those quotes are NOT 'great', they are just 'slogans' and catchy phrases,...."

Are you trying for the stupidest post on here???

Reread the post from: From:
Ed T
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 07:14 PM .....read the names after the ''slogan' as you call them. The name is put there to denote who the 'catchy phrase is attributed to...its generally called a 'Quote'

By the way, Do you tie your own shoes???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: John P
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 01:13 PM

The quotes from GfS, all of which were written by believers in an attempt to discredit those who disagree with them. None of these are pertinent to anything. Slogans and catchy phrases seem like a good description.

If there were no God, there would be no atheists. --G.K. Chesterton
Of course not, there wouldn't be any need. So?

Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God. -- Heywood Broun
Simply not true. Add up all the sermons in the world and compare to them to whatever is said by atheists.

In some awful, strange, paradoxical way, atheists tend to take religion more seriously than the practitioners. --Jonathon Miller
Again, simply not true. Most religious folks are very serious about it. Most atheists really don't care that much.

It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists. --Mohandas Gandhi
Bad semantics. Atheists, on the rare occasions that they feel like fighting about it, are fighting against the harm that is caused by belief in god, not against god.

Some atheists express their rage against God although in their view He does not exist. --C. S. Lewis
Exactly the same as the Gandhi quote. Rage? Compared to the rage of many religious folks?

If atheism spread, it would become a religion as intolerable as the ancient ones. --Gustave le Bon
If atheism became a huge, organized, powerful entity - on the order of the Catholic church or the US Government -- that might be true. Every large organization has power-seekers and corrupt people. Show me such an organization. If atheism itself spread, without any organization, you'd just have a bunch of people going about their lives, pretty much the way atheists behave now.

By the way, GfS, if you can't contribute the conversation without calling people names, perhaps you should just go away. We don't need your hatefulness here.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 02:16 PM

No abuse, GfS, please.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 05:20 PM

John P: "By the way, GfS, if you can't contribute the conversation without calling people names, perhaps you should just go away. We don't need your hatefulness here."

You sure don't mind other people's though!...you wonderful sweetheart, you!...(happy Mrrzy?)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 05:34 PM

Atheism is not a rage against any god. It's simply a denial that one exists. C.S. Lewis
is hardly quotable, here.

A-theism rejects all theology. A theology may mean a specific religion or it can mean a
belief in metaphysical or occult systems of belief. It can also mean a political dogma such as found in Stalinism.

It does not mean however a rejection of the beauty of life or living things. It doesn't require a shallowness or lack of depth as some have stated. It can be a capacity for reverence
for the natural world and artistic appreciation as well. It can include compassion for people and animals and a social concern for the well-being of the world and its inhabitants.

The true test of an atheist is to redefine the definitions and criticize the frames offered
by religionists as definitions of atheism.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 05:55 PM

////A-theism rejects all theology. A theology may mean a specific religion or it can mean a
belief in metaphysical or occult systems of belief. It can also mean a political dogma such as found in Stalinism////

No. From Meriam-Webster:

Main Entry:the£ol£o£gy
Pronunciation:th*-**-l*-j*
Function:noun
Inflected Form:plural -gies
Etymology:Middle English theologie, from Anglo-French, from Latin theologia, from Greek, from the- + -logia -logy
Date:14th century

1 : the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially   : the study of God and of God's relation to the world
2 a : a theological theory or system *Thomist theology* *a theology of atonement* b : a distinctive body of theological opinion *Catholic theology*
3 : a usually 4-year course of specialized religious training in a Roman Catholic major seminary

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 06:02 PM

Thanks to John P. for expanding what I said in a coherent manner. Some 'quotes', no matter from whom, are more 'catchy phrases' than obvious truths.

(why yes, I do tie my own shoes...and brush my teeth by myself!)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 06:13 PM

"I don't give a damn if you point out my typos."

They are not "typos." They are grammatical and spelling errors, and they abound. There is a difference. A dictionary will clear this up for you if you happen to have one.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Smokey.
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 06:18 PM

Josep, a dictionary definition does not discredit the essence of Stringsingers post one jot, but it does make you look exceedingly childish.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 07:14 PM

Theology is the study of god. Period. It has nothing to do with the occult short of the workings of a god or a relationship to a god. It is certainly not a "political dogma" and most certainly has nothing to do with Stalinism. (???)

