BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?

Subject: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 May 13 - 08:14 PM

Does each one speak for all the rest or do they have denominations and schisms as spiritual and religious people do?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 May 13 - 08:17 PM

Give it a bloody rest FFS.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 May 13 - 08:21 PM

I've rested for more than a month. Where have you been?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 May 13 - 08:31 PM

Rested for a month and can't even spell the bloody word in the thread title!!

I'm athy

I'm athier

I'm athiest!

And don't lie, you've popped up recently. Next time you give it a rest, kindly make it permanent!

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 May 13 - 08:56 PM

That really stings coming from an individual whose grasp of the definition of the word "rest" is on par with that of his idiosyncratic definition of the word "science"

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 May 13 - 09:01 PM

I'm glad you feel stung. Two things. You have not rested for a month. You've posted in the last few days. Please don't force me to dig up your contribution. And I have never obliged you or anyone else with my definition of the word science.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 May 13 - 09:12 PM

How many anti-atheist threads is it you've started now, Wacko? Is an anti-atheist thread the same as an anti-athiest thread? I must say, I'm absolutely amazed at the fundamental depth of your shallowness. But do continue to provide the entertainment. At least, if nothing else you're serving to give the lie to Joe's equal-but-opposite characterisation of atheists versus belief-crazies!

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 May 13 - 09:31 PM

I suppose there might be an underlying anti-atheist intent in the opening post, but on the surface it seems like a reasonable question. In such situations perhaps it's sensible to treat it as such.

There are of course different styles/schools/traditions of atheism, and quite sharp disagreements between them. For example I've seen some articles written by atheists which have been very acerbic about Richard Dawkins, describing him as a kind of fundamentalist.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Elmore
Date: 31 May 13 - 09:47 PM

see facesofatheists tumblr.com/

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: frogprince
Date: 31 May 13 - 11:07 PM

If all the atheists in the world were layed end to end...

Some of them would by lying in very uncomfortable places...

And you probably couldn't tell them from a bunch of Baptists laid out the same way if neither bunch was talking about their beliefs at the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 May 13 - 11:35 PM

Am I morally bound to correct the spelling of the word "Atheist" in the thread title?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 May 13 - 11:40 PM

'Can all Atheists be lumped together?'

Sure, they're called 'unbelievers', silly!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 12:04 AM

Joe!! if you correct it shaws snotty comment will be wasted.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 12:07 AM

The answer is "no". They can't. No more than all religious people can be lumped together. Or all Chimps, for that matter. You'll find all different kinda viewpoints in each supposedly identifiable group.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 12:49 AM

Thank you, Chongo. If you would only brush your teeth, your words would be a breath of fresh air....

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans sailor seaman
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 01:53 AM

Can all sailors be lumped together?

Hello Sailor!

I must say you do seem to have a masochist streak in you. I suspected you encouraged people to laugh at your absurd views but it took this utterly illogical thread to confirm it.

Of course all atheists can be lumped together. How do you want to lump them? Those who recognise the term atheist? Those who are irreligious? Those who prefer pilchards to sardines? Those who sigh at your ramblings?

Can believers be lumped together?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 02:15 AM

A mind incapable of discernment is perfectly capable of lumping all kinds of things together that should be differentiated. Just think how many people think Fascists and Socialists and Communists are all pretty much from the same camp. It is enough to make the thinkers reel in their nightshirts! That doesn't mean there is any empirical standard allowingt he lumping, or disallowing it. It's just that stupid is pretty endemic and takes liberties on its way to absolute mental sloth whenever it can.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 02:40 AM

Classifications of all kinds are there to meet a need. For some purposes it makes perfect sense and is completely accurate to simply combine much of the world as 'theist' and all the rest as 'atheist'. In other contexts it makes much more sense to separate the theists into Hindi, Sikh, Christian and so on. So it seems to be a legitimate question whether 'atheist' can also be divided like that. And I think they can, but the demarcations are fewer. Many, many atheists use science as the foundation of their world-view, but by no means all. And even those that do will differ dramatically in the extent of their scientific understanding, from so superficial that it cannot really be called understanding at all, through to a very through understanding of the method and one or more subjects. Then they will differ in attitude: some atheists have a passive approach and are content to let anyone else believe what they like, others can't resist trying to prove everyone who is a theist is wrong. So I get back to my original point: yes, you can split either of these groups up or combine them. You do so based on what you want to discuss.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 03:42 AM

Jack the sailor, have you ever started a thread that wasn't designed to start a fight ?

Dave H,[atheist]

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 04:32 AM

No, not really. There are various sorts of atheist. I always think an important differentiator is what made you an atheist in the first place.* In my case, it occurred to me when I was a teenager that if there was a God [or a god, any god], we wouldn't have to piss and shit, which are a bloody inconvenient anti-life nuisance even when they are working properly and absolutely intolerable when not, which no deity worthy of the name would ever have created us lumbered with. That seemed, & still seems, to me a simple and sufficient reason for disbelief in any deity, without having to look much further; tho of course one does read one's nice Dawkins and Hitchens &c just to keep up.

Anyone else share my motivation to be 'lumped together' with me? Or am I just a one-of-a-kind atheist in this particular?

~M~


*I thought of starting a separate thread about what first turned atheists from the religion they were born & brought up to or whatever; but then I thought how much we have suffered before from several different 'atheist' threads going on at the same time, so I make my point here.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 05:46 AM

You might as well call having to eat and drink "bloody inconvenient anti-life nuisances", M. I wouldn't prefer to be without any of the bodily requirements.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 06:08 AM

Please yourself, K. Just wait till you're older and they become progressively more difficult - the ingestion as well as the excretion. The ageing process as a whole, together with such phenomena as childbirth, all militate for me against any concept of a divinity that shapes our ends. "Intelligent design", piffle! Couldn't conceive of more bloody unintelligent design...

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,concerened
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 06:47 AM

O no not again!!!.Cant you lot find anything else more constructive to occupy your time?; like maybe voting or joining a Trade Union?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans sailor seaman
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 07:11 AM

M. Nothing makes you an atheist in the first place.

You begin an atheist. Superstition isn't hard wired in a person.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 07:25 AM

'Can all Atheists be lumped together?'

Sure, they're called 'unbelievers', silly!

No we're not! You see, this is the whole problem with these bitter non-atheists: they simply have to define everyone on their terms! It's a sort of insecurity, I suppose. As Musket points out, belief is not the default position of the human race. Rather, it's a baleful bolt-on which does nothing save instil fear and stunt the intellect.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 07:25 AM

You begin an atheist

I disagree. You begin as an agnostic, and at some stage most start to ask 'what does it all mean?' and begin to reach some views in one direction or another.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 07:41 AM

How can you be agnostic about something you've never heard of? I was blissfully unaware that agnostic meant the same thing as blissfully unaware...

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Elmore
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 09:08 AM

Question: What do you get when you cross an agnostic with a Jehovah's Witness? Answer: Someone who rings your doorbell for no apparent reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 02:03 PM

Jack the sailor, have you ever started a thread that wasn't designed to start a fight ?

Dave H,[atheist]

Hundreds, probably thousands.

Also I don't see any fighting or even ill will on this one except among those who should not be lumped.

I am tempted to ask if certain people who should not be lumped can siply discuss a point without fighting.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 02:37 PM

"You begin an atheist."

I don't think so. Going by memories of my own early childhood...and observation of many others...I'd say that people begin as very curious little beings, full of energy, and hungry to find out everything they can about the fascinating world all around them...NOT with any beliefs yet other than "I am" and "my parents are" "and so what's all this other stuff?"...and just wanting to investigate everything.

Thus they begin neither as atheists nor as "believers" (in something religious). They simply begin as curious people who want to find out about everthing, that's all. They neither believe nor disbelieve in a "God", because they haven't even been introduced to that idea yet or given it any thought.

Then their parents and everyone else around them set about teaching them whatever they think "reality" is....what's real and important and what isn't...which is strictly a question of opinion, of course, that opinion usually deriving from their familiar culture...and they gradually adopt a varied set of beliefs that are passed on to them by the older people around them...and generally agreed upon by most of their peers.

In my case, I acquired the general viewpoint of atheism early, since that was evidently what my parents believed....and like any other child at an early age, I assumed my parents had "the answers". (Ta-Da! Big drum roll...)

Later in adolescence one tends to assume quite the opposite about one's parents! ;-D But that's just part of growing up. Still later one usually finds out that they were probably right about some stuff they told you...and wrong about some stuff they told you....and one attempts to move on to the next thing.

In any case, atheism is the definite belief and assertion that there IS NO God, and I don't think that people start out even thinking about stuff like that. They begin to think about it once they start hearing a lot of opinions from other people about it...either pro or con. Whoever they trust and respect the most at that time is whoever they will be most inclined to believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 02:54 PM

I neither don't believe in God nor assert there is no God. I've never said either of those things, yet I'm supposed to one of them there rampant militant truculent evangelistic certainty-ridden atheists.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 03:26 PM

Enough of this fucking nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 03:29 PM

You begin an Atheist

Humanity began as atheists; it's very hard for individual humans to do that because of the accumulations of religious crap that's embedded into our culture. We're picking up on it almost from the off.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 03:43 PM

THe notion that categorization makes perfect sense is highly suspect. The minute you start placing individuals in a category, you intentionally deprive them of their unique differences, for the sake of uniform application of a label. In doing this you inevitably alter the context for most of them. This is why sociology is such a ridiculous subject. No generalizations about people--including this one--are any damn good. I think Bob Dylan said that...

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 04:29 PM

The only truly rational position is that of the agnostic, who maintains that the existence—or non-existence—of a supreme being is not only unknown, but probably unknowable.

And no, all atheists cannot be lumped together, any more that all Christians (over 150 different denominations, some strictly fundamentalist, some very liberal and secular in their outlook), Muslims (Shiite, Sunni, Taliban, etc.), Judaism (Chasidic, Orthodox, Reform, Conservative), nor the other religions of the world.

To follow "All atheists," "All Christians," "All Muslims," "All Jews," with some blanket statement that implies all members of that group merely takes one's own ignorance and prejudice and puts it on parade for all to see.

"All Indians walk in single file. At least the one that I saw did!"

Some atheists are militant and argumentative and take fierce delight in going after the issue hammer and tongs. Some are quiet and you don't know what they believe, if anything. They simply don't talk about it with others. I know a lot of Christians who are this way as well. Quiet about their beliefs. If the Seventh Day Adventists come to the door, the quiet atheist merely smiles, says, "No, thank you," and softly closes the door.

Thus endeth the sermon for today.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 04:35 PM

"We're picking up on it (religion) almost from the off."

Not if our parents were atheists, Blandiver. What we are picking up on "from the off" in that case is that religion is silly and without basis.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 05:51 PM

There do seem pretty good reasons for thinking that human beings are in fact hard-wired for belief in some kind of God, as evidenced by the virtual universality of this in human cultures at all historical times.

That doesn't in itself mean that it's a correct belief, but it does mean it is a natural beliief. In general people need to believe in God. Whether our bellief is justified is another question.

And of course there are people of whom this general condition is not true. Whether they are the sighted excption in the Kingdom of the Blind, or the other wat round is open to argument. But either way, they are the exception.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 07:10 PM

What we are picking up on "from the off" in that case is that religion is silly and without basis.

I don't think we automatically follow what our parents think - I know I certainly didn't, and my kids have found their own way which doesn't echo my feelings at all. Doubts, options, opinions, possibilities, impossibilities are all part of our wider cultural socialisation which comes from outside the home. For me it mostly came from Sun Ra. Space is the Place!

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 07:47 PM

Gods among primitive humanity, were simply expressions of the need to identify those forces of nature which they could neither control nor understand.

There would be one God who walked on legs of fire (lightning), another whose voice could be heard complaining about the fireworks.

One whose breath blew down strong trees and destroyed crops, etc. etc.

A way for simple unscientific minds to explain their observations of wind and weather, volcanoes and earthquakes.

Nowadays, most of humanity is aware of the science behind natural phenomena (creationists excepted), but some people still need to believe in those atavistic concepts.

So they have whittled it down to one God, and invented religion to justify that idea.

If there were no religions and no believers in God, they wouldn't have needed to invent atheists to have somebody to rail against for supplying "evil" to balance their "goodness".

It's having somebody to whom one can feel superior!
_____________________________________________________________________

""*I thought of starting a separate thread about what first turned atheists from the religion they were born & brought up to or whatever;""

Mike, Mike Mike! When will you learn the difference between faith and religion?

If Atheists show no belief, it is "God" in whose existence they do not believe. Religion is a totally different kettle of fish which is, absent the Deity, simply irrelevant.

My point of view is somewhat different, in that I have faith without religion.

I believe in something (call it God, if you wish! I don't anthropomorphise it), but it doesn't require any input from wise men in frocks or turbans, with their agendas to tell me what to think.

Insofar as I have declined to join their clubs, I am more in tune with what the religious call "Atheists".

Insofar as I have faith, in that aspect I am aligned only with that in which I have faith, a club of two equal members.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,concerened
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 07:51 PM

I agree with Q

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 09:25 PM

The word "Atheist" effectively lumps all people that believe there is no god.It doesn't mean that they have anything else in common.English is a nice language. It should be used more often than it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Ebbie
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 10:23 PM

Does no one else read it as "Can all Athiests be HUMPED together?" Or is it that I am just weird?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 11:07 PM

Refer back to my earlier post of 01 Jun 13 - 02:37 PM, Blandiver, and you'll see that I already took that into account.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 11:12 PM

Anyway, it's pretty much useless talking about this stuff in a crowd of people on a forum. Too many cooks confuse the soup. If any two people here could sit down and quietly talk about it at length just to each other, without other people jumping in, they might actually reach the point of achieving some useful understanding of each other's point of view...but as it is...given the sniping and oneupmanship that occurs in the presence of an internet crowd...it's hopeless. That's why I seldom get involved in serious discussions here any longer.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Jun 13 - 11:49 PM

Don't patronise me please, Don. I am perfectly well aware of the distinction you make between faith and religion, and when I wrote 'religion', that was the one I meant -- i.e the formal usages and organisation into which the faith of the family into which my subject was born had been organised. My point holds -- that formalisation, as well as the faith itself, was what I had found unnecessary. I think even your 'faith' a bit otiose, in fact, not myself feeling the need for even that much of an anagogic approach to my environment.

So they had better not lump you & me together too readily for a start had they?

Regards

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 05:05 AM

Little Hawk makes some interesting points. Children have to be taught the formalities of atheism or religion. However I think they are almost natural mystics and are highly superstitious little creatures - some more than others of course and it usually fades with age, as outside influences inform beliefs about such things. All kinds of taboos and magical ideas permeate kids minds, and they mostly arise from within not without, that's why they generally don't share them with adults who categorise them either as childish imaginings (atheist parents) or evil ones (religious parents). Be they the very real friend that no-one else can see or hear, or the knowledge that they used to have another family, or that the old tree houses a malevolent spirit.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 05:30 AM

""So they had better not lump you & me together too readily for a start had they?""

I'm sorry that you felt patronised Mike. That was not my intent.

However, my point also stands!

Absent the belief in a deity, those formalities are simply irrelevant.

What is wrong, in your opinion, with that statement which, as far as I can see, has the cart and horse in the correct relationship.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 05:43 AM

Refer back to my earlier post of 01 Jun 13 - 02:37 PM, Blandiver, and you'll see that I already took that into account.

I didn't see that one, LH. I agree. I'd say religion and music are similar beasts & carry the same sort of passion & ubiquity the immediate manifestation of which is much diversity underpinned by conviction & devotion. Thus, to the religious I say : a) It's all a matter of personal taste, and b) They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong. Otherwise I'm naturally irked by those who have chosen carry around in their hearts the notion that humanity is damned / sinful by default just because they're not getting any.

Folkies look at me askance when I say I don't like Bob Dylan (though I loved his Theme Time Radio Hour) but I adore Michael Hurley. I spend much time immersed in the Max Hunter Folk Song Collection & the Harry Smith Anthology and I dare say the dreamy mystic awe I feel whilst listen to Hoyt Ming's Indian War Whoop is on account of its numninosity (or numinousness / numinescence). Similarly when I listen to Mrs Pearl Brewer of Pocahantas, Arkensas singing The Cruel Mother I'm in a space which no revival singer can take me to. I derive as much joy & serenity from these manifestations of a truly idiosyncratic vernacular craft as I do from tipping medieval misericords in out-of-the-way medieval churches in the English countryside and exploring the delights thereunder. Otherwise - I can go along with the trickster Sun Ra's Cosmic Philosophy, likewise in listening to Bitches Brew I can well believe that Miles Davis was truly a dark magus. I am regularly emotionally & spiritually wasted by Henry Purcell's sacred & secular writing, and (even though I despise the UK class-caste system) lament that I wasn't born a little higher up the social / cultural ladder (!) so might at least be able to play it.

