 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: Jim Carroll Date: 04 Apr 13 - 04:53 AM "It has been as pointless as explaining to a woman the workings of the internal combustion engine engine." And as pointless as trying to explain to a sexist moron that we are living in the 21st century methinks. Jim Carrll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: GUEST,concerened Date: 04 Apr 13 - 04:34 AM What an absolute waste of time and effort this thread has been!!It has been as pointless as explaining to a woman the workings of the internal combustion engine engine. We have a world reccession here and all you lot can do is go on and on and and on about this crap.What have you achieved , escept some self important posturing. Why dont you put your time and efforts into trying to alter society.Or better still just keep your psuodo intellectual thoughts to your selves.Or is that to much to ask |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Apr 13 - 03:41 AM "If religious people (of any faith) wish to persuade others that their views should carry weight then they must be prepared to engage in robust debate. " Now that is a serious delusion! Do you honestly think that debate persuades people of anything? Where is your evidence sir? Show me one study please. Religious people persuade tens of thousands of people every day without debate. Do you ever find salesmen debating with you over the merits of a home or car? Would you buy from such a person? MtheGM, Mr. Dawkins started the conversation with a put down. You don't think that is "picking a fight." Very well. Go to a pub and try it. Obviously you think you can do the same. Call people delusional to their faces and publicly pretend that the word does not mean what it says, that it does not carry the baggage that it carries, that it does have the origin that it has. So you admit that it is a put down, but you think that is justified to try to get me to change my mind. No sirs. That is not debate that is bulling. Mr. Dawkins stretched the meaning of the word from referring to individuals and groups not accepting generally accepted evidence to at least 3 or 4 billion not accepting HIS version of the evidence. That sirs is call lying. So you want to lie to me and bully me and expect me to change my mind. Yeah, I'm the one who is suffering from a delusion. :-) You are wasting your time tossing Mr. Dawkins "pearls" before this swine. In fact you might want to smell those pearls before you pick them up. Take care boys. God Bless you! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 03 Apr 13 - 01:58 PM MtheGM: "But what you are doing here GfS, it appears, is striving to find yet another definition for 'God', because you can't relate to the idea that the term actually has no referent. .." Wrong! Just think about it. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: GUEST,Stim Date: 03 Apr 13 - 12:30 PM and the pig got up and slowly walked away... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: Stringsinger Date: 03 Apr 13 - 11:57 AM Jack, I didn't lie intentionally if you can call it that. I apologized to you for reacting to the post that I didn't read. I admit that I reacted without thinking carefully but I don't call that lying. I reacted because of the finger pointing that you did to Dawkins who is an intelligent, moral human being, with an investigative mind, a true scientist and to throw all those epithets at him without some kind of reaction from those who admire him is unreasonable. You can close the door to dialogue, that is your prerogative. If you want to criticize Dawkin's ideas, that's one thing, assuming you have read any of his works but to personalize everything as an attack on you is silly. I won't get into a bar fight with you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: GUEST,Blandiver Date: 03 Apr 13 - 09:31 AM Atheism is a celebration of human inventiveness which recognises that God & religion only exist on account of 1) those human beings who made them up in the first place and 2) those who've seen fit (for whatever reason) to propagate it thereafter. There's a lot of fine things about religion - the music, the architecture, the fixtures & fittings, the scriptures &c. - which the Atheist appreciates in terms of aforementioned human inventiveness. Even I may stand before the Papyrus P52 exhibit in Manchester's Ryland's Library in a state of reverential awe, but that has nothing to do with belief in anything other than the immediate human reality & cultural history as manifest in the thing. Atheism is an inclusive philosophy that allows for a more objective view of such matters entirely divorced from the superstition of belief, which is a quaintly folkloric delusion on the one hand, yet more than a tad provincial on the other given the diversity of human cultural / spiritual experience from which we may deduce the wellsprings & motives of organised religion, whatever the stripe. In many ways The God Concept is as much an achievement as Stonehenge, the Pyramids and the Large Hadron Collider; God is born from a dynamic Myth Process which then becomes ossified by absolutism by those for whom stasis equates with Tradition and are prepared to kill or otherwise oppress for its preservation. We are all of us spiritual beings; our spirituality is as unique to us as our sexuality. That Religion seeks to exploit the former in the same way as Pornography seeks to exploit the latter is but one of the misfortunes of Human Culture (along with War, The Tory Party, UKIP, EDL, the Daily Mail, etc.) which, on the evidence hitherto, must