Stringsinger should have looked the word up before spouting off. I keep an entire dictionary on my computer for quick reference. Obviously, that's what I quoted from.

////a dictionary definition does not discredit the essence of Stringsingers post one jot////

Then, no doubt, you can explain what the essence was. Don't help him, stringsinger. Let smokey explain it on his own.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Smokey.
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 07:23 PM

I'm not here to help you understand simple English Josep, just carefully read all the bits you didn't criticise and stop acting like a spoilt schoolgirl.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 07:45 PM

Try quoting from your brain in future, jojo. It's what internet threads like to hear.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 07:51 PM

So you can't explain it--big surprise. Don't feel bad, I can't explain it either. My excuse is that it doesn't make sense. What's yours?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 07:52 PM

Did I miss something? Or, is the level of command of English and internet posting now a "True Test of an Atheist"?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Smokey.
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 07:53 PM

Grow up, Josep.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 07:56 PM

///Try quoting from your brain in future///

You mean "in the future." We don't want to be guilty of bad grammar, do we?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Smokey.
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 08:07 PM

t's common usage over here Josep. Now go and sit on the naughty-step and wait for matron's rubber tube.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 08:12 PM

Stringsinger wrote: "It does not mean however a rejection of the beauty of life or living things. It doesn't require a shallowness or lack of depth as some have stated. It can be a capacity for reverence
for the natural world and artistic appreciation as well. It can include compassion for people and animals and a social concern for the well-being of the world and its inhabitants."

I'd actually go a lot further. Belief in God restricts your understanding of the natural world in that it superimposes an utterly implausible explanation for it that is not only superfluous but which is intellectually-stunting. My dad (I can safely say as he don't do internet thingies) goes outside to look at the trees, the birds and the sky, waves his arms in the air and declares "Look at the beauty of all this! What more proof do you need!" Well, I think he's one hundred and eighty degrees wrong. The truth about the wonder and beauty of nature can best be realised by actually studying it closely, seeing how all the component parts (of organisms as well as communities, ecosystems and the whole planet) work together, form and function moving in beautiful synergy, the product (and never the end-product) of billions of years of evolution, and all in harmony with the laws of physics and all so wonderfully ordinary. The supernatural must be sitting up there somewhere in a big indignant sulk when he sees the ordinary loveliness of it all! A big sulk because he's actually utterly redundant and he always was. Some of us atheists are pretty good at being awe-struck by it all, but we see that we are of it and not special, because we have no higher power to make us special. We can feel really special because of our unspecialness. And hey, Jackieboy, I made up a word there!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 08:34 PM

Jojo knows as much about good grammar as I know about the little men who live on the far side of Uranus (but even that's more than Jackieboy knows, as he so abundantly demonstrates in his posts). You must have heard about the chief who kept his royal chair in the upstairs part of his mud hut, only to have it fall through the ceiling. People in grass houses shouldn't stow thrones, jojo!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Smokey.
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 09:25 PM

For the benefit of anyone for whom the word 'unspecialness' presents a difficulty in comprehension, it means ordinarity, or perhaps even humbledom in this context.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 09:28 PM

"Belief in God restricts your understanding of the natural world in that it superimposes an utterly implausible explanation for it that is not only superfluous but which is intellectually-stunting".

While it can., and likely does in some cases...this generalized statement is nowhere universally true.

I submit there are many who have a belief in a God that have a similar interest in the natural world, and science that you seem to limit to those who do not believe in a God.

I suggest that this limited scope of understanding of the diversity of peoples, those who have a belief in a God and those who do not, is just as intellectually-stunting as the case you describe describe, in what clearly, though wrongly, seems to be an elitist fantasy.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 09:50 PM

////t's common usage over here Josep. ////

That's why you're a backwards country.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Smokey.
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 10:25 PM

Pah.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Smokey.
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 10:26 PM

Oh, 800

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 10:31 PM

I would say Shaw (and his buddy smokey whom I am starting to suspect is the same person posting under two nicks--wouldn't be the first time) is a fraud in more ways than one. Nobody could possibly speak so condescendingly and divisively to people in person as he does to people in this forum and still have all his teeth. I've never seen anybody who professes to be an atheist address believers to their faces the way he does here. He would have to be dysfunctional.