The truly great thing is that it's different for all of us; the bad thing is when people arrive at a majority consensus and insist that it must be right for everyone else. Collectivity in terms of commonality is born from an appreciation of that uniqueness; it nurtures it, cherishes it, celebrates the fact that true unity must always exist in diversity. It begins when we're born, and it ends when die, hopefully smiling, thankful as we return back into the cosmic scheme from which we came.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 06:13 AM

Ah, no, Don. The formalities are all part of it. My late father had no belief, didn't keep the dietary laws or the Sabbath, cut his hair & shaved, didn't really think there was a deity, but wouldn't have anything to do with Liberal or Reform Synagogues or any such; but only, as he put it, the real one ~~ not that he was a member or ever went, but if he had that was where he would have gone. "I am a non-practising, non-believing Orthodox Jew," he would say.

See where I am coming from?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 06:59 AM

The only truly rational position is that of the agnostic, who maintains that the existence—or non-existence—of a supreme being is not only unknown, but probably unknowable.

I think this needs qualifying. There are three distinct kinds of "agnostic", two of which are entirely honourable and the other which is highly disreputable and cowardly. First, you've heard of religion, you were taught it, you don't bother with it except for weddings and you don't really give a damn. Entirely sensible and honourable. Second, you have given the matter much thought, taking all the evidence into account, and are highly critical of the concept of a God who breaks every known law of nature and who is infinitely more inexplicable than all the things he's supposed to be there to explain. You conclude that the chances of his existence are so small that you might as well get on with your life as if he isn't there, even though you can't (and don't want to) actually prove it. Highly honourable and sensible. Third, you assert that you don't know either way, he could exist but he might not and you're happy with that (after all, it chucks in a bit of insurance to boot). You haven't been anything like critical enough of the supposed evidence and, frankly, all that religious background of yours has made you feel a bit scared of saying he doesn't exist. You're a fence-sitter. Unnecessary and disreputable. Get off your knees!

Of course, the second category comprises those we call atheists. Far from "not believing in God", or stating with certainty that he doesn't exist, we are simply waiting for the evidence that we are pretty confident will not come along (a blazing chariot of fire from the heavens would do it for me, though your mileage may vary). We merely shrug in believers' general direction.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 08:37 AM

Wotthehell has rationality got to do with this?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 03:47 PM

I am reminded of the story of the dying agnostic!

He sent for a priest to administer last rites, who asked him "Do you renounce the Devil and all his works?"

The agnostic thought for a moment, then replied "Do you really think, Father, that this is the right time for making enemies?"

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: John P
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 04:07 PM

Does each one speak for all the rest or do they have denominations and schisms as spiritual and religious people do?

This is just another transparent attempt to say that non-belief is a form of belief. Jack, can you tell us why you keep saying this, why you keep starting contentious threads on this subject? You keep asking questions like this while ignoring being told hundreds of times that atheists have nothing in common with each other other than the fact that they don't believe in gods. So . . . if you're not gong to believe what people say on the subject, why do you keep asking the same question over and over?

What is it about atheism that bothers you so much? Why aren't you asking yourself that question?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 05:06 PM

Little Hawk:"....Going by memories of my own early childhood...and observation of many others...I'd say that people begin as very curious little beings, full of energy, and hungry to find out everything they can about the fascinating world all around them...NOT with any beliefs yet other than "I am"..."

..and Jesus said, "Unless you become as little children, you cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven"....To make that in context, 'becoming as little children' refers to being 'Childlike'...as opposed to 'Childish!'

..and as far as religion goes vs, a God of Spirit....
In the beginning God created man in His own image....and ever since, man has been trying to return the favor!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 05:13 PM

"Believing in God doesn't mean having anything to do with organised religion"

"If people didn't believe in God there'd be no place for any religions"

Not quotes, but my summery of two views that have been expressed a few times in this thread, and similar ones. But I think there's something wrong with both.

The thing is, we humans are social creatures. We aren't just individuals. If we believe in God there's a lot to be said for expressing that in some kind of shared activity. As is the case if we go in for playing music.

And even where people don't believe in God communal religious activity can also be a way of providing them with something they find satisfies needs they possess.

And in fact there are religious traditions which are essentially "God free", such as some forms of Buddhism.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 05:26 PM

>>This is just another transparent attempt to say that non-belief is a form of belief. Jack,<<

Not really John P. It is an ironic attempt to show that Christians cannot be lumped together. It is an apparent dogma of Atheists and all degrees of God mockers here on this forum that you consider yourselves each and everyone unique thinkers. I am just wondering if you all might extend that courtesy to those outside your self-created group that cannot be a group or a category without apparently offending some of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 05:47 PM

In the beginning God created man in His own image

Which amazeth Adam when he contemplateth that God hath putteth the sewage outfall nexteth to the recreation area. God must be a bloody funny shape, museth Adam, unless the bastard doth hatheth a laugh at my expense...

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 05:59 PM

Hmmm. Just had a thought here while sippin' my drink.

They could be lumped together if we was to stuff 'em all into a really gigantic trash compactor. One about the size of New Jersey.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Joe_F
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 06:12 PM

If you don't like us, you can lump us.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 06:54 PM

Chongo's suggestion reminds me of Les Barker's suggested method for getting a camel through the eye of a needle - pass it through a liquidiser first.

I'm not sure if that would work for getting a rich man into the Kingdom of Heaven, but it might be worth trying.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 07:25 PM

W. C. Fields was full of good observations, such as "There comes a time in the affairs of man when he must take the bull by the tail and face the situation."

It is said that when Fields was on his death bed, a friend visited him and found him leafing through a copy of the Bible. The friend observed that he was unaware that Fields was religious and was surprised at what he was reading. Fields responded:

"I'm looking for loop holes!"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 07:33 PM

The laugh was at yer expense, Steve. Take a look in the mirror! ;-D

Ook! Ook!

- Chongo

p.s. Anyways, all creatures are made in God's image, see? Coz everything is made that way, includin' mountains, stars, comets, oceans, bugs, rainbows, atoms, what have you! It's all originatin' from God, so it can't help bein' made in God's image. Just so happens that them people who wrote the Bible were kinda exclusively focused just on "Man"...bein' as they were men themselves, so that's why they said man is made in God's image. If they'd-a been rabbits, they'd-a been focused on rabbits instead and said rabbits was made in God's image, see? This is why Chimps usually figger that Chimps are the closest thing to bein' made in God's image. Everyone makes the assumption that fits best what they usually focus on...themselves! And you oughta know that, buddy. Like I said, just look in the mirror. Whoa! Scary sight, ain't it? You gotta wonder what the hell God had in mind. Now, if you'd been born handsome...like me...you wouldn't have that problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: John P
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 07:35 PM

It is an apparent dogma of Atheists and all degrees of God mockers here on this forum that you consider yourselves each and everyone unique thinkers. I am just wondering if you all might extend that courtesy to those outside your self-created group that cannot be a group or a category without apparently offending some of you.

Jack, none of this describes me, nor many others, and if you think it does you've not been paying attention. I should also point out the irony of clumping a bunch of people into a group so you can complain about them clumping you into a group. Not to mention using loaded terms like 'dogma' and 'God mockers' while complaining about people talking rudely to you.

If you want to talk about your perception that Christians are all treated as if they weren't individuals, you should talk about it. It looks like you had the first part of the conversation in your head before you started typing. I don't agree that the all the atheists on Mudcat act the way you describe. I don't think it really happens much at all. The only common trait that believers have on these threads is the same (except opposite) as for atheists: they believe in God.

I agree that there are a lot of, but certainly not all of, atheists here who express anger or other dissatisfaction with religion in general. This is because organized religions have done and continue to do many evil things. You'll just have to learn to live with it. Without, hopefully, making assumptions and statements about other people just because they are part of a group. Being part of that group has no bearing on the personalities or communication styles of the members, so grouping us on those topics doesn't really stand up to logical analysis. The only true statement you can make about all atheists as a group is that they don't believe in gods.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 07:49 PM

A bit like all vegetarians having a shared objection to eating meat. If that includes Hitler it may be embarrassing, but it isn't relevant to discussing whether it's a good idea or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 08:36 PM

Under no circumstances, Chongo, ask me to look in a mirror. No man who was once 11 stone but who is now one and a half times the man he used to be should be asked to look in a mirror.

I agree that there are a lot of, but certainly not all of, atheists here who express anger or other dissatisfaction with religion in general. This is because organized religions have done and continue to do many evil things.

Well this is true, but the argument troubles me somewhat. You won't catch me defending religion in a month of Sundays, but I'm a bit hesitant about this bad-stuff-done-in-the-name-of-religion mantra. I don't think that most of the stuff alleged to have been done in the name of religion was any such thing. Bad stuff is done in the name of greed, or imperialism, or whatever, but religion is all to often used as the covering excuse. Which is not to say that bad things are never done in the name of religion, far from it. But bad things are done in the name of all sorts of things. I won't single out religion in spite of the fact that I think religion is by far the worst thing that has ever happened to the human race. Next time you hear of something horrid done in the name of religion, ask yourself whether religion was just the excuse, the means of justifying.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: John P
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 10:16 PM

I agree with you Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 11:18 PM

McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jun 13 - 05:13 PM
"Believing in God doesn't mean having anything to do with organised religion"

Amen!

"If people didn't believe in God there'd be no place for any religions"

Actually,..."If people DID believe in God there'd be no place for any religions"

"Not quotes, but my summery of two views that have been expressed a few times in this thread, and similar ones. But I think there's something wrong with both."

Yup!
"
The thing is, we humans are social creatures. We aren't just individuals."

Perhaps were really are ONE!


"If we believe in God there's a lot to be said for expressing that in some kind of shared activity. As is the case if we go in for playing music."

AMEN..AMEN...AMEN..Halleluiah!..AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"And even where people don't believe in God communal religious activity can also be a way of providing them with something they find satisfies needs they possess."

Usually Physical, emotional or mental......but not Spiritual!...and some of them aren't really needs...They're "I think I need"

Thank You McGrath....some nourishing thoughts!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 01:08 AM

John P. I have never said that non-belief is a form of religious belief I have said that self-identified non' believers are often often as dogmatic and possess many of the negative bullying qualities of the evangelicals that you and Steve Shaw and and pee shooter decry so often. With you three it goes beyond comedy as you tend to go out of your way to prove that point nearly every day. I would prefer that you three never respond to me because I find myself having to balance my compassion for you against your childish hunger for a response.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 01:23 AM

Steve: indeed. See W B Yeats again ~~

"Love has pitched his mansion in
The place of excrement;"

       Crazy Jane Talks With The Bishop

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 02:24 AM

Can all Atheists be lumped together?

No, nobody can be lumped together.

Get over it.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 02:36 AM

Well, they could....if they weren't so hung up in divisions........

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 02:37 AM

Look at what Steve Shaw said: Well this is true, but the argument troubles me somewhat. You won't catch me defending religion in a month of Sundays, but I'm a bit hesitant about this bad-stuff-done-in-the-name-of-religion mantra. I don't think that most of the stuff alleged to have been done in the name of religion was any such thing. Bad stuff is done in the name of greed, or imperialism, or whatever, but religion is all to often used as the covering excuse. Which is not to say that bad things are never done in the name of religion, far from it. But bad things are done in the name of all sorts of things. I won't single out religion in spite of the fact that I think religion is by far the worst thing that has ever happened to the human race. Next time you hear of something horrid done in the name of religion, ask yourself whether religion was just the excuse, the means of justifying.

Hey, I agree with that - although I think I'd say that people do bad stuff, simply because they want do do bad stuff, and everything else is an excuse.

-Joe offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 03:11 AM

Joe Offer: "I agree with that - although I think I'd say that people do bad stuff, simply because they want do do bad stuff, and everything else is an excuse."


All people??..or are you just lumping them altogether? ;~D

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 03:52 AM

Is it fair to say that no people should be lumped with other people??

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans respectability
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 05:07 AM

We are all lumped as Mudcatters. Sorry but that's how it is.

Little Hawk questions the idea of atheism being the default starting point. Well considering religion is a man made construct, how can it be anything else? we invented and perpetuate superstition so without us it doesn't exist.

Having atheist parents is not necessarily the starting gate either. I don't go in for Morris dancing but I don't recall telling my boys it was an irrelevant comfort blanket for shallow people.

Ok. Between consenting adults and all that, but bells and polkas? ??

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: John P
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 10:19 AM

John P. I have never said that non-belief is a form of religious belief. . .

No, you've just started many threads with that as the conversational starting point. If it quacks like a duck, etc.

I have said that self-identified non' believers are often often as dogmatic and possess many of the negative bullying qualities of the evangelicals that you and Steve Shaw and and pee shooter decry so often.

I am a self-identified non-believer and I don't ever talk about it except when a believer says rude things about me. I don't like it when politicians pass laws that are based on religion, but that's not because I'm an atheist. ALL the atheists I actually know are the same. What about the atheists you actually know?

Give examples of me bullying, hectoring, or being dogmatic, please. Talk is cheap. Let's see your proof. Let's examine it piece by piece until we can reach an agreement about what's actually been said. Too much work? Then withdraw your comments. In other words, put up or shut up. As they guy who has castigated a bunch of the atheists on these threads of yours multiple times, I would find your comments laughable if they weren't so rude.

Jack, I used to have a lot of respect for you. I used to usually agree with what you had to say. The last few months have destroyed that. You've been acting like a spoiled child. What is it about atheism that bothers you so much?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: olddude
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 11:29 AM

Oh for fuck sake, how about fishing instead .. bass are biting

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 12:17 PM

The default starting point is the statement (and the awareness) "I am". That is the beginning of what a child experiences. It is also, curiously enough, the origin of both religion and atheism.

From there one can eventually move toward either religion ("I am not alone.") or atheism ("I am alone.") but it takes awhile before that happens.

Whether it happens one way or the other depends on many, many different factors and experiences.

Many people experience both viewpoints, but at different times in their lives.

Belief in the traditional idea of a "God" is not necessarily required, but may occur in the case of "I am not alone." It may even occur in the case of "I am alone.", but in that case the "God" perceived is seen as a threat, not a comfort. One can base a religion on the statement "I am alone" too...but not a very pleasant one. To be "alone" is strictly a matter of survival. Most religions suggest that there is something more positive and meaningful to aim for in life than just survival. And, to be fair, some of the non-religious people suggest so too...if they are so inclined. ;-) High ideals can be found in either camp.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Musket
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 01:23 PM

Not sure that atheism is a statement that says "I am alone."

Not sure it is a statement for that matter.

Sorry LittleHawk, I do understand your point to a degree and your post above has much to commend it, but it is built on the premise that religion and atheism are two sides of the same coin. One is an assertion and the other is not sharing that assertion. I fail to see that not being interested nor curious about a metaphysical stance or wishing to abide by rules of a club equates to having a stance on that club. I don't collect stamps, attend beetle drives or go potholing, but as has been said before on these posts, those who participate in these activities do not to my knowledge have a term of scorn for those who don't share their hobby. Hence atheist is for me a term used by those with faith in the same way as I complain about door to door God botherers.

I am not religious and whilst I know that many of my ancestors for a few generations were methodists, (I live two miles from where the Wesleys were born and raised,) I personally would have a problem describing the differences between Methodism, Catholicism, Church of England or The United Reform Church. I am not aware of, nor take an interest in the difference between shia and sunni Muslims.

Not that I hold anybody in contempt merely for having faith, just that I have none myself, so am not curious about how their differences mean anything to me.

Mind you, Goofus shouting AMEN a lot is interesting... Naw, it isn't really.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 01:45 PM

I'm an atheist by default. I never understood why anyone would believe in a supreme being who only got/gets credit for the good stuff that happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 01:56 PM

"We are all lumped as Mudcatters. Sorry but that's how it is."

This of course is true, Musket, but when one starts adding stuff to it such as "Mudcatters are all wild-eyed Liberals," or "Mudcatters are all self-taught musicians," or imply such statements, you're walking off the canyon rim and hanging in mid-air, like Wile E. Coyote before he looks down, beads of perspiration break out on his forehead, and he hurtles to the canyon floor.

Flat, unqualified statements like "Christians do or believe this," or "Atheists do or believe that," or any other collective group for that matter, is either sheer ignorance of the subject or lazy thinking.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 05:27 PM

'Religion' has about as much to do with God, as 'politics' have to do with serving as a statesman for freedom....which is about ZERO!

