BS: True Test of an Atheist

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 09:38 PM

I guess the lawsuit's off.

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 - 08:54 PM

Don't go, shaw. Christ, that just breaks my heart.

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: 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: Smokey.
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 07:47 PM

Grow up.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 02:31 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 12:23 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: 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 - 10:53 AM

ping

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: 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: Smokey.
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 10:26 PM

Oh, 800

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 07:53 PM

Grow up, Josep.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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.