I suspect he is very probably, as he himself admits, unrecognizable in person. This means one of two things: 1. He is a coward who hides behind his anonymity online to spew his hate speeches at people who have done nothing to him and obviously enjoys himself, or 2. He knows that his behavior here is unacceptable in a real social setting and would likely result in his getting fired for being an asshole but, again, can't help himself online because it's so much fun to piss such stupid, lowly people off.

I would like people to know that in spite of his "We atheists believe..." stuff, he does not speak for anyone other than himself and his alter ego smokey. As an atheist, I am friends with a quite a number of people of various religious backgrounds and I begrudge them nothing. I view atheism as a personal choice for me and not a mandate for everyone whom I don't feel quite come up to my level of professionalism, education and intellect. I've had some great discussions about religion with people who were deeply Christian because I respect their right to believe as they do and they reciprocate. I have more than my share of faults and shortcomings--too many to waste my time thinking that people should be just like me. I find the very idea creepy. And I find people creepy who think that everyone else needs to believe as they do.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 06:12 AM

"I submit there are many who have a belief in a God that have a similar interest in the natural world, and science that you seem to limit to those who do not believe in a God."

Of course they do, but the point I'm making is that the superimposition of God on to it all (as in silly things such as "I believe in evolution and even the Big Bang but God must have kicked it all off and then left it to run by itself") stops you at some point from searching for the real truth. It's too facile a cutoff, the ultimate expression of the God of the Gaps. He'll clasp his hands over your eyes and ears quicker than you could ever do it yourself. Even if you don't find that intellectually-stunting, surely you'll admit that it's intellectually lazy.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 06:23 AM

"I would say Shaw (and his buddy smokey whom I am starting to suspect is the same person posting under two nicks--wouldn't be the first time) is a fraud in more ways than one. Nobody could possibly speak so condescendingly and divisively to people in person as he does to people in this forum and still have all his teeth. I've never seen anybody who professes to be an atheist address believers to their faces the way he does here. He would have to be dysfunctional.

I suspect he is very probably, as he himself admits, unrecognizable in person. This means one of two things: 1. He is a coward who hides behind his anonymity online to spew his hate speeches at people who have done nothing to him and obviously enjoys himself, or 2. He knows that his behavior here is unacceptable in a real social setting and would likely result in his getting fired for being an asshole but, again, can't help himself online because it's so much fun to piss such stupid, lowly people off.

I would like people to know that in spite of his "We atheists believe..." stuff, he does not speak for anyone other than himself and his alter ego smokey. As an atheist, I am friends with a quite a number of people of various religious backgrounds and I begrudge them nothing. I view atheism as a personal choice for me and not a mandate for everyone whom I don't feel quite come up to my level of professionalism, education and intellect. I've had some great discussions about religion with people who were deeply Christian because I respect their right to believe as they do and they reciprocate. I have more than my share of faults and shortcomings--too many to waste my time thinking that people should be just like me. I find the very idea creepy. And I find people creepy who think that everyone else needs to believe as they do."

Well, all we hear from jojo in this rambling piece of shite is that he admits he has faults. Hardly any opinion from him worth stating. Listen, buddy. If you think I'm posting under two names get your bloody evidence together and send it to the moderators or just shut your foul mouth, right? You go on about the real world then you make an unfounded accusation that would be actionable in the real world. It's a place I don't think you've ever actually been to. There is no-one, I repeat no-one, posting on the internet today who is more open and honest than I am about my identity. You are totally out of order. Do me a favour and go and crawl off into your miserable little troll-hole and feast on your own bile.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 06:37 AM

No, Steve, I do not see all who believe in a God as intellectually lazy....aks idiots, though some may be. No more than I see all who do not believe in a God as having religious hang ups that lead them to irrational thoughts/claims....though some may be.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 08:37 AM