always have a Dark Side. The nature of our subjective spirituality is experienced in terms of wonder, beauty, joy, awe, our capacity for music, art, poetry, howling at the moon, weeping with joy over the birth of our children and weeping in sorrow over the death of loved ones - and pondering the Fortean in terms of what might often elude simple explanation. This much is common to all, yet unique to each of us. Atheism presupposes that we've outgrown the need for the comfort blanket of Religion, just as Anarchy presupposes we've outgrown the need for Government. Both are optimistic glimpses of future possibility that take a very happy view indeed of human potential, however so naive that seem to the reactionary detractors for whom such enlightenment is anathema to an arrogant self-centred world view born from both pig ignorance and the fear that death might just be the end of it after all. Who knows? Who cares? Life is all that matters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: MGM·Lion Date: 03 Apr 13 - 07:54 AM I still think you are making much too much of an essentially neutral, factual word, Jack. There is no intention to insult; simply, as Howard says, to debate with reasonable emphasis. You still haven't come up with a substitute word to express the fact that we consider your views mistaken and non-tenable & based on unacceptable premises; so I am afraid that 'delusion' will have to do until you can suggest some other locution which will serve instead in terms of this debate. If otoh you absolutely decline to debate, then other conclusions could obviously be drawn. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: GUEST,Howard Jones Date: 03 Apr 13 - 07:18 AM It may well be a put-down - so what? The essence of a debate is that you challenge your opponent's arguments and assumptions. That's a long way from accusing them of being mentally ill. If religious people (of any faith) wish to persuade others that their views should carry weight then they must be prepared to engage in robust debate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 03 Apr 13 - 06:24 AM I didn't think he would do it. I thought your head was safe. But I do think it would upset you if pretty much anyone on this forum but me called you "deluded" Am I wrong? Would you consider it as a neutral word? A compliment maybe? Please don't answer if it will upset you. I am sorry for the exaggeration (explode) I am also sorry for including you name in the discussion. It was purely a rhetorical flourish. I thought MtheGM would empathize with you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: Steve Shaw Date: 03 Apr 13 - 05:58 AM Send it in a private message to Mr. Shaw. His head will explode. Truly, the mark of the evangelical non-atheist is that he valiantly tries to a goad a fellow who hasn't posted to the thread for three days. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 03 Apr 13 - 05:24 AM Sorry When and how was it ever NOT used as either a diagnosis or a mocking put down. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 03 Apr 13 - 05:22 AM I think there may be a blind spot over the term in the UK, but I suspect only among atheists. I've been racking my brain trying to see where using the word is not either a put down or a diagnosis. He is deluded if he thinks she is going to go out with him. She is deluded if she thinks french fries don't go to right to the hips. Please explain to me how Mr. Dawkins title is not a put down. I think that if you are defending or excusing that title, you have a lot of balls to tell me, a thoughtful human being, that I have any kind of delusion whether it be a medical one or not. Why don't you test it. Why don't you walk into a pub and yell out "Who here believes in God?" Go up to the biggest guy who says "yes", ideally one in a rugby shirt, and say. "I am sorry to inform you, but that have a delusion." Be as polite as you can but be firm about the fact of the delusion. Be careful to explain that you are not offering a medical diagnosis, just tell him that his beliefs are "something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated." Or use any innocuous version of definition you want. See what happens. Or what if I said... Dawkins' followers were deluded. He has no scientific basis for his claim that has not been argued to death for 500 years and that from his actions he is clearly in it for the money. That he got famous because of his rampant Islamophobia and he is a hypocrite for not applying the same rigor to his own public statements as he does to statements from the pulpit. All of those statements are debatable except possibly the first. But the first is not there to be debated. It is there to provoke. Dawkin's will get their ire up when they read it and it will color every other statement. Try it if you are inclined to scientific experiment. Send it in a private message to Mr. Shaw. His head will explode. Send this to Musket, you will likely get a reasoned argument. I believe that Dawkins' followers may be mistaken . He has no scientific basis for his claim that has not been argued to death for 500 years and that from his actions he is clearly in it for the money. That he got famous because of his rampant Islamophobia and he is a hypocrite for not applying the same rigor to his own public statements as he does to statements from the pulpit. Delusion Etymology delusion (n.) Look up delusion at Dictionary.com "act of misleading someone," early 15c.; as a form of mental derangement, 1550s, from Latin delusionem (nominative delusio) "a deceiving," noun of action from past participle stem of deludere (see delude). So it started out meaning a form of mental derangement. When and how was it every used as either a diagnosis or a mocking put down. I invite you and the entire Mudcat to comb all of literature except of course for Mr. Dawkins book, to find an example where the word is used to describe a person or a group where it is not used in mocking or in pity or as a diagnosis. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe Date: 03 Apr 13 - 04:47 AM I work in mental health. There are plenty of people who are deluded in all sorts of ways - either by objective standards or in the opinion of others - who do not have a mental illness. Equally there are plenty of people with mental illnesses who do not experience delusions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: MGM·Lion Date: 03 Apr 13 - 04:29 AM Quite, Howard. & two out of the three Webster's definitions cited above by Jack [& that is a US Dictionary] carry no overtone of mental disturbance: 1 & 2a are purely objective in their definitions and carry no adverse connotations; only 2b refers to a disturbed mental state. I genuinely do think that Jack is overdefining the term 'delusion' as used by Dawkins. It is assertive, to be sure; but I do not think it carries any intentionally insulting tendency. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: GUEST,Howard Jones Date: 03 Apr 13 - 03:56 AM I wonder whether this is another example of "the barrier of a common language"? In the UK, in everyday speech, to say someone is deluded does not automatically carry overtones of mental illness, merely that they hold beliefs which cannot be support by evidence, or which fly in the face of evidence. Delusions may be symptoms of mental illness, but being deluded is not the same as being mentally ill. Perhaps the word carries different connotations in the US? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 03 Apr 13 - 03:19 AM If a kid reads the book and looks up the word Delusion, what will he find? Is there anything in the book to say that he does not mean mental illness? When asked about it in a debate, he talked about "fairies at the end of the garden." Delusion From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.[1] As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, or other effects of perception. Delusions typically occur in the context of neurological or mental illness, although they are not tied to any particular disease and have been found to occur in the context of many pathological states (both physical and mental). However, they are of particular diagnostic importance in psychotic disorders including schizophrenia, paraphrenia, manic episodes of bipolar disorder, and psychotic depression. Websters de·lu·sion noun \di-ˈlü-zhən, dē-\ Definition of DELUSION 1 : the act of deluding : the state of being deluded 2 a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated b : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs This is the description of the book on his website. >>>The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion, tells of his exasperation with colleagues who try to play both sides of the street: looking to science for justification of their religious convictions while evading the most difficult implications—the existence of a prime mover sophisticated enough to create and run the universe, "to say nothing of mind reading millions of humans simultaneously." Such an entity, he argues, would have to be extremely complex, raising the question of how it came into existence, how it communicates —through spiritons!—and where it resides. Dawkins is frequently dismissed as a bully, but he is only putting theological doctrines to the same kind of scrutiny that any scientific theory must withstand. No one who has witnessed the merciless dissection of a new paper in physics would describe the atmosphere as overly polite.<<< Dawkins is frequently dismissed as a bully, but he is only putting theological doctrines to the same kind of scrutiny that any scientific theory must withstand. a bully a bully a bully His word. He is called that because he is unkind and impolite (my opinion) "he is only putting theological doctrines to the same kind of scrutiny that any scientific theory must withstand." (His approved words.) How would his statement about Islam being evil after confessing his ignorance stand up to that? How should we take a person speaking as a "scientist" making public pronouncements about "evil" a concept with zero scientific meaning? Its a bit like Stephen Baldwin, the Actor and Creationist activist lecturing us on zoology don't you think? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: MGM·Lion Date: 03 Apr 13 - 02:46 AM "What if ... What if God is this? What if God is that?" But what you are doing here GfS, it appears, is striving to find yet another definition for 'God', because you can't relate to the idea that the term actually has no referent. It's this protean ability to adopt any form that might just suit the present stage of the disputation that us-lot find so peculiarly unconvincing. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 03 Apr 13 - 02:04 AM What if it's all one big day, the 'big bang' is still in progress, and everything that is, comprises God?? what if the only thing that isn't God, is just darkness, nothingness and death...What if the 'Light' illuminated a path that leads out of darkness and death....What if man only looks at events through 'time', because part of him is made of matter....what if, from a different perspective there really is no time...What if the only things that really exist is God and he lives in eternity, no calculated time....what if, when we came into this life and entered matter, the journey gave us amnesia, and it's all a little foggy now....but somehow, we can identify truth when we here is, but can't remember where we know it from.... What if the only thing we remember is that it is all held together by Love...what if, no matter how much one wants to be separated, you really can't be.....what if you could succeed in isolating yourself from the whole.....would that be called being an atheist? Jeez, who'd want to be separated from law of Love anyway???? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: MGM·Lion Date: 03 Apr 13 - 01:21 AM It's the emotional connotation of the word we disagree about, Jack. I can see that 'suffering from delusions' might be interpreted in some contexts as a sort of euphemism for 'crazy'; but I don't think it follows that simply 'deluded' means more than 'persisting in believing in something which one finds attractive but which the observer believes not to be the truth', without a necessary overtone of 'craziness': & likewise 'delusion' as used by Dawkins. I don't think he meant even to imply insanity on their parts, or to insult in any way, but to express his view of the beliefs they persisted in, contrary, as he saw it, to all reasonable evidences. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: GUEST,Stim Date: 02 Apr 13 - 09:53 PM Actually, MtheGM, my comment was not addressed to you--I thought that was a fair comment, but to Stringsinger, who seemed to feel that he had been "dissed" by the quotation marks, but whose language has been more unpleasant that that. From my point of view, I am always curious about the lives that people have led and the sense they've made of it. I lose interest when they start calling other people names... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 02 Apr 13 - 06:47 PM "Delusion An idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality," Unless you have "idiosyncratic", personal definitions of "idiosyncratic" and "generally accepted" Mr. Dawkins' title is a lie. I maintain that it is a lie designed to provoke. Making him a lying jerk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 02 Apr 13 - 06:42 PM MtheGM, I need to say that you have not been a jerk in any of these conversations. If I start a conversation with "you are deluded" or "you have a delusion." I am putting you on the defensive and bringing all of the mental illness connotations of the word into the conversations. Do you honestly believe that Mr. Dawkins and his publishers were not aware or this? I think not. I think they were drawing a line in the sand trying to provoke as many "God botherers" as the could to denounce the book and "debate" him. As per the choice of words, I think you and Mr. Dawkins are quite capable of thinking of respectful ways of saying the you disagree with Christians without the strong and fairly clear implication that you are saying that they are crazy. As per my choice of words... Please keep in mind that I saw Mr. Dawkins "defend" his title in a discussion with an Anglican cleric. Please pardon my weak vocabulary but I cannot think of a word for someone who uses a word that implies that I am crazy in an effort to pick a fight with me and everyone who shares my beliefs but who a. Does not have the integrity to say that he does not mean to say that he thinks that I am crazy. and b. Does not have the courage to come right out and say that he thinks I am crazy. Scaredy-cat fight-picking word-weasel, is as close as I can think of. But "jerk" gets the point across, I hope. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: bobad Date: 02 Apr 13 - 06:30 PM Delusion An idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality,... By this definition most definitely. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: MGM·Lion Date: 02 Apr 13 - 06:24 PM ... and, I would add, far more wantonly and intentionally offensive! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: MGM·Lion Date: 02 Apr 13 - 06:22 PM Yes. Not sure. I am sure their beliefs are sincerely held, even if one cannot accept them for oneself. Whether one thinks this constitutes 'delusion', or what other word would be preferable, is something I shall give some thought to. But, taking it that the word is used simply in the sense of 'believing in postulates which appear to us untenable', I can't really see why it should be found offensive. If you nevertheless do find it offensive, what word would you prefer to express our opinion of your [as we see it] beliefs with whose embracing we can find no empathy? If this makes me a 'jerk' in your view ~~ well, I have been called worse in my time and shall endeavour to live with it. But I can't feel that the word 'jerk' actually contributes much to the discussion; it seems to me far less definable in terms of rational disputation than is 'delusion'. Regards ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 02 Apr 13 - 05:45 PM Are you a "self avowed atheist" MtheGM? If I remember correctly you would be the first to admit it in these conversations if you are. More importantly, do you think it is OK to say that Christians are deluded? I have said several times why I don't think that is OK, that people who say so are "jerks." I'm not going to call you a jerk at this point even if you actually go so far as to call a person or group "deluded" for having their religious beliefs. But I would like to know if you empathize enough to understand why a person might think that you were trying to give offense if you did. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: MGM·Lion Date: 02 Apr 13 - 05:35 PM 'strikes me to be a bit of a double standard that it is ok to say that Christians are deluded and such things, and then get upset when someone puts quotation marks around "atheists"' .,,.,. It was me that queried the motivation for 'atheist' instead of atheist, so take it this was addressed to me. I have therefore read it over & over, & cannot follow the train of thought here at all, Stim; can see no logical or causal link between the two halves of the formulation whatever. Can't see why disagreeing with the tenets propounded by Christianity should cast doubt on the genuineness or sincerity of one's views as a self-avowed atheist, which is all I can interpret the quote-marks as implying. What, exactly, is the point you are trying to make? ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 02 Apr 13 - 05:35 PM >>>"Actually Jack, you may have opened a can of worms. The usage of the term "jerk" is unfortunate because it closes the door to honest dialogue."<<< YOU are lecturing ME on "honest dialog?" >>>"All I did was apologize for not reading your first post. "<<< After you said a couple of times, rather indignantly, that you had read it. I see that you are not ready to back up your accusations with anything remotely resembling fact. Please have the last word on what I have just said and do not address me again on this forum. You have no credibility in my eyes and I will not read it. BTW, I forgive you for lying. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: Stringsinger Date: 02 Apr 13 - 05:25 PM Actually Jack, you may have opened a can of worms. The usage of the term "jerk" is unfortunate because it closes the door to honest dialogue. Jack, I never admitted to lying to you. That is really incendiary. All I did was apologize for not reading your first post. I finally read it and disagree with your interpretation of what it said. I'll try to find the article I read on the new revelations regarding the theory of "nothingness" but why do I get the feeling you really wouldn't be interested and instead just want to score verbal points? As for the monolithic role of religion, all you have to do is question it with a critical eye and you get the kind of reaction you have. It is monolithic in that it doesn't allow deviation from it premise that it is infallible. Now different people have different ideas about how it is infallible but the idea that it might not exist is anathema to those who are assured as to its infallibility. Religion has never allowed itself to be questioned as to its authenticity or reality by religious people. Belief is the basis for its infallibility. Science, on the other hand is always changing and never couched in absolutes. It doesn't refer to itself as infallible, quite the opposite and theories that have been established are continually being challenged. Empirical evidence always guides it unlike religion. Stim, I understand the old joke about when two Jewish men are in the room, there are ten different opinions. Judaism and its interpretation can be argued about but it is still a hypothetical religion that has no scientific basis for actualizing its premises. The Torah is a set of laws, some of which are useful today and others antiquated. The Talmud may be about arguing over the value of those laws as you say but if you question the validity of the Talmud or the Torah outside the realm of Judaism, you'll see the reaction you get. I question the validity of all of it. I see religious people doing helpful and constructive things in their life in spite but not necessarily because of their belief systems. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 02 Apr 13 - 02:49 PM The only points I was trying to make was that some pushy "Atheists" are no better than the "Christians" they condemn and that Dawkins, Musket an Steve Shaw were crossing the line from civilized debate to jerkdom, keeping in mind that I have since forgiven the latter two and more importantly apologized for my role in their behavior one these threads, I think I can take a little satisfaction in saying that my work on these threads is done. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 02 Apr 13 - 02:29 PM Thank you, Stim...you took the words right out of my fingers....it's just another example of the hypocrisy, wrought by the adherence to party talking points, rather than common sense. It's running rampant these days! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 02 Apr 13 - 02:23 PM >>>Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: Stringsinger - PM Date: 02 Apr 13 - 10:36 AM Jack you obviously are no scientist. There are studies being conducted today that would question your obstinacy on this subject. The study of quantum mechanics for one.<<< No I am not a scientist. But I don't have to be to be familiar with the basic concepts of The Big Bang Theory. You have a problem, I know what quantum mechanics is all the major work in that field was done decades ago. Nobel prizes were awarded, people were there, did that and got their tee shirts. You can't confuse me by vaguely referring to a "study" you can't or won't describe. If you want to try this tactic on someone else say "String Theory" or "Quantum String Theory" at least that will send all but the most informed to Google or Wiki. >>>Religion tends to be more monolithic than not. Adherence is one of the factors that define religious belief. Unquestioning is also part of the religious belief system. Obstinacy is also another since religious people tend not to consider alternative points of view or criticism to be valid.