You start out with 'God' and 'religion' tears it down to meaning a bunch of meaningless rituals and fraudulent dogmatic rubbish. Politics, takes a free people and turns them into peasants and serfs, just for participants in meaningless and liberty choking programs of bondage and intrusion.....while both try to get away with as much as they can for the elitist slobs at the top.
Hurray for 'our side'...we're winning at losing, and taking everyone down with it!
....and yet, doesn't it 'feel' good to be 'righteous' and 'politically correct'?
Pig's vomit!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 05:28 PM

Good post, Musket. Maybe I'll PM you at some point and we can discuss it in some more depth.

By the way, I don't consider "atheist" to be a term used to denote scorn or contempt. To me, it's a neutral term. It simply means someone who does not believe there's a God (or gods)(or Heaven)(or Hell)(etc.).

I do not have scorn or contempt for that viewpoint. I don't know if there's a God or gods or Heaven or Hell or any of the other usual stuff along that line. But I am open to various possibilities that there might be this or that along that line, given that I simply don't know. And I'm very curious and concerned about the moral and ethical questions which are raised by and in religion, and that's mainly why I'm interested in religions (all of them, not just the Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition). I prefer to think that life has a noble and beautiful meaning and purpose, and most religions point strongly in that direction. That's what I like about them.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 06:38 PM

By the way, I don't consider "atheist" to be a term used to denote scorn or contempt. To me, it's a neutral term. It simply means someone who does not believe there's a God (or gods)(or Heaven)(or Hell)(etc.).

I do not have scorn or contempt for that viewpoint.

It does not mean any such thing. It means that a considerable amount of thought has led to the conclusion that a deity who breaks every known law and who is far more complicated and inexplicable than the stuff he's supposed to explain doesn't make sense.

I'm glad you don't have contempt for that "viewpoint". The trouble is, it isn't a viewpoint.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: gnu
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 06:52 PM

Haven't read any of the thread but I gotta say... only with a little milk. Skim milk. And some bran.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Jun 13 - 07:46 PM

Musket: "Mind you, Goofus shouting AMEN a lot is interesting..."

In regards to what McGrath was saying...and especially about his link to music..McGrath: "If we believe in God there's a lot to be said for expressing that in some kind of shared activity. As is the case if we go in for playing music."

....and then YOU turn around and say, "Not that I hold anybody in contempt merely for having faith..."

"A double minded man is unstable in all his ways".....guess who said that!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 12:12 AM

"It means that a considerable amount of thought has led to the conclusion that a deity who breaks every known law and who is far more complicated and inexplicable than the stuff he's supposed to explain doesn't make sense."

Steve, you have just erected a gigantic straw man to disagree with. I'm not him. I have never been the least bit inclined to believe in the sort of bizarre deity you describe above, and you do all those people who you imagine to be "those who aren't atheists" a great discredit to reduce them in your mind to such an inglorious and unlikely stereotype. You'd find that it doesn't fit a very great many of them at all.

In short, you're engaging in hyperbole, gross stereotyping...as ludicrous itself as the grotesque, ignorant fundamentalism that you are railing against. Don't assume that people who differ from you in some element of belief (or philosophy) are all idiots who believe in fundametalist fairy tales.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 01:02 AM

Well, in one sense language can be called "a man-made construct", but that doesn't stop it from being a crucial aspect of being human.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans sin
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 01:16 AM

Goofus. Was it perchance the little baby Jesus?

Just a wild guess mind. ...

I wasn't being neutral on faith or otherwise. I was taking the piss out of you ad usual. Not my fault you give good value for money and decent odds in the Illogical posts race.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 02:27 AM

Muskrat: "I wasn't being neutral on faith or otherwise. I was taking the piss out of you ad usual. Not my fault you give good value for money and decent odds in the Illogical posts race."

Huh??....Maybe it makes sense to you, but........(try again)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans the good professor
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 09:51 AM

Ok Goofus. Just for you I shall ask the good professor to explain in the usual way.

Ok boy?

Woof!

Tell him how it is then.

Woof Woof! Grrrrr. Grrrrr Woof!


(For our regular readers, both Goofus and the good professor are barking. The good professor however has the advantage of being my greyhound. )

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: John P
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 09:52 AM

Little Hawk, you've just hit on why these discussions can't get very real without a commonly shared definition of "god" and without a clear statement from the believers about what it is they actually believe.

But I think you're wrong about Steve's comments. In a discussion of atheism and belief, one has to assume the believers believe in gods. If they are Christians, one has to assume they think their god has taken a personal interest in their lives, listens to their prayers, and has performed miracles, and that Jesus was a deity. That is the minimum default position. I am fully aware that people who call themselves Christians are all over the map as far as what they actually believe, but we don't have any evidence that Steve's assessment of whether or not that belief makes any sense is incorrect in any way.

It could be said that you are erecting a straw man by willfully misunderstanding or trying to confuse the meaning of the word "god". Christians do actually believe in God, and that believe makes exactly as much sense as Steve said it does. If your beliefs are different, please share them with us so we can talk about them without having to use the default definitions of "god", "belief", and "religion".

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 10:28 AM



Yay! Let's hear it for Ignosticism.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 11:04 AM

Wow! Thanks, Snail... love it, particularly the notion that both atheism and agnosticism ate theocentric constructs!

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 11:15 AM

Or Little Hawk we can realize that the three Godless Amigos don't bother to figure out who they are talking to before they attack them and that is one of the things that makes them appear dogmatic and evangelical. They don't attack what is said in the discussion, they attack you, and all of us based upon their prejudices. They are as bad as any evangelical of any faith in that they believe that there is only one right thing to believe.

Of course it is a belief system. That is evident. Because it is what they believe. They may think that their belief system has more evidence behind it. It may be a belief system held by more people they respect. But obviously it is a belief system that in their eyes competes with religion or else they would not be here constantly and feebly defending it.

This thread has proved that Atheists cannot be lumped together. And more importantly, in defending their own positions at least some of the atheists have admitted that all people with religious beliefs cant be lumped together. Hopefully, from now on they will discuss religion on that basis. Except for Steve Shaw of course. He never remembers these discussions and always returns to his dogma which is basically that he has found all the answers in science therefor everything we say must be wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 11:17 AM