Well, I suppose a lot of believers just accept what has been passed down to them and don't dwell on the deeper side, if at all. The intellectual conflict is thereby sidelined. After all, major religions tend to discourage critical questioning (Y'know, threats of heresy, excommunication or worse, that sort of thing). I also suppose that billions of people care not a jot about God or religion. I have met some stupid atheists, but they tend not to be stupid about their atheism, on the whole. An avowed atheist will, at least to some extent, have engaged with the arguments and arrived at a personal conclusion. When that conclusion is that there is next to no chance of the existence of a being who trumps all the laws of nature and who can never be explained and for whom there is no evidence, it could hardly be irrational. It just may turn out to be wrong, as even Dawkins admits, but certainly not irrational.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 08:56 AM

"After all, major religions tend to discourage critical questioning (Y'know, threats of heresy, excommunication or worse, that sort of thing)".

You should refresh your knowledge on religion....you seem to be thinking in the dark ages.

I suspect there are santions against non-religious activities in some world countries...but, few if any in western countries or with Christianity today.

And, again, many, or most Christians, who belong to organized groups, don't pay much attention to much of todays church dogma from the top anyway (for example, some churchs ban birth control, and they use it anyway).

So, the thinking of many or most who believe in a God is not much different from Athiests, even though some try and make it seem like there is a difference. IMO, the reason is often underlying bitterness from an unfortunate past experience with a church. Another possibility is elitism (I found the way, see the light, want to tell everyone and create a special place in society for the enlightened...which fall short with most folks anyway.Elitism is also evident within extreme religious groups.

So, Steve. Dwelling on this aspect of your theory IMO, does not serve you well.Some theories, or unproven beliefs...like the one you promote, are best kept close to your chest...unless you purge yourself of such untruths.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 09:07 AM

[///Try quoting from your brain in future///

You mean "in the future." We don't want to be guilty of bad grammar, do we?]

Apart from the fact that this criticism is just completely silly, as with most things that emanate from joeyboy's keyboard, it does raise an interesting point about American versus British English. I usually defend the former for being often simpler, more logical and more direct, but in this case I think the Brits have the upper hand. Just think about this:

Humans will visit Mars in the future (one day we will go to Mars)

Humans will visit Mars in future (next time we'll go to Mars instead of wherever it is we've just been)

Any Brit will tell you that those statements mean two entirely different things, as indicated. By eschewing "in future," Americans have thrown away a useful nuance in the way in which "future" can be used.

In any case, bad grammar is what I was not guilty of. Stupidity spiced with spleen are, once again, what plague jojo.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 09:11 AM

"Some theories, or unproven beliefs...like the one you promote, are best kept close to your chest...unless you purge yourself of such untruths."

As I don't have theories, nor hold that anything we are discussing is ever susceptible to proof, I can only think that you are reading what you want me to have said instead of what I actually say. More on your not-so-bright post later, but I must do the shopping. I'm being shouted at here.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 09:54 AM

"More on your not-so-bright post later"

Sorry, Steve...credibility is earned from actual contribution to a debate and perspective added on an issue (or, a throey put forward), not the name calling stuff. No points earned on that silly comment.

Oh well, that's your "cross to bear"...so to speak:)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 10:51 AM

You were quite rude in your post, actually, Ed. Perhaps you think you have God's immunity. I'll unpack the shoppong and get back later. You know I won't cut corners.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 10:53 AM

ping

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 11:40 AM

Well Steve,

When one makes disrespectful and poorly thought out comments zeroing in on a whole world full of people who believe in a God, basically saying that they cant think broadly for thmselves, (not like you, of course) expect a response.

The record here on your tactics on this topic are on the record for all to see. IMO, when your generalized and elitist theories or statements are challenged (as not being logical), you pull out the personal attack card, rather than dealing with the dabate issue at hand. So, should you be surprised if someone calls you out on such tactics? I expect not.

IMO, You set a standard for logical thinking for others that you do not use yourself.

My comments to your disrespectful comments were focused on attempts to get you to see the lack of logic, and measured, far below what many would respond.

There will always be people who see things differently than any of us in the world and on Mudcat. That does not bother me. Does it bother you?

So, can we get back to logical debate, versus postings on generalized and elitist beliefs and theories? If not, shopping junkets may be a more productive option?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 12:23 PM

OK, Ed.

