 sj |
||
|
||
BS: True Test of an Atheist
|
|
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 04:29 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: 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: 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: 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 |
|
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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 11:17 AM I get the impression that there are some "Atheists" whose God is Atheism. |
|
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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 06:20 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 - 06:18 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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. :-) |