Oh, God [or Whoever!]

~~~ it's getting more & more like all those bloody wottizfoke threads every second isn't it?


AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHH

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 11:42 AM

Hey...If God is a loving entity, who answers prayers, ask 'Him' to reveal himself to you, with a sincere heart, and mean it...if something happens, pay attention...if nothing happens, then blow it off. Don't 'make up' His answer, nor ignore it, if stuff starts to happen.
Now that was simple, wasn't it?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans body
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 12:59 PM

My dear Goofus. If someone hears voices in their head, there are alternatives to God for the answer. And it isn't quite that simple. Ask any trick cyclist.



Sailor boy. Which three Godless people do you mean? if Godless means you don't go in for all that fairly story stuff then I suppose Godless is a reasonable term of abuse thanks.

So..   The trick is seeing that if you point at someone and the message you are wishing to put out is that they are Godless, what exactly is the point? As a so called sailor you may just as well point out a land lubber like me can't tie decent knots.

And when I tell you to get knotted, it is for similar reasons.

Calling someone God less is as logical as calling someone guitar less or stamp collector less. (Antiphilatalist?)

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 01:03 PM

I'm not calling you Godless to insult you pee shooter. Why I insult you you know it.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 01:03 PM

why=when

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 02:02 PM

I was tempted to make Jack's why=when correction and then delete the correcting post, which is what I usually do. But his why=when=why post is #100, and I can't take that away from him.
This, however, is post #101, which has a nice symmetry to it - and you can't take that away from me.

John P. says: Little Hawk, you've just hit on why these discussions can't get very real without a commonly shared definition of "god" and without a clear statement from the believers about what it is they actually believe.

And there's the hitch. I think most believers would agree that one of the primary aspect of God, is that God is ineffable, beyond definition. Indeed, traditional Judaism even avoids naming God, referring to G-d or the sacred tetragrammaton, YHWH,

To me, God is That Who Is Beyond AND That Who Is Within - beyond all things and yet the essence of all things. We personify God because we humans can only understand the ineffable by comparison with human persons - but any attempt at definition falls short.

The Eastern (Orthodox) Christian churches define God by contradictions or oxymorons - akin to my beyond/within definition, I suppose.

The standard definition of God by the critics here at Mudcat, is closest to the understanding of God held by the most extreme fundamentalists. But we have few extreme fundamentalists here, and the rest of us feel offended when we are lumped with them.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans sailor seaman
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 02:22 PM

Dunno. You insult most people's intelligence when you insist on the idea that living without any belief in the metaphysical is a positive assertion.

You know, many people, increasingly many as it happens, never reach a point of asking themselves if they believe in God. It just isn't a situation they face. Who needs God when soap operas and celebrity culture provide the distractions from day to day living?

Funny thing evolution. It has a habit of allowing medieval constructs to wither through irrelevance. Assertion of religion can just make people distance themselves even more.

As I type the vote in The House of Lords on gay marriage is taking place. The bishops are lining up to vote on something that may affect people who are not members of their club and frankly their argument has no merit even if I did recognise their right to vote on my behalf.

I wonder, really wonder if the rank and file shall continue to be happy to be led by disgraceful bigotry?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 04:24 PM

"As I type the vote in The House of Lords on gay marriage is taking place. The bishops are lining up to vote on something that may affect people who are not members of their club and frankly their argument has no merit even if I did recognise their right to vote on my behalf.

I wonder, really wonder if the rank and file shall continue to be happy to be led by disgraceful bigotry? "

It takes a very special kind of asshole to lump me in with a Bishop in the UK House of Lords and in the next sentence to accuse anyone on this good green Earth of bigotry. I don't mind you complaining about the Bishops. It is you and your ilk being idiot enough to blame all other religious people for their shortcomings that caused me to start this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 04:25 PM

Joe, Thank you for letting me keep 100 ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 04:34 PM

I am a lumpy aetherist. That is I am not of the blue sky, happy flying set. Lumpy (cloudy) aether is the best place to hunt air kraken. Some aetherists don't believe kraken exist, or at least that they don't exist anymore.

I know they do. What most people believe is decomposing plastic sheeting, carrier bags, etc. billowing in trees along roadways is quite obsiously the shed skin of air kraken.

Happy hunting everyone. May all your important life questions be answered to your satisfaction.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 05:32 PM

""Wow! Thanks, Snail... love it, particularly the notion that both atheism and agnosticism ate theocentric constructs!""

Of course they are!

They are words invented by the religious to stereotype and denigrate the non religious.

Atheism, ignosticism and agnosticism only exist in the presence (and the minds) of the religious.

They are not antithetic beliefs! They are the absence of such.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 05:40 PM

""It is you and your ilk being idiot enough to blame all other religious people for their shortcomings that caused me to start this thread.""

Yes, watch it Ian. Do try to control your ILK, and stop it shitting on the self righteous.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 05:50 PM

DonT are you capable of doing anything on this forum other than shitting on people?

And by the way he knows who his ilk are and knows that there is no controlling them.

You seem to have need of this.

ilk 1 (lk)
n.
Type or kind: can't trust people of that ilk.
pron. Scots
The same. Used following a name to indicate that the one named resides in an area bearing the same name: Duncan of that ilk.
[Middle English ilke, same, from Old English ilca; see i- in Indo-European roots.]


Word History: When one uses ilk, as in the phrase men of his ilk, one is using a word with an ancient pedigree even though the sense of ilk, "kind or sort," is actually quite recent, having been first recorded at the end of the 18th century. This sense grew out of an older use of ilk in the phrase of that ilk, meaning "of the same place, territorial designation, or name." This phrase was used chiefly in names of landed families, Guthrie of that ilk meaning "Guthrie of Guthrie." "Same" is the fundamental meaning of the word. The ancestors of ilk, Old English ilca and Middle English ilke, were common words, usually appearing with such words as the or that, but the word hardly survived the Middle Ages in those uses.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 07:39 PM

You know, I'm a very simple man. Actually, I'm a very simple man who's been trying to get his bloody garden under control all day after an enforced layoff of nearly six weeks. So I come back here (must dash actually - I have a huge pan of ragu on the go...) and I find that the usual suspects are having a go at me because I stated the bleedin' obvious, and in very neutral terms too, I might add. So yertis again, the offending statement:

...a considerable amount of thought has led to the conclusion that a deity who breaks every known law and who is far more complicated and inexplicable than the stuff he's supposed to explain doesn't make sense.

Now I'm a very patient man (as well as simple), even in the face of mindless and splenetic attacks from the likes of Wacko and Little Hawk, so here, boringly, is a little breakdown of that horridly offensive statement:

"considerable amount of thought"...I've weighed up the evidence both for and against the existence of God. Honest I have. I've stated it so many times...

"A deity that breaks every known law..." Well, unlike every other entity known to man, God is eternal, no beginning, no end. He was never created. He is so all-pervasive that he sees everything in the whole massive universe that goes on, on billions of planets going round billions of stars in billions of galaxies (quite possibly, in billions of universes). That's pretty clever. And pretty impossible, given the laws of physics we know about.

"far more complicated"...well, he could hardly be a simpleton if he not only created everything in those billions of galaxies and can keep an eye on it all at the same time. You don't get that level of achievement in amoeba-like blobs, even great big ones!

"more inexplicable than the stuff he's supposed to explain"...well, the universe is a complicated place, what with evolution, quantum physics, dark matter and all that other stuff I've heard of but can't get my poor head round. And just look at the amazing complexity, diversity and beauty of life on Earth, and imagine that it could, for all we know, be replicated on a hundred billion planets. I love the idea that human resourcefulness and curiosity, via the process of science (very important, as science requires real evidence), can close in inexorably on all this stuff. Wonderful. What I don't find anything like as wonderful is a "solution" to everything that itself can't be explained and never will be. This God chap must be incredibly complicated, far more complicated than all the stuff he's supposed to have created. It wouldn't be half so bad had he ever shown his face, but he hasn't. If anyone can tell me how someone so incredibly inexplicable can actually be the explanation of anything at all, please let me know.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 08:43 PM

"If anyone can tell me how someone so incredibly inexplicable can actually be the explanation of anything at all, please let me know."

I said the same about George Bush, but not in those words.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 10:16 PM

"considerable amount of thought"...I've weighed up the evidence both for and against the existence of God. Honest I have. I've stated it so many times."

Well I have weighed it as long as you have. The average Monk has spent orders of magnitude more time and energy than you. So on the basis of that argument you are crushed flattened and completely dominated.

"Trust me, I've done the math but I can't show it to you because you would not understand." Is that what you are saying? Your other arguments.

All you are saying is that YOU do not have the imagination to comprehend God and you have given up trying.

If you think that gives you license to mock and berate others, I truly pity you as a lost soul blind to his own childish and unwarranted arrogance. Climb down from your horse Don Quixote, put your lance away.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans sailor seaman
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 01:27 AM

Is an ilk a poorly elk?

I wonder if, and knowing that some are mudcatters so may help here, if Morris dancers refer to non Morris dancers as being of that ilk?

It is sometimes difficult to see how asserting belief seems to fit comfortably with lacking responsibility for the actions taken in their name. To permit is to promote.

And they say love is blind. .....

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 01:33 AM

Musket sans body: "My dear Goofus. If someone hears voices in their head, there are alternatives to God for the answer. And it isn't quite that simple. Ask any trick cyclist."

Was in response to: GfS: "Hey...If God is a loving entity, who answers prayers, ask 'Him' to reveal himself to you, with a sincere heart, and mean it...if something happens, pay attention...if nothing happens, then blow it off. Don't 'make up' His answer, nor ignore it, if stuff starts to happen.
Now that was simple, wasn't it?"

Now see, there you go again...you have set limitations that 'God' would only answer a prayer, by hearing voices..or hearing voices in one's head.....how stupid is that!!!?????...and how about, 'Let's be small'..no wonder you are so limited, and close minded..you're expecting to hear voices...maybe even louder than the ones already arguing in your head!
Donations for the blind?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 06:00 AM

""DonT are you capable of doing anything on this forum other than shitting on people?

And by the way he knows who his ilk are and knows that there is no controlling them.

You seem to have need of this.""

Oh yes my pompous friend, I am perfectly capable of holding serious discussions with people who seriously discuss.

Those who spend hours and bandwidth whining about the way they are treated by people who are responding to their attacks are beyond sensible discussion.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 06:05 AM

""All you are saying is that YOU do not have the imagination to comprehend God and you have given up trying.""

AND YOU DO?

Then please explain him to us poor mortals, quick, before he zaps you with a thunderbolt for that arrogant display of hubris.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 06:07 AM

But of course there'll be NO thunderbolt.

Does that suggest anything to you?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 07:33 AM

'All you are saying is that YOU do not have the imagination '
,..,
I should say that 'imagination' is just the right word, Jack. & it's your word.

Do you quite realise the implications? think of the old 'imaginary friend' bit...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 08:33 AM

The average monk believes what he's told to believe. He's hardly going to dismiss all that biblical stuff, all that witness, all those edicts of holy men and all that tradition as false evidence, which is what it all is. The problem with religious belief, ironically, Wacko, is that it calls for yielding up your powers of imagination.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 09:53 AM

So Mr Shaw the whole thing boils down to your ability to contemplate and evaluate vs that of a monk? Not very scientific is it?

"Pompous?", "Arrogant hubris"? Projecting again are we Don? Try talking without shitting on people, then we can talk.

Imagination is more important in science than it is in religion M~, it is where the breakthroughs come from. Read about Newton, or Einstein, or Hawking. Shaw's whole argument against religion is that HE can't understand it. Obviously that is the least valid and most illogical kind of argument that there is. It is the worse kind of dogma to dismiss the argument of others because you will not make the effort to understand what is being said.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Art Thieme
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 10:05 AM

As I've said before in this forum, I am basically a Jewish atheist who has been lovingly and respectfully married to a Jehovah's Witness for 46 years...

Lump it or leave iit!!

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 11:30 AM

In my youth, all schools in the UK seemed to be affiliated to some sort of religious grouping, hence: 'Church of England (CofE)' schools, 'Catholic' schools etc., etc. I don't know if that was a requirement for schools then (1950s) or whether it still is (?) My schools were CofE. As a schoolboy I had no choice but to attend morning prayers and be subjected to Religious Instruction/Knowledge/Education (or whatever it was called}. My Mother was religious - although she never discussed her faith with me. Her only requirement was that the whole family attend Evensong on a Sunday. I was also a Boy Scout which also involved being subjected to a certain amout of religion.

As a result of these experiences I decided that religion was (a) boring, (b)nonsensical (c)weird (all that droning on and on and on about suffering and someone being horribly tortured to death 2000 years ago), (d) nothing to do with me.

As I grew older I learned about history and how, in the past, many religious people slaughtered other people in the name of religion (they're doing so now, of course).

I also learned about Science - which makes infinitely more sense than religion.

That's basically why I'm an atheist - you could say they taught me to be one at school!

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 11:39 AM

That may or may not be a fair point, Jack ~~ but I don't think, if I may be so presumptuous, that 'imagination' is a particularly judicious word to be employed from your side of this question, bearing in mind that our point over here is that your entire concept of the facts is 'imaginary' ~~ whence 'imaginary friend' &c. I should look for a synonym IIWU: 'inspiration', perhaps.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 11:41 AM

My point is in fact on this occasion semantic rather than disputationary.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 12:11 PM

..thunderbolt..?
"and does the gentleman presume he can exhaust the patience of the infinite God so soon"
dunno the author of that quote - maybe chesterton.
i do know the author of this quote though-
   "God is not willing that any should perish,but that all should come to repentance" 2 peter 3 vs 9.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 12:22 PM

Steve Shaw: The average monk believes what he's told to believe. He's hardly going to dismiss all that biblical stuff, all that witness, all those edicts of holy men and all that tradition as false evidence, which is what it all is. The problem with religious belief, ironically, Wacko, is that it calls for yielding up your powers of imagination.

So, and do you know any "average monks" personally? I'm afraid most wouldn't fit your stereotype. Most monks I know are extremely well-educated, broad-minded, and not particularly obedient.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans sailor seaman
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 01:55 PM

An aside. A monk from an order not too far from here gave good value in court the other year. He was very obedient. The lady who got him to wear a gimp mask seemed to like his obedience too. (The case was his leaving the order, setting himself up on her money then attempting to murder her but hey, we are all human, even those who try to understand the relevance of the irrelevant.)

pete. What is the relevance of your biblical quote? We had three deaths in our paediatric ward this week. Utter tosh such as your quote merchant Peter just makes unlucky breaks all the more obscene.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 02:46 PM

sorry to hear of the deaths of the children where you work.
the relevance of my quotes relates to posts earlier.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 04:38 PM

Be it clothes or stereotypes, the one size fits all experience is universally cheap and disappointing while exposing the obvious flaws of such thinking.




For the literalist psychopaths here:

By the ton, an effective way to lump any group of people together is with the AG 437 grinder extruder and then allow the resulting slurry to drain sufficiently before adding one pound of pure corn starch for every twenty pounds of drained slurry. Shape into lumps no larger than 1/4 lbs. for proper cooking.



For the most empathetic among us:

The spectrum of those who arrive at atheist conclusions may range from the unquestioning acceptance of atheism from atheist parents to those who actively decided to experience 7 or more religions to share the experience of the rewards and sacrifices of various beliefs before deciding upon one's own path. The latter individual may possess such a spiritual respect of spiritual personal religion as to be confused with a true believer by other religionists. The middle of the road atheist who arrives at enlightenment by virtue of atheism, logic and science and by so doing avoids the false divisions of religion also have diverse reasons and experiences to arrive at their conclusions.
Another significant population, perhaps the largest atheist segment, are the atheists who pose as true believers to merely get along to go along.

We must soon accept the fact that kind self aware people are by far atheists of some kind. Especially when you separate out the religious people who only practice religion as a power tool to punish others and gain power through the intimidation of numbers and wealth.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 07:20 PM

So, and do you know any "average monks" personally? I'm afraid most wouldn't fit your stereotype.

"Stereotype"? Hmm. Sorry to shatter your resort to superior and safe knowledge, but yes I have. You forget that I was raised Catholic, educated (for want of a better word) in a school dominated by priests and brothers of the Salesian persuasion, married in a Catholic church and taught in a Catholic school for years in east London. During my seven years there the two head teachers were a monk and a nun respectively, and there were plenty more of both on the staff. I actually did rather well there. I even taught religious education for a while there and took Catholic assemblies. I do not speak from ignorance exactly, Joe. I found a good degree of pragmatism and willingness to bend rules in many of the holy people I encountered (including, on one occasion, the Archbishop of Westminster, not to speak of the Bishop of Stepney), and all power to their elbows for that. We were in the East End, after all, the most deprived part of England, where Catholic bullshit didn't exactly go down well. But, without exception, they did not question Catholic doctrine. Not one, none of them, ever. They had been told what to believe by their authoritarian church and they bloody well stuck to it - not only that, they propagated their doctrine in equally authoritarian mode to those in their charge. That did not prevent many of them from doing many a good deed. But that is not the argument you seek to counteract. I have told you these things before. I am not some atheistic-from-birth numptie that you can talk down to. Please be disabused.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 07:52 PM

Well, Steve, then I'm sorry that your experience of monks was not as positive as mine. In my experience, men and women in Catholic religious orders are quite the opposite of what you describe. However, I I will also say that there are also very rigid religious orders that fit your description very well.

Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) represents 83% of the women religious in the United States, and women in orders represented by LCWR are generally very progressive, very well-educated, and very open-minded. Of course, that's why they've being investigated by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly known as the Holy Inquisition).

And yeah, I suppose you can argue that most Catholics don't question doctrine. But most doctrine is stuff that is based on scripture and ancient tradition and the creed, and has been agreed on for centuries, so what's to disagree with? There's lots of disagreement about homosexual marriage and birth control and ordination of women and that stuff, but that's not really doctrine.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 08:09 PM

"bearing in mind that our point over here is that your entire concept of the facts is 'imaginary' ~~ whence 'imaginary friend' "

Bearing in mind that 'imaginary friend' is a bigoted, small minded put down from your side. I don't respond to your taunting and silly put downs say "imaginary friend" all you like. One needs imagination to be open minded. Lack of it leads to dogmatism.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 08:29 PM

My point to Steve was that "Appeal to authority" logical fallacy he was pretty ridiculous when the authority he was appealing to was HIS OWN "study" of the issue. I brought up Monks, I did not specify Catholic Monks, because I wondered how for far his self created rabbit hole of silliness he could take himself. I doubt that anyone on this forum would believe that Steve Shaw would have spent a tenth as much time thinking about God and creation than the average Monk of of any order, so his point that there is no God because HE thought about it and decided there wasn't is a weak one, at best. Steve's point is that he has spent time thinking about it so he must be right. That is a hilarious point of view!!

