BS: True Test of an Atheist

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: 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: 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 - 09:04 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: 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: 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 - 08:44 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 06:27 PM

"Without god we couldn't know right from wrong,"

Which god?

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: 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: 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 - 04:09 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 - 04:07 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 11:43 AM

Younger, obviously.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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