"'After all, major religions tend to discourage critical questioning (Y'know, threats of heresy, excommunication or worse, that sort of thing)'.

You should refresh your knowledge on religion....you seem to be thinking in the dark ages."

What, no pressures then? I was brought up a Catholic in the 60s and 70s. Some dark ages! We were told that only baptised Catholics went to heaven. We were told that only Catholic baptism would cleanse our souls of original sin (Catholicism's biggest and most cynical lie). No pressures in Muslim families either then? What about all those devout Christian families in the US that railroad the kids into Sunday services and Sunday School and faith schools and all the other rigmaroles? No pressures there then? No penalties for demurring? Come on now, Ed. I'd rather live in the dark ages than cloud cuckoo land any day!   

"I suspect there are santions against non-religious activities in some world countries...but, few if any in western countries or with Christianity today."

The clouds and the cuckoos gather ever more! What about those hundreds of millions of Catholic women in developing nations who suffer grinding poverty, serial pregnancies and HIV/AIDS because the Pope has banned condoms! Don't you think that getting AIDS because of a papal edict is a sanction?

"And, again, many, or most Christians, who belong to organized groups, don't pay much attention to much of todays church dogma from the top anyway (for example, some churchs ban birth control, and they use it anyway)."

Well, it doesn't say much for the religion in question then, but if only it were true in those African nations in which the Church has a a baleful, iron grip.

"So, the thinking of many or most who believe in a God is not much different from Athiests, even though some try and make it seem like there is a difference."

Well, it does seem to be a pretty big difference to me, though in the real world we can get on.

"IMO, the reason is often underlying bitterness from an unfortunate past experience with a church."

This is the typical parroting cry from Christians who see atheism all around them and worry. The solid fact is that there is simply no foundation for this attitude, no matter how frequently it is unimaginatively trotted out. Ex-Christians who have become atheists are just people who have actually given the matter some critical thought, and we don't need shouting down by paranoid Christians every time we express a point of view.

"Another possibility is elitism (I found the way, see the light, want to tell everyone and create a special place in society for the enlightened...which fall short with most folks anyway.Elitism is also evident within extreme religious groups."

What you put in your (unclosed) brackets has nothing to do with elitism. Whatever point you have has not been made. And smearing by association with fundamentalist Christians, as you're doing here, is yet another tired Christian tactic used against atheism which seems to allow you to sidestep the real debate.

"So, Steve. Dwelling on this aspect of your theory IMO, does not serve you well.Some theories, or unproven beliefs...like the one you promote, are best kept close to your chest...unless you purge yourself of such untruths."

As I said, no proofs, no beliefs, no theories, no certainties, no need. We can leave all that to religion.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 12:29 PM

You people got it all settled who is an atheist and who isn't yet?

So....when's lunch? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 12:34 PM

Ah, ever more from Ed, still with little sharp focus unfortunately.

"When one makes disrespectful and poorly thought out comments zeroing in on a whole world full of people who believe in a God, basically saying that they cant think broadly for thmselves, (not like you, of course) expect a response."

I've never said that "they" can't think broadly for themselves, and I certainly don't think it. That's just your deliberate misintepretation of whatever it is I've said that you don't like.

"The record here on your tactics on this topic are on the record for all to see."

Are you keeping a record? You're not very good at pulling things out of it if you are.

"IMO, when your generalized and elitist theories or statements are challenged (as not being logical), you pull out the personal attack card..."

That's a laugh, innnit, Ed. ME pulling out the personal attack card! I'd feel really honoured if I thought you only ever read my posts, but I recommend you skim back over those of Ron, Jacko and jojo if you really want to see personal attacks in all their glory. This rather partial criticism of me speaks volumes about your inability to see things fairly. It reflects a lot of cloudy, blinkered thinking. On with the agenda, Ed. I promise you I haven't got one.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 01:17 PM

"Y'know, threats of heresy, excommunication or worse, that sort of thing"

Again, Steve, time to refresh.

"I've never said that "they" can't think broadly for themselves, and I certainly don't think it"

Nice to know that you have come to this conclusion,and can give some acknowledgement to "logical thinking" by those believe in a God. Hopefully, you can stay true to this in your future postings.

"Are you keeping a record? You're not very good at pulling things out of it if you are."