Its all been very amusing. Thanks for the yucks Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 09:22 PM

So, Steve, I can certainly see why you're not a religious person. You've been exposed, and you rejected it. That's OK by me. What I guess I don't understand, is the vehemence and the absolute nature of your rejection.

The belief that you and MtheGM describe, is a basic belief that is based on buying into a ideology/belief system and obeying an authority. That's one level of belief, and it's where many or most religious people feel comfortable; but it's not a level that is satisfactory to me. I think that many people stay at that level all their lives, and I suppose that's OK if that's where they are. Others, however, get to a point of dissatisfaction where they have to go elsewhere. At that point, they either reject the ideological sort of religion outright (and rightly so); or they move to another level where the ideology, while still present, is merely context for something deeper. Those people seek the center, the essence of what surrounds them - but within the context of the religious creed they learned earlier. This level is generally called "contemplation" or "mysticism." It exists in most religious denominations, but denominational difference become unimportant at this point - it's like hearing people say the same thing, but it different languages. Some contemplative people I know don't believe in a god, but they still say things that are similar to that said by other contemplatives. And the writings of Christian, Muslim (Sufi), and Jewish (Kabbalist) contemplatives are often very similar - using a lot of poetic imagery.

I find this to be very compatible with who I am, and it's the place where I need to be - but I admit that it doesn't make sense to a lot of people I know. I couldn't be at that other level, so I can understand why Steve rejected it. I just don't understand why his rejection is so absolute and so vehement.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 09:26 PM

Joe, if you read what I just typed, I hardly think you could say I wasn't being, in some sense, positive. The holy folks I worked with worked in the East End of London. If you weren't pragmatic, as opposed to dogmatic, with East-enders, you'd sink like a stone. What informed the attitude of the monks, nuns, brothers and priests (and bishops, while we're at it) was their connection with real people with real problems (and God was probably the last thing on their minds). After all these posts and PMs over the years I'm amazed that you still think I see things in black and white.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 09:54 PM

The average monk believes what he's told to believe. He's hardly going to dismiss all that biblical stuff, all that witness, all those edicts of holy men and all that tradition as false evidence, which is what it all is.

Yes, Steve, I have acknowledged several points where I think you have been quite fair. However, the above statement is rather incontrovertibly black-and-white, I believe. What you call "false evidence" has worked very well for many very wise people over the last two or three millennia - but not as "evidence." All "that biblical stuff, all that witness, all those edicts of holy men and all that tradition" is the context of one belief system - within which one can explore "what is within and what is beyond" and view it all as sacred. All that stuff is meant to convey a sense of the sacred, not to convey "evidence." To me, life is an exploration, with very few absolutes. And that's OK by me.

Now, the "evidence" and "proof" are essential tools when we explore on a scientific level, which is also a valid and necessary level of exploration - but not the only level. When you explore the essence of things and what is beyond all things, poetry and myth and ritual and tradition are the essential tools.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 10:55 PM

"What informed the attitude of the monks, nuns, brothers and priests (and bishops, while we're at it) was their connection with real people with real problems (and God was probably the last thing on their minds)"

So you think they went out into communities and served people and dedicated their lives to help people. They TOOK A VOW OF CELIBACY which to your knowledge most of them kept. And you think that (God was probably the last thing on their minds) How many atheists do you think pledge their lives to Dawkins and go into the community and serve teach and feed people for no reward other than a stipend to live on?

Do they do it for Science?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 11:54 PM

'The belief that you and MtheGM describe,' sez Joe.

I don't 'describe' any belief, Joe. I have not the least interest in doing so. I simply know that no system which could be defined as a 'belief' which contains any element of the supernatural or the anagogic will be of any use to me in the process of my continuing to exist as a living entity. I have no interest, apart from that one negative exclusion, in the precise nature of any such, to anywhere near the degree that would be requiaite to call my references it a 'description'.

Nor am I trying in any way to proselytise anyone into sharing this attitude. Please just carry on believing what you like; but don't expect me to share such beliefs, or accuse me of wasting any of my time in 'describing' what I conceive your convictions to consist of.

And I hope they will bring you much comfort & satisfaction.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 12:42 AM

Nor am I trying in any way to proselytise anyone into sharing this attitude.

You see a difference between that and criticizing those beliefs in others? If you don't care, if you don't want to waste your time, THEN DON'T and don't waste our time either.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 12:59 AM

YIKES!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 01:04 AM

Oh, censorship now is it, Jack? I didn't say I had no opinion on your beliefs, just that I had no interest in in describing them. But now I am not allowed to comment because it makes poor old Jack so irritated, it appears.

Well,dear me. Those precious beliefs of yours do make you tolerant, don't they just! - NOT.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 01:13 AM

No not censorship, just pointing out the difference between your words and your deeds. Your words say you don't care, you don't want to waste your time and don't proselytise. Yet you do proselytise and because you proselytise by criticizing the beliefs of those who do not share your beliefs, you obviously care and DON'T consider it a waste of time.

I don't mind your childish taunts like this one. "Well,dear me. Those precious beliefs of yours do make you tolerant, don't they just! - NOT."

But don't try to pee in my cup and tell me it is lemonade OK?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 02:47 AM

Remember when we had the freedom of speech??...and freedom of 'religion'??.....and then came 'political correctness'...and 'political correctness' attacked both of them....all in the name of being 'tolerant' of course...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 02:51 AM

OK, Jack ~~ but it was Joe's word 'describe'* that got to me. I might have suggested alternative world views; but where have I made any effort to 'describe' any 'belief'? I don't need to describe any to know that I disagree with their tenets and have nothing to offer me.

~M~

*'The belief that you [Steve] and MtheGM describe' - Joe, 5 June 0922 pm

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans body
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 03:01 AM

At the risk of Joe admonishing me for not being civil to others, and in a weird way that worries me, despite not personally knowing Joe, just sensing him as one of the good guys. ..

Sailor boy. "How many atheists pledge their life to Dawkins".

You really are fucking thick as pigshit, aren't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 03:01 AM

Well, MtheGM, I generally find you to be quite tolerant and open-minded. It did, however, seem to me that you have occasionally ascribed certain attributes to belief systems that pertain more directly to a literal approach to belief. If I am wrong, forgive me. My point was to describe a common alternative which is rarely spoken of here.

And by the way, at your suggestion, I'm reading How Far Can You Go, by David Lodge. I'm enjoying it - but it, too, describes a more literalist and legalistic system of belief that is quite different from mine.

-Joe-

P.S. "Imaginary Friend" is offensive. Don't go there.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 04:51 AM

" ... so his [i.e. Steve Shaw's] point that there is no God because HE thought about it and decided there wasn't is a weak one, at best."

So provide him with some evidence to convince him that there IS a God then, Jack!

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 05:04 AM

Joe ~~ I wouldn't dream of 'going to' "imaginary friend". I agree it's offensive. I was just using it as an example of the reason that I considered that Jack would do well to avoid urging the concept of 'imagination' in support of his side of the argument, where it seems to me it could be counterproductive.

The attitudes change during the course of "How Far Can You Go?", you will find as you proceed with it -- one of the reasons for its richly ambiguous title.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Musket
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 06:57 AM

I do use the term imaginary friend. I agree it may be offensive, but it does get used to people who don't think that it is a problem imposing their beliefs on others.

I have not examined scripture or looked at theology at any level, foundation or otherwise. I don't attend church and probably have never looked at a bible other than when asked to do a reading at a friend's funeral once. As he did have faith, it was for him that I did it, not for me.

Yet, there seems to be an understanding by some that if you don't know anything about religion, you have no right to dismiss it.

Well I dismiss it. I dismiss the concept of it and my respect of intelligent people who perpetuate it diminishes with every day I read of old men in long dresses and pointy hats trying to impose their superstition on others.

Sorry but those who carry the card have responsibility and to say they disagree with leaders whilst allowing the leaders to use the membership statistics to influence governments, I can only repeat what I say to clinicians who turn a blind eye to colleagues who deliver sub standard care; To permit is to promote.

The elephant in the room here is that of the word "belief." When used to describe using scripture to help form a moral compass, in the metaphor stakes, I respect, always have respected and always will respect peoples' choice. That someone doesn't need my respect is obvious, but they have it anyway.

But the word "belief" goes further than that doesn't it? It means, well, belief. And that is where words like "respect" and "discuss" start bending slightly. I will happily chat and drink with a bloke in the pub who happens to believe that once in hospital, they put a tracker in his brain and they can now read his every thought. Fine, so long as we stick to football, music and politics. Not much different when otherwise rational people claim there is some intelligent being out there and the form and function has been described by ancient desert dwellers. In the cold light of day, the word "belief" betrays an irrational part of someone's makeup?

No matter, mind. I have an equally irrational view of Sheffield Wednesday, and seriously, they genuinely are the only football team worthy of adoration and all infidels have got it wrong.

Nothing wrong in perpetuating a little magic. My kids learned of Santa Claus, the tooth fairy and the bogey man. One of the rites of passage and knowing you are becoming an adult is losing such comfort blankets. If religion was offered to an adult with no childhood ingrained hard wiring, I am sure the uptake would be much lower, and what does that tell you?

The discord in these threads is not, as I see it, about atheism versus belief, it is about belief wishing to share a logic stage with reality, and that is where the parting of the ways occurs. if you use the metaphor, great! I wish I could at times but I can't. If you genuinely believe in deities, then I hope for you it is a beautiful rather than a fearful thing for you. But if you prop up institutions that wish to pour bilge water of bigotry on others, then offensive dismissal is about as kind as it gets...

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 11:54 AM

What you call "false evidence" has worked very well for many very wise people over the last two or three millennia - but not as "evidence." All "that biblical stuff, all that witness, all those edicts of holy men and all that tradition" is the context of one belief system - within which one can explore "what is within and what is beyond" and view it all as sacred.

No it hasn't worked very well. It's given us a world full of religion in which billions of people are being led by the nose along a very false trail. The fact that you can't see that you don't need those things to be absolutely, profoundly and satisfyingly one hundred percent as happy as you are now, and with a freed intellect and imagination and sense of enquiry to boot, indicates that you've been taken in, hook, line and sinker, along with billions of others.

Now, the "evidence" and "proof" are essential tools when we explore on a scientific level, which is also a valid and necessary level of exploration - but not the only level. When you explore the essence of things and what is beyond all things, poetry and myth and ritual and tradition are the essential tools.

Well, there's nothing wrong with myth as long as you are fully aware that there is not a scrap of truth in it. The trouble comes when myth is sold as truth, which is a very widespread practice. Indeed, a central tenet in most major religions, I should think. As for ritual and tradition, well it's ritual and tradition in some mainstream religions to sexually mutilate small children. I wonder if you have a list of unacceptable versus acceptable traditions, based on slightly more than the accident of your place of birth. One other thing, for the hundredth time. Proof is not a word used in proper science.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 12:01 PM

>>
OK, Jack ~~ but it was Joe's word 'describe'* that got to me. I might have suggested alternative world views; but where have I made any effort to 'describe' any 'belief'? I don't need to describe any to know that I disagree with their tenets and have nothing to offer me.<<

Above all people doesn't Joe deserve the benefit of the doubt in his choice of words. Even though you never have set down a single description, the things that you have disagreed with and and the statements you have made in the context of those disagreements amount to a pretty clear description of your point of view.

Though I must single you out for a compliment. Except for a minor miscommunication or two, you do not appear at any time to be dogmatic or evangelical when we discuss these issues. In contrast to unnamed others you are a reasonable, mature person engaged in respectful debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 12:04 PM

Very well said, Musket.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 12:08 PM

Ian Mather Musket, how does an illiterate conclusion jumper rise to the top of a health system?

"Sailor boy. "How many atheists pledge their life to Dawkins". "

That is exactly my point! The DON'T pledge their lives to Dawkins then go into the community and help people for no reward other than food and shelter.

They just read Dawkins so they can hide their ignorance and bigotry behind cleverly constructed "memes" and quotes.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 12:19 PM

Thank you, Jack. I appreciate your comment.

An implied description of my pov is bound to emerge in the nature of things. But I have not offered any description of anyone's belief, as per Joe's actual erroneous statement.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 12:27 PM

"So provide him with some evidence to convince him that there IS a God then, Jack! "

Sorry to say this Shimrod, But I opened my involvement in these discussions on the Mudcat years ago by saying that I had been an atheist for many year and have experienced these arguments from both sides and that I am quite confident that it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God. I have said that here since to Steve Shaw certainly. But don't take my word for it. It is predictable conclusion based on the basic ground rules of Logic and Science. Bill D has said as much So has Richard Dawkins. Bill is much more polite about it. But as you may already know, Steve has a tendency to dismiss and ignore inconvenient things said to him in a discussion. But for Steve to say, as an argument to others that there is no God because HE has looked into it and decided that there isn't one is really the last straw for me. That is so illogical, so far from any pretense of science or clear thinking, that I cannot consider anything he says about any subject other than his personal live and mouth organs with any degree of seriousness.

And Shimrod while you may think it amusing to watch me dash myself against the stormy rocks of Steve Shaw stubborness, I am more inclined to let him work out his illogical self-delusions for himself.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 12:32 PM

Respectfully M~, In the course of challenging others' beliefs, I think you've provided a pretty clear idea of your opinion on religious beliefs and a pretty good indication of the views you hold.

While you may disagree on the use of the word "description" I think Joe's overall point still stands.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 12:44 PM

Yes! Good point Ian Mather with Musket envy. You hide behind an imaginary name to mock people who want to talk about things which you admit to knowing nothing about. You constantly mock and taunt and admit to doing so, yet you painfully and obviously want to be taken seriously.

An you say that we are the ones who are deluded.

I think there is a serious and enlightening conversation to be had if the dogmatic atheist evangelists on this forum realize they are talking to people instead of some sort of mystical embodiments of everything religion has done wrong over the past 6,000 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 03:11 PM

If the Youtube version is incomplete. Here is the Amazon listing.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 03:12 PM

last post need to be on another thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 08:29 PM

Sorry to say this Shimrod, But I opened my involvement in these discussions on the Mudcat years ago by saying that I had been an atheist for many year and have experienced these arguments from both sides and that I am quite confident that it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God. I have said that here since to Steve Shaw certainly.

What utter rubbish, Wacko. I don't know how many times I've said here that I don't know whether there's a God or not. My take on the evidence suggests that the chance of his existence is so small as to be negligible. I have no interest in proving or disproving anything to you or to anyone else. Now I'm very consistent with this. You claim you hate rudeness in people, etc. Well I hate to be misrepresented, and when someone does it as wilfully and frequently and ignorantly as you do, I have no hesitation in calling you a complete and utter twat.

Steve has a tendency to dismiss and ignore inconvenient things said to him in a discussion.

Such as? Do give me one example of something I've dismissed or ignored that was germane to any discussion of this issue. You're a liar and a bloody idiot, aren't you?

But for Steve to say, as an argument to others that there is no God...

I have never once said that, you pompous, lying little prick.

...because HE has looked into it and decided that there isn't one is really the last straw for me.

I really wish it was the last straw and that you would piss off for ever. Unfortunately, I have not decided there isn't one and have never told you or anyone else that I have decided there isn't one.

That is so illogical, so far from any pretense of science or clear thinking, that I cannot consider anything he says about any subject other than his personal live and mouth organs with any degree of seriousness.

You pretend to be offended by what you consider to be personal attacks yet you can spout this litany of dishonest, offensive rubbish. You have abundantly demonstrated to everyone here that you know jack shit about both logic and science. On the contrary, you're just a horrible, small-minded little fellow, aren't you. As for clear thinking, don't make me laugh. All you do have is, for reasons best known to yourself, a massive chip on your shoulder about all the people you disagree with who you are worried are superior to you in every respect. You have a bitter inferiority complex that is bigger than my arse and which is glaringly obvious, I hate to tell you. You couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag. You need to take a hard look at yourself, at what an idiot you've made of yourself with these incessant stupid threads and post after post of obsessively-worried comments. Take a long holiday, Wacko Jacko. You are seriously lowering the tone.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 10:31 PM

"What utter rubbish, Wacko. I don't know how many times I've said here that I don't know whether there's a God or not"
It doesn't matter how many times you say something when you contradict is.

And calling me names doesn't make you any smarter Mr. Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 10:41 PM

"I really wish it was the last straw and that you would piss off for ever. "

It is the last straw of taking your nonsense as anything but the ramblings of a petulant cowardly name-calling child. You in your genius have decided religion is nonsense? Who cares? You have no rational argument other than that you have decided. Good for you Einstein. No call me another name.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans Ian
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 01:27 AM

Not sure I have ever hid behind Musket really. I have however said I use it. A bit like saying Seaman Stains or Jack off.

I love your "but they read Dawkins" bit. It is the lumping of anybody who thinks rationally as having some common purpose I find both disrespectful and worrying. If there were enough of you out there you'd be dangerous.

Glad to see I struck a nerve though. Your backtracking just increases your absurdity. How about thinking for once that people who do not believe in imaginary friends cover a wider spectrum than those who have thought about it and dismissed it? The small town 3 miles down the road from me has coaches of tourists carrying out religious pilgrimages due to its historical links but the church on a Sunday gets a congregation of around 20. From a parish of 12000.

The word atheist you seem to have learned covers a far wider reach than your "threat to superstition" you seem to keep harping on about.

Ian Mather thinks you are thick as pigshit too....

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 06:55 AM

""That is exactly my point! The DON'T pledge their lives to Dawkins then go into the community and help people for no reward other than food and shelter.""

And you presume to know, from your place on that high horse of self proclaimed morality, that Atheists do not go out to perform good works, do not do so out of altruism and are not just as capable of acts of selflessness as the religious, and more capable than many (think Phelps family)?

In fact, it would probably have been better all round if the first to come into contact with primitive tribes had been Atheists.

The influence of nineteenth century missionaries upon those tribes was seldom very positive, when looked at from the point of view of the tribes.

But it did boost the number of "Christians" quite nicely, even though few of them had any idea of what it meant, and it did wonders for the supply of well controlled and obedient house servants.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 08:37 AM