<<< There are doubters and heretics throughout the history of religion. The history of the Protestant Church is defined by Schism. The history of the Catholic Church defined by dealing with heresy. In India there are different gods and variations of religion in every village. Islam has Sunni, Shiite, and dozens of other sects. Religion my friend is the least monolithic thing is the history of man. >>>Apparently by the nature of this thread, you have made up your mind that atheists are "jerks" and religious folk need to be defended. Also there is a hint that Christians are being somehow persecuted, today, which is truly laughable since they are in the majority in the U.S. but fortunately that is changing.<<< I accused a total of three people on the whole Earth in all the history of Atheism of being jerks. You really need to read more carefully before you attack me. "Atheists are atheists regardless of how much they are dissed by Christians. " Do you realized that the initial question posed on this thread, the one above this post and all of yours was about what defines and atheist. Do you realize that it has been pointed out by two of the three "atheists" that I referred to as jerks (Dawkins is one of them) that they do not consider themselves to be atheists for technical reasons inherent in the definition of "atheist." I am not dissing Atheists as a group. Never have, never will. Not real atheists especially, I respect their thought processes, I understand their beliefs because I once held them. Professional confrontational atheists, who won't even cop to being atheists are another matter. Stringsinger, It is obvious to me that you do not trouble yourself to read all that I have said in a relatively short thread. You have admitted lying to me when you said that you read my posts and the article in another thread. Thank you for apologizing for that. I am tired of defending points that I have made nowhere but in your imagination. Please do not address any more negative comments to me unless you can thoroughly back them up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: GUEST,Stim Date: 02 Apr 13 - 01:25 PM It also strikes me to be a bit of a double standard that it is ok to say that Christians are deluded and such things, and then get upset when someone puts quotation marks around "atheists"(sorry, that wasn't meant to offend)... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 02 Apr 13 - 01:24 PM "She wrote inside that she is becoming 'increasingly agnostic'. What am I to make of that, I wonder? " I think the most important thing to take from that is that she loved you enough as a friend to send you a card and that she trusted you enough to share that confidence. Other than that, too little information to even speculate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 02 Apr 13 - 01:14 PM A propos of nothing very much, a dear friend of forty years sent me an Easter Card. She's been a confirmed atheist all her long life and I was surprised at the card. She wrote inside that she is becoming 'increasingly agnostic'. What am I to make of that, I wonder? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: GUEST,Stim Date: 02 Apr 13 - 01:02 PM Frank, it surprises me that don't know enough about Judaism to understand that the Talmud, which is pretty much the center of the religion, is basically a collection of debates and disagreements about the meaning of the Torah, and that that process of debate and disagreement is at the core of Jewish religious practice So when you say, "Unquestioning is also part of the religious belief system. Obstinacy is also another since religious people tend not to consider alternative points of view or criticism" you are wrong about Judaism, and, last time I checked, that was considered to be one of the World's Great Religions...sooo.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: Stringsinger Date: 02 Apr 13 - 10:36 AM Jack you obviously are no scientist. There are studies being conducted today that would question your obstinacy on this subject. The study of quantum mechanics for one. Religion tends to be more monolithic than not. Adherence is one of the factors that define religious belief. Unquestioning is also part of the religious belief system. Obstinacy is also another since religious people tend not to consider alternative points of view or criticism to be valid. Apparently by the nature of this thread, you have made up your mind that atheists are "jerks" and religious folk need to be defended. Also there is a hint that Christians are being somehow persecuted, today, which is truly laughable since they are in the majority in the U.S. but fortunately that is changing. Atheists are atheists regardless of how much they are dissed by Christians. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 02 Apr 13 - 10:25 AM MtheGM: ""Illustrious 'atheists'" ~~ why the quotes round 'atheists', except as some sort of vaguely implied belittling device? We are not 'atheists', we are atheists." Probably for the same, or similar reason that the thread topic reads: "RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......" ...or something like that. I've also heard of people 'playing music' who also thought they were musicians! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: MGM·Lion Date: 02 Apr 13 - 02:42 AM Not a matter of 'flying over anyone's head': just that one is naturally suspicious of any defence of the symbolic (which is what we take your deities to be), expressed entirely figuratively, in terms of metaphor {'tesla coil', 'keeping filters clean', 'flush your brain'}. "Illustrious 'atheists'" ~~ why the quotes round 'atheists', except as some sort of vaguely implied belittling device? We are not 'atheists', we are atheists. Are you a 'Christian' rather than a Christian, I wonder — with the implied insincere wilfulness, the suggestion of "He only does it to annoy because he knows it teases" — which the quote marks would seem to imply? ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: Amos Date: 02 Apr 13 - 12:48 AM Oh., G'wan witchoo, GFS, you haven't flown over anyone's heads. Don't be so stingy with your credit. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 02 Apr 13 - 12:46 AM Guestlex, Cool....while reading your post, something else I posted came to mind(which was actually argued against by one of Mudcat's illustrious 'atheists').... "Intelligence is the ability to process information....information comes to us in several ways..various dimensions...therefore, to process more information one must try to keep one's filters clean."....AND... "Speed is a bi-product of accuracy"...(this applies to various things, as per aforementioned, but is absolutely obvious while practicing chops in music)...Couple processing information, clean filters, and accuracy, and to the not-so-aware observer, things you may be involved with may be termed as 'miraculous'....I find that greater awareness, by processing information, accurately, with clean filters also gives one greater access...if one receives it with respectful and humble fascination....which brings him to gratitude of grace(undeserved mercy)! Zoooom....just flew over the heads of 'atheists'....and that is really sad. ...and 'cheers' to you as well! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: GUEST,guestlex Date: 01 Apr 13 - 06:50 PM Not sure if the 'lit' group, can 'unplug', or if the 'atheists' group could 'light up', if they exerted their wills. Feedback?? GfS Do have vague memory of seeing the study.I got more interested in the intelligence of the heart and agree with a lot of the Eastern take that the brain is just a processor and should be governed by the primary intelligence of the heart in a energetically healthy human. The kundalini experience-rs will tell you the heart energy wipes the brain clean.Like a fresh install,the heart in charge the body and mind still...bliss.It's denying our natural energetic balance that is the cause of all our woes imo.Think about it you deny your heart and rationalise it out of the equation..pain.Your heart can flush your brain clean in a second and you feel better.The brain cant do that to the heart.For heart forget human sentimentality think energy, what thought you attach to the energy your body creates is up to you.Your in control to watch it breathe it through.This intelligent energy the heart processes is a huge part of the inner guide thing all religions talk about.Bit OT but trying to explain why the brain third eye and all that are just filters/processors imho.A lot of the input is out of our control not many can watch it come and go without feeling tension.Imo the brain is the devil.. thats a lol btw. To your quoted txt above if your looking for difference here is an interesting one.When people of different religions go to a guru as initiates and after the course if they get a spiritual exp there are subtle differences.The Muslim's have the spiritual experience in their head.The Christian has the heart chakra spiritual exp.Some from all faiths do get full enlightenment mind, in fact lots do.I truly believe all men women can do this.Bigger than any gene or lack of (blind faith at mo though).To be fair i cant give this too much energy as this off the top of my head again.Can get too heavy obsessive for some and not healthy so prob my last post on this,as obsessed with my real pash at mo 8) Won't be online much as busy too.Hectic in fact meh. On a fun note check out "Kirlian photography.That fascinated me for a while.Guy taking pictures tesla coil involved and his third eye taking pics of weirdness the eye couldn't see.Truly weird.Also hints of people in a certain physical state catching the same weirdness no tesla coil.Their brain third eye via camera created/witnessed who knows but takes some explaining,Can't go anywhere with it just magnetic/electric fun weird. cheers |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: Amos Date: 01 Apr 13 - 05:46 PM There is such a thing as "nothing" but it is not found in the inventory of space, time, energy and matter. According to the mystics, anyway, the true "zeroeth state" is reached when one has let go of the attachments to form, energy, etc., and is contemplating the origin of thought itself. This is much less common an occurence than one might imagine, given the popularity of Eastern theories and the practice of yoga, meditation, etc. Living in a culture that continuously returns the attention to forms and times makes it tricky. But that doesn't mean it ain't there, as the spinster told the Bishop. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 01 Apr 13 - 04:49 PM >>>Jack, this new idea of something being "nothing" is not found in conventional science text books today. The definition is changing.<<< The definitions of space and matter I refer to are found in science books and have not changed. If you want to talk pseudo-physics you may get more traction and interest by starting a thread. >>> They are finding that the BIg Bang may have started from something rather than nothing. There are quantum elements that are being discovered.