Sorry Steve, your convenient but incorrect interpretation of my posted words...to be clearer, if this helps, your posted comments are stored on Mudcat, and is there for all to see....should they wish to read your posts, now or in the future.

"I recommend you skim back over those of Ron, Jacko and jojo if you really want to see personal attacks in all their glory"

Good try Steve, but, its a poor attempt to divert the topic to the postings of others...it does not cleanse yours. I don't take the time to read "piss fight postings" between or among others, as they are of no interest to me as they have little or no information content. But, if someone throws a personal attack at me,I allow benefit of the doubt for the first few and give a measured response.....(you exhausted your first few free ones).

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 01:29 PM

Gee, Little Hawk...all this makes some of our debates seem tame by comparison, hmmm?

I tried a hundred or two posts back to give some direction to it all, but they barely noticed I was there. Maybe it's better that way.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 01:31 PM

Steve Shaw: "The clouds and the cuckoos gather ever more! What about those hundreds of millions of Catholic women in developing nations who suffer grinding poverty, serial pregnancies and HIV/AIDS because the Pope has banned condoms! Don't you think that getting AIDS because of a papal edict is a sanction?"

Ummm.....I think people USUALLY get AIDS from promiscuous sexual activity, Steve....not because of ant edicts from anywhere! I suppose if you REALLY felt that strongly about it, you'd be discouraging people from loose sexual behavior......and stop blaming anyone's dogma!

But homosexuals aren't about that. They'd rather spread their gospel of no God/no conscience when it comes to that, rather than take responsibility for their behavior....and stomp out the idea that there is a God...a giver a life, who they have no interest in bringing into the world, because they emotionally haven't got past their genitals being only for their immediate pleasure...and therefore, have no need to pay attention to all the other pair bonding mechanisms that comes with bringing life into the world, and caring for that child....other than adopting one, for their self image, and amusement!! This is also true for promiscuous heteros... Anybody home??

Besides, a lot of 'atheists confuse their disdain for dogma, with their sense of there being a God. I, myself, reject most dogma, and most dogmatic concepts regarding a God....without rejecting God.

P.S. BTW, I included promiscuous hetero's in my post, so don't reply saying I'm bagging on just homos....however, homosexuals tend to have your arguments about God, and at the same time want recognition, in the churches!!. Odd, don't you think?? When they can't get that, then they point to the church, and say they hate homosexuals. Did it ever occur to them, that a church isn't going to enthusiastically welcome with open arms, someone who adamantly rejects a God???....to excuse their non-acceptance because of homosexuality??!!???

Anyone home, ol' chap?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 02:31 PM

"Nice to know that you have come to this conclusion,and can give some acknowledgement to "logical thinking" by those believe in a God."

You must have misread something. If you recall' religious belief is based solely on faith. Logical thinking can't come into that. It is entirely illogical to believe in a being who defies all the laws of physics, who can't be explained and for whom there isn't the merest shred of evidence. Strange logic appears to practised in your parts.

And I forgot to pick you up on this particular piece of ordure:

"shopping junkets"

That particular "shopping junket" was for me to go out to buy food for our evening meal. I take it that that sort of thing might meet with even your approval. Were I a religious man I could throw a bit of Jesus back at you, to the effect that you shouldn't judge until you know the facts and have cleared your own conscience first. Wasn't very Christian of you, was it, Ed?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 02:41 PM

Well, guest ex-Sanity, that is a not only a seriously homophobic post, in spite of your token effort to cover up the fact, and it also shows pig ignorance about what's going on in Africa, in which heterosexual dissemination is easily the more preferred method of spread by the HIV virus. I also love the way you jump on people's sexual behaviour (about which you are judge and jury as to its irresponsibility, even though, presumably, you don't actually get out there to observe it) to moralise about AIDS. Are you sure you don't also think that AIDS is God's retribution which he visits on gay people? I look forward to reading about some more of your disgusting prejudices.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 02:57 PM

"but it also..." grr, grammar's having a day off. :-(

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: John P
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 03:18 PM

GfS, please stop painting large groups of people with a single brush. You talk about gays and atheists as if they all are the same when it comes to morals. Not only is that inaccurate, but it defies common sense. It also doesn't do anything to move the discussion forward. A waste of band width.