I absolutely challenge you to find one single occasion, in hundreds of posts of mine on this subject, when I've said there definitely isn't a God. As a matter of fact, I've occasionally chided other atheists for expressing such unwarranted certainty. This is the trouble, innit, Wacko. You act all hurt when people called you well-deserved names yet you don't see the far greater offence you yourself cause by serially, wilfully and ignorantly misrepresenting people, as in the present example. Go straight to the naughty corner with your equally-dishonest and ignorant fellow-traveller pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 11:53 AM

to be pedantic,i guess it is correct to say that the God haters [whether of the reality or the concept]do not claim that there is no possibility of God.you cant prove a negative,so they say.what they do say is that they cant prove there is no FSM or teapot orbitting earth or some such idea.thus they insinuate that the belief in deity is equally ridiculous.this does of course differ little from claiming his non existence.
in the meantime they put their faith in the darwin of the gaps,claiming that time,space and matter just popped into existence by itself ,and that life also somehow came from non life without any intelligent source.the evolutionists cant even do that with intelligent manipulation.
then the militant atheists claim the theist is delusional!

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 12:11 PM

to be pedantic,i guess it is correct to say that the God haters [whether of the reality or the concept]do not claim that there is no possibility of God.you cant prove a negative,so they say.what they do say is that they cant prove there is no FSM or teapot orbitting earth or some such idea.thus they insinuate that the belief in deity is equally ridiculous.this does of course differ little from claiming his non existence.

Coo, where did you get your PhD, pete, so that I can go and get one too!

I should like to know how I can "hate" God when I think he almost certainly doesn't exist and am pretty sure he doesn't affect me in any way. You might as well say I hate the flying spaghetti monster as well.

in the meantime they put their faith in the darwin of the gaps,claiming that time,space and matter just popped into existence by itself ,and that life also somehow came from non life without any intelligent source.the evolutionists cant even do that with intelligent manipulation.
then the militant atheists claim the theist is delusional!

So tell me where this God popped into existence from, and see if you can manage it without coming up with some fantastical unlikely "explanation" that breaks every known law and which is innocent of all evidence. "Darwin of the Gaps." Must remember that one. Bloody hilarious, that one is.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 12:17 PM

How about this, stop calling people names and you deal with your own demons before you spend any more time telling us what you think ours are?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 12:27 PM

"i guess it is correct to say" pete said.

"Coo, where did you get your PhD, pete, so that I can go and get one too!" Mr. Shaw said

Since when do you need a Phd to guess? :-)

Then Mr. Shaw goes on to prove pete's point that Shaw's claim that he thinks there is a chance God exists is just window dressing. ... sigh.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans body
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 01:00 PM

Sorry pete. To hate god is to accept the idea exists surely?

Only those who accept the concept can hate, love or ascribe any thought to.

Nobody is hating god any more than they can hate Sauron or the child catcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. You can however dismiss those who try to influence society by describing god. You may even hate, ultimately, those who use the concept to further their own agenda. The bigotry of large religious organisations weave into laws that affect others.

The others don't like that.

You can see why. I would like to raise a tax on everybody to allow Sheffield Wednesday to buy some new players but I accept that my delusion doesn't float everybody's boat.
So why don't the bishops leave the upper house? disestablishment would increase their standing with society if their views weren't imposed on us. A vicar tweeted yesterday that he thought the Archbishop of Canterbury was a wanker. Maybe or not maybe but it is a form of onanism to presume rational people will accept his bigoted stance on gays just because he reckons the little baby jesus said so.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 02:13 PM

Shaw hates God. He was brought up Catholic and suffered somehow and now he is striking back. If that is not apparent to you, you have been too busy with your playground taunts to pay attention.

But then you spend way too much time and emotional energy on this to be expressing feelings of neutrality. If you want know what neutrality looks like, look at Bill D. In fact you can look at most of the Mudcat that is agnostic or unbelieving. None of them are behaving like you. You and Steve are the God Haters. There are a couple who are angry with certain churches. But no one else cares enough to evangelize.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 02:24 PM

OK, I confess, I hate non-existent orbiting teapots! Phew! I'm glad I've got that off my chest. They say that confession is good for the soul ... whatever that is ... ? Now, do I hate my soul ... ?? Perhaps best not to go there ...

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans sailor seaman
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 02:29 PM

And there was me thinking I was taking the piss.

So if I get this right, if you are neutral you can post. If you have experienced religion you can post. But if you have a dim view on superstition having any influence outside of churches, ,mosques, synagogues and temples, you have to keep your trap shut.

Just so we know.







Yep. Thick as pig shit.

Gospel according to Dr Ian Mather and his finely tuned bullshit antenna.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 02:31 PM

Shimrod,

I believe that you do not hate God. But you don't spend one tenth or even one one hundredth the time attacking the concept of God that some others do. Do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 02:37 PM

Post all you want Ian Mather. The more you post, the less neutral you prove yourself to be. That is all. Keep in mind that this thread and the "Militant Atheist" thread were both started in part to test De Waal's theory about some Atheists being anti-religious zealots.

My theory is that the Atheists who were not zealots stopped posting to these threads long ago. If you wish to continue proving that point, It is not my job to stop you.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 02:38 PM

Hate, havoc and soul.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 02:57 PM

My theory is that the Atheists who were not zealots stopped posting to these threads long ago.

We stopped posting because we're bored with your bullshit, Jack. And have better things to do...

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans sailor seaman
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 03:03 PM

And every post you put up after that op made the op redundant.

You didn't allow for people who are neither religious nor wish to be called atheist. Dismissing the tooth fairy doesn't make you orally atheist.

Are you saying then that if you post to a thread saying anything that you are proving a point of someone who's paper you supplied a link to? Most people have been far more interested in why you posted it than what it contained.   



Thick as pigshit. Yep. No other explanation.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 03:04 PM

That means you are not a Zealot.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 03:33 PM

"Are you saying then that if you post to a thread saying anything that you are proving a point of someone who's paper you supplied a link to? Most people have been far more interested in why you posted it than what it contained. "

No I am saying that a reasonable person would look at the title and say to themselves "of course they cannot be lumped together." and either say so and not bother to post. Which brings me to the unreasonable people who constantly lump all religious people together for sake of argument (Steve Shaw) or the sake of mockery (Ian Mather) who see any mention of atheism as a personal attack even when it is not personal or an attack.

The title of this thread came about after that. The spelling is due to a typo after a few beers and those same few beers making me not care much about proofreading or how it looked.

I have seen you say that you don't care about this issue many times. I have seen you say that you are not an atheist many times.
I have seen you say that you are just "taking the piss."

Your involvement in this thread belies all of that. You are a dogmatic zealot who cares very much and who "attacks" believers with "humour". You clearly demonstrate this time and again and any time anyone puts up a hoop for you to jump through, no matter how clumsy, no matter how spontaneous, you will jump through it.

Keep in mind that Dawkins is a hero only to those with a chip on their shoulder who closely share his beliefs. To all others he is unknown or unremarkable. Keep in mind that he refuses to debate with real adversaries. C of E bishops are hardly going to stoop to name calling and ridicule as he does. Mirroring him is not a path to debate Nirvana.

Get to know yourself better Ian Mather. Show some self awareness. Show some self restraint. You can start by not responding to this.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans sailor seaman
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 04:11 PM

Too late. I have done.

What has Dawkins got to do with not believing in imaginary friends? You speak as if he represents a different superstition. Bishops have imaginary friends so other than the weather I'm not sure what common ground they could argue. Mind you, a person by thenname of Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist of some standing debated with the Archbishop of Canterbury the other year on the telly. Quite interesting really. May I suggest you read up on this English Dawkins? Unlike yours, he doesn't look for followers or tells people what to believe, but as a scientist has an interesting and refreshing disdain for the influence of superstition.

I've even read some of his books. The ones on genetics are quite good.

So.... where can I find information on this Dawkins you have a fixation with?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 04:43 PM

How can you stop spewing his "memes"? Copying his style? Makes no matter to me if it is second or third hand.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans sailor seaman
Date: 08 Jun 13 - 01:58 AM

Look on the bright side, at least by not buggering off I am stooping to your level.

I wouldn't want you to get lonely.

After all, society needs idiots and fruitcakes. Without them we could never measure intelligence and understanding. So on behalf of the journey of civilisation I would like to take this opportunity to thank you.

If Musket copies Ian Mather's style it is for biological reasons you dozy bugger.





Sigh.   Still thick as pigshit and 24 hours of experience and understanding have passed

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Jun 13 - 08:24 AM

""to be pedantic,i guess it is correct to say that the God haters""

They don't hate God!

You can't hate something if you don't think it exists.

You are proving yourself to be the egregious ass they say you are.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Jun 13 - 08:49 AM

""I believe that you do not hate God. But you don't spend one tenth or even one one hundredth the time attacking the concept of God that some others do. Do you?""

HE DIDN'T START THIS, OR ANY OF THE OTHER ANTI ATHEIST THREADS JACK!

He is responding to being attacked, insulted and denigrated by people who CALL themselves Christians.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Jun 13 - 09:06 AM

Or more accurately, they were all started by one such, YOU!

If you want to see a religiously bigoted zealot, just look in a mirror.

You dare to call yourself a Christian? I've seen few less Christian than you Jack!

You started all these threads to throw shit and you got most of it returned, which allowed you to play victim.

Do you know what a passive/aggressive bully is? YOU!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jun 13 - 09:28 AM

'My theory is that the Atheists who were not zealots stopped posting to these threads long ago.'

I wish the religious zealots would join them.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jun 13 - 09:59 AM

Shaw hates God. He was brought up Catholic and suffered somehow and now he is striking back.

You don't follow stuff, do you, Wacko Jacko? "Suffered somehow"? Where did you get that from??

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Jun 13 - 11:16 AM

"You can't hate something if you don't think it exists."

Sure you can. People can hate what they want to hate. What you can't do is scream and berate and taunt people about something constantly and consistently for years and credibly say that you DO NOT have strong feelings about it. You DonT can choose whatever you want to describe those feelings. pete has chosen "hate." since he has been more of a target of those feelings than me. I am going with his choice of words.


"HE DIDN'T START THIS, OR ANY OF THE OTHER ANTI ATHEIST THREADS JACK!

He is responding to being attacked, insulted and denigrated by people who CALL themselves Christians."

He has said, he is not an atheist. If he is not an atheist, he is not being denigrated. If you and he are both telling the truth why is he responding? That is one reason why I started the thread. So that the dogmatic, militant, lying atheists could identify themselves, once again.

This is NOT an anti-atheist thread. It is a simple question. It is a simple question that reasonable people would simply have answered "No." I have not argued that they should be lumped together, but I have been attacked as if I had done so. Congratulations! You have self-identified as an unreasonable person.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Jun 13 - 06:01 PM

""Congratulations! You have self-identified as an unreasonable person.""

Says the man who gets a hard on whenever anyone says he doesn't believe in God.

I do believe in a higher force, which you are welcome to call God (or a God), yet I find Steve and Musket and Mike infinitely more reasonable in their attitudes than you.

If you are a Christian, I want nothing to do with your club.

Now Joe is what a Christian ought to be, tolerant and respectful of others even when they disagree with him, and making Christianity his way of life, not just something to occupy Sunday mornings.

I don't think Jesus would have thought your brand of Christianity matched up to his teaching, do you?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Van
Date: 08 Jun 13 - 06:09 PM

Perhaps they all don't believe in different gods.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jun 13 - 08:45 PM

Sure you can. People can hate what they want to hate.

This is utterly meaningless. Think about it, good people (if you can be arsed).

What you can't do is scream and berate and taunt people about something constantly and consistently for years and credibly say that you DO NOT have strong feelings about it. You DonT can choose whatever you want to describe those feelings. pete has chosen "hate." since he has been more of a target of those feelings than me. I am going with his choice of words.

Well, I'll admit that anyone who cheerfully throws his lot in with nutty pete, and is happy to say so in public, certainly possesses big balls. Another thing: you're confusing hate with pity. We pity you and pete. We don't hate you. I don't hate God either. I pity him for having to put up with tossers like you 'n' pete for his spokesmen. You'd have thought that, in his omnipotence, he'd be able to shut you up. The fact that he doesn't could well be further evidence for his non-existence.

By the way, wacky Jacky-tar, have you ever noticed the rather embarrassed silence around you from your fellow Christians? Doesn't that tell you something? The clenching of their buttocks at your every post is almost palpable. Look around you, Wacko! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jun 13 - 10:05 PM

Yes, people can indeed hate anything they want to hate. They can hate an idea, for instance, whether or not they think it's about something "real" or is in any way realistic.

If they do hate it, you'll see them react aggressively anytime it comes up in conversation, and they won't be able to ignore it, but will immediately attack it, and that's the point Jack is making. The attack is inspired by their deep hostility, and deep hostility is hatred.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Jun 13 - 11:57 PM

Yes, Guest. But the hatred, as you say, is of the idea (the 'Platonic essence', one might say), not to the non-existent entity which this 'idea' postulates. Surely talking of us·lot as 'God-haters' misleadingly confuses the entity with its 'idea'?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Jun 13 - 12:34 AM

"We pity you and pete. We don't hate you"

Sane people don't call people names when they pity them. Actually crazy people who are not arseholes do not call people name when they pity them.

Do the math, that makes you a crazy arsehole.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Jun 13 - 12:41 AM

I don't think of you as a God-Hater MtheGM. I have not called you that. I won't speak for anyone else. But I don't think that anyone has called you that either. But from certain other the hate is palpable. Do you think that Don'T's fascination with my penis comes from a place of love? He may soon be the third to earn that epithet, but he is not there yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Jun 13 - 02:04 AM

I guess what gets my passions up in discussions like this (and makes me say things a little more harshly than I'd like to), is that sometimes I feel that people here who look down on me because I profess a religious belief - that they view what I say because of their conception of me as a religious person, rather than simply on the merits of what I have to say.

I have worked all my life to try to be open to all perspectives, and I think that has given me a richer life. I admit that sometimes I have trouble respecting people who speak from a conservative viewpoint - but maybe I really don't. When I come across conservative intellectuals who speak from a rational basis rather than an ideological one, I listen. So maybe it's not conservatives I have trouble tolerating - it's ideologues of all ilks.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Ebbie
Date: 09 Jun 13 - 02:49 AM

"...they view what I say because of their conception of me as a religious person, rather than simply on the merits of what I have to say."

Joe, if I can judge other people by myself I would say that we recognize you for much more than as a "religious' person. You are a good man- and fun too.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 09 Jun 13 - 03:04 AM

If you say arse you should also say maths. If you say math you really should say ass. You don't need to translate for British taste, I doubt many would understand you even if your style was consistent.

I do find common ground with Joe's assertion that he comes over more harshly than he would like. Me too. Although I went from reason to abuse a long time ago where Seaman Stains is concerned because as my old maths lecturer used to say, you can't educate pork.

Oy Jack Off! Who says they are not an atheist? I do recall some, myself included claiming that the word atheist is a term of abuse so people can point and say they are not members of a select club. If you wish to say atheist I can't stop you but neither can you stop the abusive terms I used to describe you. Not nice is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 09 Jun 13 - 06:21 AM

Sigh.

For myself, I am an atheist mainly because I feel an all knowing, all poweful creator that permits such suffering does not deserve to be believed in or to exist.

But I don't go jamming my feelings down anyone else's throat. I cannot judge what works for others and do not exepct them to understand what works for me.

Boils down to respct for one another.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Jun 13 - 06:51 AM

""I believe that you do not hate God. But you don't spend one tenth or even one one hundredth the time attacking the concept of God that some others do. Do you?""

For the record, I'm an agnostic. That means that, if I'm to take their claims seriously, the onus is on the God believers to prove that He exists. Neither I, nor anyone else, can prove a negative. You can't "hate" something that may or may not exist. You can, though, hate those that perpetrate injustices against people and the environment in His name. Also for the record, I tend to have more respect for critics of religion, like Richard Dawkins, than I do with fervent 'God Botherers'!

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Jun 13 - 08:12 AM

whatever happened to playing the ball- not the man.
you may recall that i qualified the use of the word HATER to include the CONCEPT.This was because i knew i would get the "cannot hate what does not exist" line.none-the-less,the atheists admit that there is a chance [albeit very slim,intheir estimation]that HE might exist.
and it drives them nuts.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Jun 13 - 08:29 AM

By saying "the atheists admit". Pete, you are entirely begging the question of this thread, in lumping us all together. I don't admit any 'possibility', however 'slim', that such an entity can exist in any way cognate with the conception you lot have of it ~~ whatever that might be as you are not very good at defining or describing or otherwise ····ing it.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Jun 13 - 08:38 AM

as usual we get this "where does God come from then" challenge.
i have answered this before but the challenger is not wanting to know the answer anyway.
i dont have any phd,s but is,nt it strange that some of those that do choose to believe the impossible.
at the very least positing a Creator is a logical premise to account for all that is.
what is illogical,and as yet without scientific evidence of any kind is the notion of first matter,time and space and first life arising from such.
only the apriori presupposition of there not being a creator can account for such faith in everything from nothing by no-one belief IMO.
Positing that "science" will close in on the answers they hope for just demonstrates their faith position.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Jun 13 - 08:50 AM

ok m.
i am deliberately vague at present so as to avoid evasions by recourse to diversions.
i think i have been around long enough for you to ascertain the deity i follow.
pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Musket
Date: 09 Jun 13 - 11:37 AM

pete. Assuming the concept of a deity that can intervene in the observable universe could exist, and let's face it, there is a probability that there could be design behind reality. Afer all, the laws of physics work today as much as they did in the days of Newton, so pure chaos cannot be the answer.

It still begs the question; How can any system of belief have any clue as to whether they know what "God" is? I can hold with the idea of faith in the concept of a purpose other than what we observe, but whether desert dwellers, L Ron Hubbard or Buddah describes it? That is where scientific approaches to theology can help. The determination that God has been described accurately is illogical, false and insults the intelligence of rational people.

Always assuming of course that there is any purpose beyond the dimensions of time and space. I don't know any more than you do, but the difference is I don't pretend to know, nor follow those that think they do. No problem at the personal level, but a huge issue when indoctrinating children or claiming to be relevant to an increasingly rational population capable of forming their own minds.

When people do make their own minds up and dismiss superstition, you get the browbeating abuse and bullying by those whose views are borne of ignorance, such as Sailor Jack. There are plenty like him who are told to go around claiming atheism is a threat, that Christians are being persecuted etc. it doesn't help the cause of those who genuinely believe all that stuff but don't see the need to influence those who don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Jun 13 - 12:01 PM

"i think i have been around long enough for you to ascertain the deity i follow." pete
,..,.,

Er ·············· Nope. Haven't the remotest conception of the first thing about it.