<<< No expert in science says that the Big Bang started from "nothing." They say it started from a singularity. No information escapes from a singularity so it cannot be known. There is a big difference between "We cannot know" and "In the beginning, there was nothing. >>>There is no universal acceptance of this theory however research is being done on it.<<< See above. >>>Regarding the division found in religions, the character of Christ in the King James Version is ambiguous at best. The only model worthwhile in the entire book in my opinion is the Beatitudes which are hardly consistent with other attributions to Jesus. Still, this is mythology and not verifiable by any empirical means. Jesus' character is divided.<<< The "Jesus character" is very consistent given that the descriptions are linear through time. First part of his ministry he was more aggressive and threw tables. Then he mellowed and became more forgiving and self-sacrificing. >>>Do Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, or (fill in the blanks) hold other's values as sacred as their own? I don't think so. There are plenty of wars for evidence. I would doubt any religious person would hold atheist views as sacred.<<< You just said that they don't even respect the views of different sects in their own religion, didn't you? Why would atheists get special treatment? >>>When we discuss religion, we are talking about different ideas even within the same religion which is not monolithic. <<< Yeah. and there are different ideas in every other field as well. No human belief system is monolithic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 01 Apr 13 - 04:32 PM "You've got to walk away from this, JtS--and don't look back, or you'll turn to a pillar of salt. " I'm thinking about it. Does turning into salt cure a headache? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: Stringsinger Date: 01 Apr 13 - 04:27 PM Jack, this new idea of something being "nothing" is not found in conventional science text books today. The definition is changing. They are finding that the BIg Bang may have started from something rather than nothing. There are quantum elements that are being discovered. There is no universal acceptance of this theory however research is being done on it. Regarding the division found in religions, the character of Christ in the King James Version is ambiguous at best. The only model worthwhile in the entire book in my opinion is the Beatitudes which are hardly consistent with other attributions to Jesus. Still, this is mythology and not verifiable by any empirical means. Jesus' character is divided. Do Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, or (fill in the blanks) hold other's values as sacred as their own? I don't think so. There are plenty of wars for evidence. I would doubt any religious person would hold atheist views as sacred. When we discuss religion, we are talking about different ideas even within the same religion which is not monolithic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: GUEST,Stim Date: 01 Apr 13 - 04:01 PM You've got to walk away from this, JtS--and don't look back, or you'll turn to a pillar of salt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: Ed T Date: 01 Apr 13 - 03:48 PM ""We lose our hostile sense of ''them'' by getting to know people different from ourselves. They are no longer ''them'', but ''us''. Beyond our different (religious) beliefs and nationalities...imagine a common human identity sacred to us all. Accepting that, we would hold each other's values as sacred as our own. If that sounds familiar, the founders of the world's great religions said much the same"". Four interesting perspectives on religion in the attached: does-religion-unite-or-divide? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or...... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 01 Apr 13 - 03:06 PM GfS, I don't understand what you are saying here. >>>Well, Jack, our founding fathers, wanted to be free of Europe's tyranny of both religion and their banking system and taxation...so, in drafting the Constitution, they rejected the Divine Right of Kings as being sovereign....and put forth that the PEOPLE are sovereign!!!! ..and they based their premise on the Christian/Judea idea that one's will, should NOT intrude over another person's rights...in other words, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'..... so your statement, "It is probable that that definition was written by a layperson, not a scientist, Possibly a lawyer." is somewhat interesting, because lawyers have used slick language and fraud, to remove us away from the premise of our founding fathers....but they sure get paid well for it! How about the rest of us? <<< Since you quote this "It is probable that that definition was written by a layperson, not a scientist, Possibly a lawyer." and have posted the whole thing twice. I will say that lawyers have too much power in our western democracies. For the most part lawyers write the laws and they do it in a way that benefits lawyers. I suspect they are not evil. I suspect that like most professions, they overvalue their own contributions, but they are in a unique position of being able to reward themselves. The definition of the American Atheists is fine as far as it goes. It was composed for Non-scientific lay people SCOTUS, by lawyers, and while the sciences may not be quite right and pointed out by Mr. Shaw and others on this thread. The science does not matter because the argument on a religious matter. |