And trying to wiggle out of being called a bigot towards gay people doesn't really work when you stretch a point to that extent just so you can spout off about gay people in the middle of a discussion about atheists and believers. Also, have you really not heard about the prevalence of rape as a method of spreading AIDS in Africa? It's all the fault of all those loose women, of course . . .

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 03:41 PM

John P: "And trying to wiggle out of being called a bigot towards gay people doesn't really work when you stretch a point to that extent just so you can spout off about gay people in the middle of a discussion about atheists and believers. Also, have you really not heard about the prevalence of rape as a method of spreading AIDS in Africa? It's all the fault of all those loose women, of course . . . "

Steve: "Well, guest ex-Sanity, that is a not only a seriously homophobic post, in spite of your token effort to cover up the fact, and it also shows pig ignorance about what's going on in Africa, in which heterosexual dissemination is easily the more preferred method of spread by the HIV virus."

Can't you fucking READ and COMPREHEND?????

GfS: "They'd rather spread their gospel of no God/no conscience when it comes to that, rather than take responsibility for their behavior....and stomp out the idea that there is a God...a giver a life, who they have no interest in bringing into the world, because they emotionally haven't got past their genitals being only for their immediate pleasure...and therefore, have no need to pay attention to all the other pair bonding mechanisms that comes with bringing life into the world, and caring for that child....other than adopting one, for their self image, and amusement!! This is also true for PROMISCUOUS HETEROS... Anybody home??"

Ummm.....I think people USUALLY get AIDS from PROMISCUOUS SEXUAL ACTIVITY, Steve....not because of ant edicts from anywhere! I suppose if you REALLY felt that strongly about it, you'd be discouraging people from loose sexual behavior......and stop blaming anyone's dogma!"

GfS: "P.S. BTW, I included PROMISCUOUS HETEROS in my post, so don't reply saying I'm bagging on just homos....however, homosexuals tend to have your same arguments about God, and at the same time want recognition, in the churches!!"

I guess I hit a 'hot button' in your selective comprehension!!!

Again, Anybody home???!!!???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 04:36 PM

"That particular "shopping junket" was for me to go out to buy food for our evening meal. I take it that that sort of thing might meet with even your approval. Were I a religious man I could throw a bit of Jesus back at you, to the effect that you shouldn't judge until you know the facts and have cleared your own conscience first. Wasn't very Christian of you, was it"

Bizarre?

Get a grip, Steve!

I see you like to "run off a bit at the keyboard" on off topics? Why not just choose content? I believe it is in you (but it is just a belief, and yet unproven, I confess to you)?

Until you can offer some new meaningful content on the topic to the thread... instead of bile (which IMO, seems to be from an unfortunate RC experience you tend to dwell on (advice, get over it)and anti theist (aka RC) babble, I see no need to play ur game of pinkie paddleball....its not only boring, its pointless, at least to me.

Here's ur (oops, a typo) opportunity!!!!

Feel free to insert anything you wash as a last word below.....or wherever you choose to do so. Use it well... but, please, do not use it often, Steve.

Now muster up all of the rude and anti-theist stuff you have stored up inside you, from the 60s and 70s and put it all down below. It will make you feel better (kinda like the relief fropm that big "pent up" gas bubble released first thing in the morning).

Honourable Steve's last word (s):
...............................................................................................................................................................................................................

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 04:39 PM

If'n U need more space Steve...here it is:

Honourable Steve's last word (s):
...............................................................................................................................................................................................................

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Smokey.
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 06:29 PM

"Nobody could possibly speak so condescendingly and divisively to people in person as he does to people in this forum and still have all his teeth. I've never seen anybody who professes to be an atheist address believers to their faces the way he does here. He would have to be dysfunctional."

"He is a coward who hides behind his anonymity online to spew his hate speeches at people who have done nothing to him and obviously enjoys himself."

"He knows that his behavior here is unacceptable in a real social setting and would likely result in his getting fired for being an asshole but, again, can't help himself online because it's so much fun to piss such stupid, lowly people off."