What or where have you been 'around long enough'? For what purpose, exactly? What do you mean here by 'deity'? And 'follow'?

Is it anthropomorphic? If so, is it male? If so, has it got a beard? How old does it look? What is its name? If it isn't anthropomorphic, how do you visualise or conceptualise it? Has it got any specific shape? Is it solid in appearance? or gaseous? or just - er, ah, you know - sort of?

You will gather that I don't even begin to 'ascertain' anything. Or even understand quite what it is that you think I should be 'ascertaining'...

Sorry if I appear uncooperatve. I really am making an effort to be fair...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Jun 13 - 12:19 PM

""i am deliberately vague at present so as to avoid evasions by recourse to diversions.
i think i have been around long enough for you to ascertain the deity i follow.
pete.""

The higher force that I believe in is very different than what you call God, for which I am thoroughly grateful.

I wouldn't wish to be a join any club that had you as a member.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Jun 13 - 12:24 PM

""There are plenty like him who are told to go around claiming atheism is a threat, that Christians are being persecuted etc. it doesn't help the cause of those who genuinely believe all that stuff but don't see the need to influence those who don't.""

They have to claim they are being persecuted, because they cannot stand being ignored.

Why else do they feel a constant need to stick pins in others, than to get a hostile reaction?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Jun 13 - 12:28 PM

Wouldn't wish to join.......

That's the trouble with careful consideration of alternatives. You often wind up posting half of each.

DT

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Jun 13 - 01:16 PM

I am not claiming that "Atheists" are "persecuting" anyone. I am claiming that Musket and Steve Shaw are being jerks. Since they have both already admitted to verbal abuse of me and others for its own sake, in not so many words. This is not much of a stretch.

pete has been answering comments as they have come up. I have never seen him start a conversation on this topic once.

The "Militant Atheist" thread has been chugging along long after I finished with it. I went away for 30 days and maybe check in a couple of times yet apparently it stayed on the first page of the Mudcat for a long time.

Who are the evangelicals?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Jun 13 - 01:38 PM

"
Is it anthropomorphic? If so, is it male? If so, has it got a beard? How old does it look? What is its name? If it isn't anthropomorphic, how do you visualise or conceptualise it? Has it got any specific shape? Is it solid in appearance? or gaseous? or just - er, ah, you know - sort of?"

You keep bringing this up in one way or another. I think you are genuinely curious about what we believe. I don't talk specifically about my beliefs here for obvious reasons the conversation would quickly degenerate to mockery by the usual suspects. Besides, their speculations and assumptions are far more exotic and amusing than the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 09 Jun 13 - 02:09 PM

And he is unhappy about the little time he gets to do his favourite part of planet design which is fjords. You know those squiggly bits of coastline in Norway?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Jun 13 - 02:12 PM

"I think you are genuinely curious about what we believe. I don't talk specifically about my beliefs here for obvious reasons the conversation would quickly degenerate to mockery by the usual suspects."

Oh, go on, take the risk!

"Besides, their speculations and assumptions are far more exotic and amusing than the truth."

If you're in possession of the TRUTH, Jack, then you do really need to take the risk of ridicule and reveal all!!

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans sailor seaman
Date: 09 Jun 13 - 02:52 PM

Slartibartfarst has enough issues trying to reason with mice. Sailors like our Jack would only get lost in his fjords.

The largest benefit of abuse seems to be the art of dismissing serious comment on the basis someone noticed you are being a bit of a prat and spelled it out.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Jun 13 - 04:05 PM

you appear to concede more,musket,than mthegm ,who,i am surprised to find does not know that i believe in the God and Saviour revealed in the bible and the theme of christianity since NT times.
the "god" that don "believes" in is so vaugue that i do not know if it/he/she/they-make any difference to anyone.if God exists and is interested in his creation,it is no great stretch that he might step into history [as christians believe he did in Christ] and reveal his message [which christians believe he does through the bible].
while not denying there have been abuses in the church,i do not accept that sharing our faith,or instructing our kids constitutes such.
as to jack,my opinion is that any badmouthing he might be accused of is mild compared to some of the atheists here.
V Tam i note your reasons for not believing and i will not intrude with any unwelcome discussion.i hope i have not offended you where in another thread i mention prayer,and that you take it as my wishing you the very best.pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Jun 13 - 04:12 PM

Don't be a jackass Shimrod. I was talking about what I truly believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Jun 13 - 04:19 PM

Shimrod

I didn't say "Truth" or "TRUTH". I simply said "truth." I only claim to know enough about such things to be confident that it works for me.

Musket.

The more you try to ridicule, that includes using Douglas as a serious reference, the sillier you look. You are the "prat." You demonstrate that with nearly every post.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 09 Jun 13 - 04:44 PM

Just because I do not believe, why should I be offended by amother's good intention toward me in the name of their belief? Like I said respect.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Jun 13 - 05:48 PM

Getting back to the subject of the thread....

Would it not be a great error to "lump" Virginia Tam's point of view with those "God haters" who torment, condemn and rant?

Likewise Would it not be a great error to lump pete or Joe Offer or me with a member of the Taliban or an abusive priest?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 09 Jun 13 - 06:10 PM

Sorry Jack, it appears you started this thread to inflame people who do not believe in god. While I am not agitated by the intent of original post, I don't want to be held up as an example of any kind. I am happy to be lumped with the Dawkins botherers.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Jun 13 - 06:25 PM

"as usual we get this "where does God come from then" challenge.
i have answered this before ..."

No you haven't, pete, you've merely asserted that asking this question is not in accordance with your rules!

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Jun 13 - 06:34 PM

Not at all. Those who are inflamed were inflamed before I started the thread and remain so.

I started the thread to point out that lumping any broad group was bad in the hope that "putting the shoe" on the other foot might illustrate the lesson.

I am afraid that if you are to be lumped in with the Dawkin's botherers, you will have to act more like them.

While you are showing respect for pete and being polite to me you are separating yourself quite nicely.

But in any case, I won't be doing the lumping. I am anti-lumping. I am a lumping hater.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jun 13 - 08:13 PM

as usual we get this "where does God come from then" challenge.
i have answered this before but the challenger is not wanting to know the answer anyway.

Believe me, I really do want to hear an answer. And believe me, you have never answered it before.

at the very least positing a Creator is a logical premise to account for all that is.

You have an endearingly wacky view of what constitutes logic.

"The world is a wonderful and diverse place."
There is much we have yet to understand about this wonderful diversity."
"Therefore I propose the most outlandish and impossible explanation: that an infinite, all-powerful being who no-one has either seen or seen any sign of, and who breaks every law of nature, must have created it all."

Not exactly Mr Spock, are you now?

what is illogical,and as yet without scientific evidence of any kind is the notion of first matter,time and space and first life arising from such.

Au contraire. There is a good deal of solid evidence for the origin of matter and space-time and there is a reasonable hypothesis about the origin of life that requires no shifting of any of the laws of nature. We may have gaps in our knowledge, but we do have knowledge supported by evidence, whereas all you have is a crackpot notion that you can't support. And you call us illogical.

only the apriori presupposition of there not being a creator can account for such faith in everything from nothing by no-one belief IMO.

Meaningless drivel.

Positing that "science" will close in on the answers they hope for just demonstrates their faith position.

Pray tell us why, by putting "science" in speech marks, you insult the whole of the scientific community, who unlike you, the laziest bastard on this forum by a country mile, work hard in the quest for truth. And, as you have oft been told, science holds no "faith positions". There is no place for faith in scientific endeavour, just a very sceptical and critical search for truth. And I note your pathetic, Wacko-driven bleating about other people's bad manners. Ironic, innit, that you can whinge about that whilst routinely ignoring, eyes tight shut, everything that people say to you, write your posts in insultingly-awful English and, last but not least, sit there on your scientifically-devised laptop typing messages that insult every scientist in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 09 Jun 13 - 09:32 PM

I have a few questions for Pete or any other individual who believes there is an "all powerful being":

1. Why did your god either cause or allow those children at Newtown to be shot to pieces and why would your god subject their families to so much pain and grief.
2. When small children get cancer and die a painful death at an early age does he cause or allow it?
3. Is he responsible for the European holocaust in the previous century?

Understand I don't hold your god responsible for any of this as I don't believe in the existence of any gods.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Jun 13 - 10:58 PM

>>>"Therefore I propose the most outlandish and impossible explanation: that an infinite, all-powerful being who no-one has either seen or seen any sign of, and who breaks every law of nature, must have created it all."<<<<

I am not sure it is THE most outlandish considering it has been the default and almost exclusive theory of the educated West until very recently.

If I cared about your opinion, I would ask you how it is more " outlandish and impossible" than the Multiverse, string theory and even the Big Bang which are mathematically plausible but far from proven. In my time "The Big Bang" has fallen in and out of favor and depending on how inquiry into the wildly improbable theories of "dark energy" may do so again.

You Steve Shaw have to learn that you can't cite yourself as an authority. Just be cause you THINK that it is the MOST outlandish does not make it so.

The Big Bang, The Universe started form one undefinable
infinitesimally small point and grew randomly into what we see.

Creation the Universe as we see it was designed.

If I cared what you thought I would ask you to explain why you THINK one is more unlikely. It seems to me the likelihood of one is on the order of negative infinity plus one and the other is negative infinity plus two. You may think you know something about creation. But when it comes down to it, you don't know as much as pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 01:38 AM

Ah, that's the eternal question, gillymor. I don't believe in a God that writes some sort of script for us - reality follows the laws of nature, the logical consequences of decisions and choices, and the laws of chance. And in that, every moment is capable of infinite creativity by the interaction of all those elements. So there's no script - it's all improv. And I see the presence of God in that infinite creativity of interaction, and I view it with awe and see it as essentially good. But it's not that some god is "allowing" or "creating" good or evil - things happen by the interaction of causes.

But that's what I see from my perspective. Other people see the same thing and don't see God. That's good, too.

Others see us as following a script written by the Almighty (predestination??). Can't say I buy that perspective, but I suppose you could label that script "logical consequences" - that I do buy, but I think there's an awful lot of randomness thrown in the mix.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 02:57 AM

Atheist anthropologists probably would say that God (or God(s)) were created by early man to help deal with tragedies like Newtown. A smilodon visits the cave, while the men are hunting, eats a few cave women and some kids. Medicine Man can't deal with the crying, tells the grieving families God has their relatives and is caring for them in better place.

Or maybe that is how God was first revealed to man.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 03:12 AM

Joe, I was directing those questions to folks who percieve their god as omnipotent and or omniscient but I'm glad you shared your perspective with me. I don't recall ever recieving a more thoughtful and eloquent response to that type of inquiry.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 03:20 AM

May that be because, with all respect to Joe, it doesn't actually say anything?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans sailor seaman
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 03:26 AM

Douglas? I'm sure that were he alive today it would be Mr Adams to oiks like you.

Here's a question to the more sane people on this thread. I find it curious that those with faith seem to be able to adopt tenets of Scripture as true but dismiss the more embarrassing ones about embracing murder, slavery and incest.

But the minute someone says they dismiss the concept altogether there are shallow people out there who think automatically that you are a follower of some deity or other called Dawkins and you are judged by the views of a professor of evolutionary biology called Prof. Richard Dawkins who writes of his disdain of matters spiritual and endorses attempts to prevent religious people forcing their take on morality on others.

I do have to smile at the notion that those with religion in their lives seem content with picking and choosing whilst lumping rational thought in the bin labelled "follower of some bloke. " Most people who have no need nor care for jesus or Allah have never even heard of Dawkins, whilst nerds know only that he is married to Lalla Ward, of Dr Who fame.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 03:37 AM

M GM, I appreciate Joe's perspective because it's similar to the way I percieve nature although if I were ever to put it into words I'd probably sustitute some nebulous term like "life force" for "God" or" "presence of God". Off to bed.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 05:30 AM

""I don't talk specifically about my beliefs here for obvious reasons the conversation would quickly degenerate to mockery by the usual suspects. Besides, their speculations and assumptions are far more exotic and amusing than the truth.""

Or perhaps it's just that you are too busy making assumptions about their lack of belief and trying to justify the ridiculously insupportable idea that it is a belief system.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 05:40 AM

""I am not sure it is THE most outlandish considering it has been the default and almost exclusive theory of the educated West until very recently.""

Or more accurately, it has declined at a slow but accelerating rate, ever since the bible was translated into English and was no longer the exclusive property of the clergy, who had used it to control populations since the Roman emperor Constantine.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 06:06 AM

""Atheist anthropologists probably would say that God (or God(s)) were created by early man to help deal with tragedies like Newtown.""

Amusingly, Jack, who doesn't believe in lumping people together, always knows what Atheists will probably think, or say.

Then he gets it entirely wrong, in spite of the fact that there are plenty of parallels to indicate how religion develops in primitive societies.

Primitive man was very aware of the interaction between himself and predators, and needed no such "explanations" for that kind of event.

Nineteenth century explorers and colonists in Africa have written reams of material on how the native populations deified those forces of nature which were beyond their understanding, just as the Ancient Greeks and Romans deified the same things.

Thunder and lightning, winds, waves, volcanoes, earthquakes and meteor showers.

Personality cult religions gradually displaced these primitive ideas and as science explained the various phenomena, the superstitions died out, all but the ones based on personalities, and they have devoted their energies largely to fighting amongst themselves ever since.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Musket
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 06:48 AM

And to expand a little further on that...

Hence Bollywood and the fact that Mexican soap operas always have women in tiaras and chandeliers hanging from the ceilings. (You'd think an extra comma would help in that last sentence wouldn't you?)

Add the Simon Cowell / Bruce Forsyth thinking over here, and you soon see that society has less use for medieval superstition based population control, we can control the masses through the telly and give them the escapism governments depend on to stop them thinking too much about their lot.

Though interestingly, rather than control the masses, the internet seems to be about the masses controlling governments. The latest disgrace over GCHQ letting foreigners in on data harvested illegally etc. Governments are scratching their heads over how to rein people back in. Perhaps waiting for old men in long dresses and pointy hats saying it is immoral to question your betters?

Worked OK as a control mechanism since time began. Just not so easy in the more enlightened 21st century.









1st post for a while that I haven't referred to the thixotropic nature of pigshit. Don is far more eloquent than I could ever be.....

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 12:59 PM

Ian Mather,

If someone evangelizes while quoting Jesus' you can call him a Cristian.

Since you have evangelized here several time quoting "chapter and verse" Dawkin's meme that "religious education is child abuse," wihle supporting the meme with Dawkins same arguments, I'm going to continue to call you a Dawkins follower.

You and I have gone back and forth about Dawkins a few times. You know who he is and what he has said about religion and delusion. You have gleefully quoted it and peddled it in your ministry of ridicule. So denying it now makes you look a little like St. Peter. It also make you a liar. But lying is OK with you isn't it? You have also said it is OK to lie about religion and too religious people. So this tactic is not much of a surprise.

Please note everyone else . This is not an attack on any group of people. Just one person, Ian Mather, who demonstrates extremely poor moral character while posing as "Musket" on this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 01:03 PM

YETH! and I'm not even an Atheist!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 01:21 PM

DonT,

You PROBABLY need to change your name from WYSIWYG. To WYGCFDB (What You Get Comes From Don's Butt.)

Butt missle one
I didn't say "explanations"

I said deal with the tragedies.

"Nineteenth century explorers and colonists in Africa have written reams of material on how the native populations deified those forces of nature which were beyond their understanding, just as the Ancient Greeks and Romans deified the same things. "

The Greeks and Romans BLAMED natural phenomena on the God's Apollo towed the sun with his horses, Zeus threw thunderbolts. And where do you get off comparing modern peoples to much more primitive hypothetical cave men?

"Personality cult religions gradually displaced these primitive ideas"

I was speculating about the FIRST time you IDIOT. What gradually replaced the FIRST time does not disprove that that FIRST time happened one way or another.

Of course all of the above has nothing to do with the veracity of what I said. It is just pointing out the silliness of your arguments.

The silliest part was that you got so upset and abusive and worked your self up to the point that you would spew this nonsense to berate me over a JOKE!!

Yes it was a joke. It was a joke based on a Ricky Gervais movie about the only liar in the world. It was a joke and an allegory to try to answer Gillymoor's question in a lighthearted way.

You may be arrogant and silly enough to seriously speculate about the actions of people who now only exist as fossil fragments. I am not.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 01:41 PM

LOL!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans respectability
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 02:23 PM

Oh good. Back on form. Still all at sea but the pigshit still pervades.

On the off chance anybody is remotely interested in why Seaman Stains doesn't get my respect., well first read his illogical withering diatribe anyway and secondly just be aware that he was indignant as only hypocritical happy clappies can be when I pointed out in another thread that a good friend of mine is one of the thousands who tell the local schools they are Christians because they want to get their kids into the school closest with the best exam grades which for stupid reasons are attached to churches. I went further to say I too would put my children's education above what bullshit parents have to come out with to get into the tax payer funded state schools. Saying you are a Christian when you don't believe in that nonsense isn't an issue. No such thing as god so like blasphemy it is a victimless crime.

The crime is allowing schools to be run on superstition lines in the first place.

No, you pathetic example of Dumbfuckistan. Realising there is no such thing as a Christian child isn't repeating Dawkins, it is understanding the reason for confirmation etc. Do you only have a shit because Jesus must have done, being human and all that?..

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 02:33 PM

I dunno, MtheGM. You say my view of God as Within All and Beyond All, doesn't say anything. Well, maybe it doesn't say anything you can disagree with. Why is it that a God must be counter to the reality that we perceive, able to tweak that reality in accordance with the prayers of believers? Why can't faith be "reality-based."

Couldn't it be, that we are surrounded by the sacred? That we encounter the sacred in every moment, every person, every thing we encounter. And each of these sacred entities and sacred moments has infinite potential - could it be, that the potential is what people worship as God?

And could it be that all the sacred myths and sacred writings and sacred rituals of all cultures, serve at their best to awaken in us a mindfulness of the sacredness that surrounds us? And could it be that through time, there have been people who embody the sacred for us, in whom the sacred is incarnate?

Maybe that's not what God is, either - but hey, it works for me. It adds joy and richness and depth to my life.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 02:36 PM

More childish name calling Ian Mather? Run out of arguments again?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans sin
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 02:36 PM

Jack Off says I resemble St Peter. Anybody want to enlighten me and say whether this is a good thing or not? That's the problem dealing with the likes of Sailor Jack. They think you know things about their hobby. Seriously, I know he was a disciple and is fabled as being the first Pope. That is genuinely all I know so slightly curious as to why I remind our resident swivel eyed loon of him?

Oh, just to be fashionable. .. Ian Mather! Ian Mather! ad neasium.






Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 02:45 PM