Josep, that is a perfect description of yourself, easily verified by anyone who has nothing better to do than read your posts. Projecting your own blatantly obvious character flaws onto someone else does nothing to improve your credibility and is no more than juvenile playground behaviour. Get a life. Get some manners. Get some common sense, and stop bothering the grown-ups - you are a nuisance and your amusement value is fast running out.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 06:49 PM

smokey, I couldn't possibly be lucky enough for you to quit responding to my posts, I would absolutely love it if you did. Anytime I get too puerile for you, please don't hesitate to put me on ignore. Your alter ego, professor shaw, is more than enough to put up with here. Of all the people he fights with and pisses off, it is rather odd that the two of you seem to agree on everything. It's like Lyndon Johnson once said, "If two heads agree on everything, only one of them is doing all the thinking." I'll leave it to far wiser posters here than me to figure out which of the two of you that is.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 07:24 PM

//////Well, all we hear from jojo in this rambling piece of shite is that he admits he has faults.////

So unlike you, professor shaw. We're all well aware that you are perfect and your every pronouncement must be regarded as--dare I say it--from GOD HIMSELF!!! Yes, I have faults. Quite a lot of them unfortunately. I often find out that I am not as smart as I often think I am. That I am not as nice as I often think I am. That I am not as fair-minded as I often think I am. But since meeting you, I realize I'm not all that bad.

///Hardly any opinion from him worth stating.////

Oh, really, now. You'll read every single thing I post and respond to it and everybody knows it. You know it. It's your nature.

////Listen, buddy. If you think I'm posting under two names get your bloody evidence together and send it to the moderators or just shut your foul mouth, right?////

The mod isn't going to do anything even if I wanted him to, which I don't. You can post under another nick if you wish, it makes no difference to me. I just find it odd that you cannot get along with anyone in this forum--even those who tried to befriend you--and yet you and smokey seem to be separated at birth. If he actually is someone other than you, I can see why you two get along so well together--he doesn't dare disagree with you about anything and defends you vociferously if anyone criticizes you as though you are incapable of defending yourself and when he defends you, he uses the identical terms you use yourself when addressing that poster. He's either a shameless, unbelievable kiss-ass or he's you. Which is it?

////You go on about the real world then you make an unfounded accusation that would be actionable in the real world.////

Actionable? You mean grounds for a lawsuit?? Pray, tell what actionable accusation I made and feel free to file a suit anytime you get the urge. You're getting weirder by the minute, you know that?

////It's a place I don't think you've ever actually been to. There is no-one, I repeat no-one, posting on the internet today who is more open and honest than I am about my identity.////

Pardon me if I don't believe you because you would be the one everybody loves to hate in your community. You wouldn't have a friend or a job. You do have to admit, you are just slightly insufferable. I admit I can be a pain, I can be an asshole, I can short with people--guilty on all counts. But I have NEVER tried to tell anyone their religion is shit and full of lies and stupid notions. I might be a twit but I don't think THAT highly of myself.

////You are totally out of order.////

Well, then, get that lawsuit filed and I'll see you in court.

////Do me a favour and go and crawl off into your miserable little troll-hole and feast on your own bile.////

And I'm glad to see that you're taking our little exchange so well.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Smokey.
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 07:47 PM

Grow up.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 07:50 PM

Q:   WHAT DO YOU WANT?
M:   Well, I was told outside that...
Q:   Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!
M:   What?
Q:   Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!
M:   Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!!
Q:   OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse.
M:   Oh, I see, well, that explains it.
Q:   Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.
M:   Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry.
Q:   Not at all.
M:   Thank You.
(Under his breath) Stupid

From, Monty Python's Argument Sketch

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 08:05 PM

Anyone who chooses to respond to the stupidity on offer here has no brain. It's Christianity in utter disrepute. I've gone along with it for too long. I'm questioning my own sanity here. Cheers for the advice, John P. I wish I'd taken it twelve hours ago. See y'all in the next thread! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 08:54 PM

Don't go, shaw. Christ, that just breaks my heart.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 09:33 PM

Pshaw: "...I'm questioning my own sanity here...."

Well, Gee, It was no mystery to some of us!. You should have just asked. You left enough clues! We love you though, so don't be afraid to ask for help!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 09:38 PM

I guess the lawsuit's off.