Peter lied thrice before the cock crew that he didn't know Jesus to keep himself out of trouble, as Jesus had foretold; and then went away and wept bitterly.

HTH.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 02:51 PM

Indeed, Joe, I genuinely rejoice that it works for you and brings you such spiritual joy. But it really does all seem to me so much hedged about with "why shouldn't?" and "what if?" and "why could't" that it just isn't ever going to work for me, as I can find nothing in what you say to get any sort of intellectual or ideological grip on; which I suppose was what I meant by my question.

Still, I continue to wish you joy of it.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans Ian
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 02:55 PM

Being childish can be because someone has run out of arguments but in this case it is lack of anything rational to argue against.

Say something in an objective manner with no hidden baggage and you might be surprised by the answers people reply with.

Mind you, reading the answers may harm your delusion. Assuming you have the capacity to understand, which on past form isn't guaranteed. .....

Isnt it enough that a God can deliver all the richness and depth it gives for Joe Offer without having to question those of us who live perfectly happily without it? No. You are an example, a piss poor one but an example all the same of those who insist on pushing your thoughts on others and under the transparent cloak of asking questions seek to make people look idiots for not sharing your delusion. You even berate pete for not agreeing with you!

Can all atheists be lumped together? Yes. In the tiny mind of sailor Jack and his amazing performing logic choppers. Coming soon to a circus near you.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans Ian
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 03:20 PM

Thanks. I didn't know that.

Mind you, what it has to do with my mate joining thousands of others and fobbing off head teachers in order to claim their right to state education is still beyond me.

I don't refuse to go to weddings and funerals because I sm not a Christian so what is the difference? Oh. I see. It's about religion and in religion you get to pick and choose what is moral and what isn't.

Silly me.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 03:42 PM

"It's about religion and in religion you get to pick and choose what is moral and what isn't."

Repeat thrice daily. If a religion keeps an individual on a 'moral' path, that's a good thing. However, if that same religion usurps morals the sheep often continue to follow the leaders. I don't think very many people have given away the coat hanging in the closet: it does belong to the poor man.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 04:00 PM

Musket. No one is questioning your atheism. It is your trying to bully (berate) people into accepting your ideas and your pathetic projection of your own insecurity about "respect" that are objectionable. Here is a hint. If you want respect, be respectful.

And FYI. This might come in handy if you want to avoid embarrassing yourself one more. Your ignorance is becoming very very tedious.

And what is this idiot fascination with wanting people outside your own country to say "maths?" What a bizarre combination of provincialism and Imperial arrogance. What is wrong with you??

You have free health care. Consider that it might be time to have an MRI to look for the gremlins in your skull.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 04:02 PM

"Mind you, what it has to do with my mate joining thousands of others and fobbing off head teachers in order to claim their right to state education is still beyond me. "

Even atheists who are not Dawhins evangelists know that it is wrong to lie, especially on a government form.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans sin
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 04:12 PM

Errmmm. Errr...

Naw, if its all the same to you, I'd rather laugh at you rather than with you. If you insist on pigeon holing people based on assuming everybody is as fucked up as you, perhaps questioning yourself rather than rational people might just be more useful?

Just out of interest, there is a difference, and a huge one, between bullying others into accepting your stance and trying to point out to a thick sod like you that some of us don't have a stance. Just fed up with others thinking we all want share their delusion.

Getting bored now. Piss off, there's a good chap. Oh and carry on being American in your language. The use of the word arse seemed strange when coming from one.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 05:21 PM

Yes bullying people in to accepting your stance.

You have a stance, no one is stupid enough to think that you do not have a stance. No one but you.

Musket/Ian

You are not as F***ed up as me. You are way way more f***ed up. You have made hundreds of posts on this forum apparently trying to convince yourself that you don't have a stance which is obvious to everyone but you.

Canadian language, you ignorant braying ass.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 07:25 PM

May that be because, with all respect to Joe, it doesn't actually say anything?

Well yes. I admire the efforts of those who interpret God for themselves to fit their own personal mould. Unfortunately, this generally involves so much watering-down of the God concept that, well, the valiant interpreters might just as well be atheists themselves.

As for this:

And could it be that all the sacred myths and sacred writings and sacred rituals of all cultures, serve at their best to awaken in us a mindfulness of the sacredness that surrounds us? And could it be that through time, there have been people who embody the sacred for us, in whom the sacred is incarnate?

As I pointed out recently (and got ignored for, but hey), all this sacredness is a bit relative. What's a sacred ritual in your culture might be abhorrent in someone else's. I can't help detecting a hint of implicit religious imperialism here. Had you perchance been born into certain other religious cultures and typed what you just typed, you might well have had in mind the sacred rituals of removing the foreskin of a month-old baby boy or the whole of the external genitalia of little girls, or the enforced subjugation of women to the extent of their having to wear clothing that permits only a postbox-sized part of them to be shown in public. To someone or other, all these similarly religion-derived things are just as sacred as the stuff that gives you so much edification. It might come as something as a shock to those who find such solace in these sacred rituals and traditions to hear that some of us find equal, if not greater, awakening of joy in the triumphant ordinariness of nature in all its beauty and diversity. Looking for sacredness in holy writings of dubious origin, and in traditions handed down from a thoroughly authoritarian regime which just happens to be the one you were born into, smacks rather strongly of a lack of trust in good old Mother Nature (not to speak of good old Mother Common Sense, to quote that most down-to-earth fellow John Seymour).

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 08:15 PM

You are a piece of work Mr. Shaw.

"As I pointed out recently (and got ignored for, but hey), "

Consider please that people are ignoring you because your hatred of religion keeps causing you to keep trying to shovel condescending piles of shite like this in people's faces.


"all this sacredness is a bit relative. What's a sacred ritual in your culture might be abhorrent in someone else's. I can't help detecting a hint of implicit religious imperialism here"

Joe basically said he is religious because he enjoys the experience in HIS religion. That has nothing to do with any other religion and certainly no hint of Imperialism.

And THEN you go on to being an accident of birth away from committing any number of things done in the name of OTHER religions.

Stop embarrassing yourself you incoherent JERK, shut up!.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 08:34 PM

Have another vat of wine, Wacko. You were telling me off elsewhere a few minutes ago for gratuitous name-calling, as I recall. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 12:08 AM

Yes and I am telling you off here for being rude and condescending. When I called you a jerk it was not gratuitous.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans respectability
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 01:16 AM

Well, if all atheists can be lumped together, why not all Americans?

You wrote the op, I just carried on in the same silly manner. I thought it would be what you wanted. ....

Carolina /Canada. All the same, dear chap. Either can claim you belong to the other for starters.

Bbbbbrrrrrraaaaaaaýyyyyyyyyyyy

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 01:27 AM

"Carolina /Canada. All the same, dear chap"
.,,.
Oh, come, Ian. Can't have that sort of lamentable lumping-together, you know. Great diffs, as ass/arse shows, in linguistic usage, with much more of the English & French influence farther north. Why, by the merest coincidence, a clue [which I got as it went by!] in this week's 'Poirot' {ITV Sunday 8 pm} enabled the egregious Hercule to identify the villainess's claim to be a Yooser & identify her as being actually Canadian, when she described something complete as being 'from A to zed', when a true American would have said 'A to zee'.

Zo there!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 05:17 AM

I guess pointing out to you that I have said at least twice on this thread that no group can be "lumped together" would not make any difference?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans Agatha Christie
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 07:58 AM

I saw that too. I am usually slow on the uptake whilst watching the telly. But I felt rather proud of myself when I noted at the time that she didn't know of Paddy Parade and said zed.

You are conversing with an ex disk jockey here who through genuine ignorance at the time played songs by zed zed topp. Nobody picked me up on it either. It took listening to an interview with John Peel before I noticed. Everything fell into place regarding the marketing use of EZ for that matter.

If atheists spoke differently and didn't walk around all day knocking on doors asking people if they had let Dawkins into their lives, do you think ignorant imbeciles might stop asking if they can be lumped together too?

I may have mentioned this before. In Canada the other year, I saw an excellent T shirt with a dictionary entry. Canadian (noun) unarmed American with healthcare.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 08:46 AM

""Please note everyone else . This is not an attack on any group of people. Just one person, Ian Mather, who demonstrates extremely poor moral character while posing as "Musket" on this forum.""

If you have so much of a problem with Ian posting as Musket, a perfectly normal moniker as far as anybody but "little old religious zealot you" is concerned, how come you haven't the guts to come out from behind "Jack the Sailor"?

Put your money wher your big whining mouth is, or STFU about others.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 08:57 AM

""Yes it was a joke. It was a joke based on a Ricky Gervais movie about the only liar in the world. It was a joke and an allegory to try to answer Gillymoor's question in a lighthearted way.

You may be arrogant and silly enough to seriously speculate about the actions of people who now only exist as fossil fragments. I am not.""

Another Mandy Rice Davies moment Jack!

Well you would say that wouldn't you, after being told you are talking rubbish!

Besides you don't possess a sense of humour, which is normal for passive/aggressive "perennial victims".

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans Ian
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 10:03 AM

I suppose he needs to be able to pigeon hole people and two names confuses him. I deserve his vitriol mind, dismissing him as a lunatic and then poking fun at him isn't clever. Although I do enjoy it all the same, as boorish as it is, because he responds by showing his arse even more. Hence the downward spiral. ....

You see that's the problem with trying to lump people in one box as he insists. In the words of his fellow Canadian- Nothing is perfect in God's perfect plan.

I doubt he will let his name out, as is his right. He tends to be secretive. He asked me nicely never to visit whichever of The Carolinas it is he lives in. Presumably reckons I have nothing better to do than drift down into Dumbfuckistan when I am in The States. Doing his best to ensure Musket is Ian Mather however, seems to be a passion. Just the same as saying I .. Whatever bollocks he says, I tend not to let it sink in.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 01:04 PM

"didn't walk around all day knocking on doors asking people if they had let (whoever) into their lives"

Musket? The percentage of religious people who actually do that is absolutely tiny. Mostly it's some Jehovah's Witnesses and some Mormons who do, in my experience. So...why do you speak as though that's what "religious people" as a general category do, when hardly any of them actually do it?

That's what Jack is referring to as lumping people together, and he started the thread NOT to lump all atheists together, but to point out that it's stupid to stereotype people BY lumping them all together as though they all shared some characteristic you don't like. I know you're not dead stupid, so you probably have realized that...but you can't seem to be bothered to acknowledge it. Is it more fun for you just to continue the feuding and wisecracks and deliberately avoid recognizing the actual point Jack is making?

He's saying that you treat people without respect and stereotype them if they happen to be "religious". That you lump them all together. And he appears to be quite correct, going by your many remarks on the subject.

The fact that the two of you have gone on about it this long indicates that you're both unwilling to let go without getting in the last word. Typical of battling egos. My bet is that you'll still be going on about it a year from now, and nothing will have changed, but you'll have at least provided some idle amusement for people like me who read the thread every day...and perhaps occasionally comment on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 01:14 PM

You know, I'm thinking....I should've PM'd that to you. Then you wouldn't have an audience when and if you respond. And therefore no one to perform for when you respond. That is one of the key problems on this forum...the people here, like politicians, are very self-consciously playing to their entire forum audience every time they post...pulling the beards of their usual enemies and looking for knowing grins and applause from their usual allies. It doesn't do much to assist any real communication between 2 people. Rather, it obfuscates the process.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 03:06 PM

steve says "believe me i really dont want to know..."
thankyou for agreeing with me when i suggested that the challenger did not want to know the answer,by demonstating that this in fact is the case.i reckon that puts the rest of your reply to me into perpective.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans respectability
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 04:10 PM

Little Hawk. Don't fear. I won't get a stiffy from playing to a crowd. Neither do I have a stance from which I won't budge. I merely read the op when he posts and respond in kind. My views and reasons for my approach are up there somewhere without boring people further.

Do you actually think I reckon all Christians knock on doors? I doubt you do, so why say it? I accept that irony and turning people's stupidity back at them can go over the heads of some but your post did disappoint me all the same. Sad really. Whilst I don't share your views over everybody having some belief even if not conventional, I do see where you are coming from. Hence my flippant Sheffield Wednesday references.

Knowing grins are difficult when nobody can see you. I would be bemused if anybody agreed with my serious points and horrified if sailor baiting was popular. ...

He may be your mate but his arse is on full view whilst ever he has this fascination with clumsily pushing his Creed by claiming lack of Creed is an organised assertive movement. He can't get the idea of irreligious. Can you?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 04:31 PM

Yeah, sure I can get the idea of irreligious. After all, I grew up in an irreligious family, took it for granted, and was entirely irreligious myself for about the first 1/3 of my life. I'm still not all that "religious" (in the sense of specific beliefs, doctrines, labels, etc), but I am spiritually minded, meaning, I find spiritual reasons there behind all the religions, rather than feeling I must belong exclusively to one of them.

"Do you actually think I reckon all Christians knock on doors?"

No. (smile) Not for a moment did I think that. But you said it, thereby advancing the stereotype. It's a way of talking...like mentioning "tinfoil hats" or "little green men" or "conspiracy theory". It sets a certain tone. It denotes an attitude.

Jack is not my "mate". ;-) In fact, we have often butted heads and disagreed about stuff in the past, we seem to really annoy each other at times for some reason, but I do happen to agree with the point he's making in this particular thread. That doesn't make me his mate...just means I agree with him on this occasion.

"Knowing grins are difficult when nobody can see you."

Yup. ;-) That's why a keyboard isn't all that good a communicator.

I don't think Jack is pushing "his creed" here. I haven't heard him trying to convert anyone or "save" them. I think he's simply objecting to the same few people rising like jack-in-the-boxes (no intended reference to Jts) every time the words "God" or "religion" or "spirituality" are mentioned just so they can ridicule it...and trotting out the usual extreme stereotypes in order to do so.

Yeah, sure, I get that you are saying a lot of the stuff you say with a bemused smile. So am I. ;-) Alas, the typeface just doesn't show it.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 07:05 PM

What pete the liar says Steve says:

steve says "believe me i really dont want to know..."

What pete the liar concludes from this blatant untruth of his:

thankyou for agreeing with me when i suggested that the challenger did not want to know the answer,by demonstating that this in fact is the case.i reckon that puts the rest of your reply to me into perpective.

And now the crunch, folks, what Steve actually said:

Believe me, I really do want to hear an answer. And believe me, you have never answered it before.

Now I wonder what the explanation for this can possibly be. Let's try a few stabs:

*pete is so stupid that he can't understand plain English when he reads it (after all, he certainly can't write it himself).

*pete is a liar who hopes that no-one will take the trouble to scroll back up the thread to discover what Steve actually said (after all, pete is the past master at insulting every honest scientist on the planet, so why not insult the intelligence of the people on this forum as well?)

*pete thinks he remembered what Steve said so he churned out, as a verbatim quote I might add, what he thought he'd remembered, and couldn't be arsed to go back just to do a quick check (after all, he has consistently shown himself to be by far the laziest bastard on this forum, never got round to this, haven't managed to look up that, had no time yet for the other).

Well if you ask me pete embodies a good dash of all three. What a plonker. Pretty unchristian, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 07:14 PM

I don't think Jack is pushing "his creed" here. I haven't heard him trying to convert anyone or "save" them. I think he's simply objecting to the same few people rising like jack-in-the-boxes (no intended reference to Jts) every time the words "God" or "religion" or "spirituality" are mentioned just so they can ridicule it...and trotting out the usual extreme stereotypes in order to do so.

Hmm. Not only do you demonise a good few people who put a lot of thought into what they post as you confuse ridicule with criticism, you also get your jack-in-the-box analogy completely arse about face. You are defending the man who, almost single-handedly, starts all these fights by starting thread after thread after thread on the topic. There's your jack-in-the-box for you, not us. The only true part of the above quote is the first three words of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 07:51 PM

"Demonize"???

I'm "demonizing" people merely by pointing out that they apparently enjoy ridiculing other people simply for having different beliefs about something? How does this equate to demonizing anyone? I'm just saying you shouldn't treat people that way, that's all.

Do you feel demonized by my questioning your crass interpersonal behaviour toward others, Steve? You poor, poor man. I never meant to cause you such pain...I just didn't realize you were that sensitive. (ironical smile)

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 09:41 PM

You may rest assured that nothing anyone says on this or any other forum makes me feel demonised, sensitised or pained. I post under my real name (unlike you and hypocrite Wacko Jacko) and I play a dead straight bat at all times. What I say is what I think, no more, no less. Even Don would probably not mind my usurping his soubriquet ever so slightly by my telling you that what you see is what you get. If you think you can get at a bloke who's like that, you're a better man than I am. Having cleared up your misconception, let me make it quite clear to you that, as far as I'm concerned, anyone is entitled to believe whatever they want. In fact, I'd fight for their right to do so. Let me make it quite clear also that I am not entitled to ridicule anyone for holding a particular private belief. Now did you, by any chance, spot the great big clue in that last sentence? Well, as you're not a man of subtle understanding, permit me to explain. For all I care, you can believe in great big fat fairies in the bottom of your garden. That's approximately as likely as the truth of belief in God. Where I start to get bothered is when you try to get other people to believe your improbable notion. Tell the world about your big fat fairies and we'll smile indulgently in your direction. Tell the world about your God, the same. But tell your kids that they must believe in your God or sign them up at birth to your God-club, or that your God is as likely as not to exist (a big lie), or that he's a better God than other people's Gods, or that people who reject your unlikely God are threateningly militant bullies, or that he broke all nature's laws in order to create everything from nothing in some kind of flash of magic, in the face of all the hard-won evidence of science, and I'm parting company with you. And the more you go on about it (the job of religion), the more I'll resist. And if you keep on, you are opening yourself up to ridicule, and you deserve it. I don't ridicule anyone here for holding particular beliefs (don't confuse lusty challenge with ridicule a la Wacko), but I might give them the ridicule they deserve for the way they express those beliefs and the way they cultivate elaborate delusions for themselves and diss hard-working scientists. Religion needs to be fought. It's a very bad thing, old chap.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 10:41 PM

How can you communicate with a person who won't stand by his own words less than three hours after he puts them in writing? I fear that Mr. Shaw has lost his marbles as well as his memory.



07:14 PM

Hmm. Not only do you demonise a good few people who put a lot of thought into what they post as you confuse ridicule with criticism,


09:41 PM



You may rest assured that nothing anyone says on this or any other forum makes me feel demonised, sensitised or pained.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 10:54 PM

That was a very well written post of 4:31. I hope you take it as a compliment that I consider my agreement to be the last word on this thread.

Joe, You can close this thread if you please, as far as I am concerned, As LH pointed out, it really has descended into serious personal abuse. and the Militant Atheist one as well, so I won't complain if you close it. but if you do, please give Mr. Shaw and Mr. Mather each a chance to have a last word.

---

I'm not in the thread-closing department any more. I do music editing and registration and tech help. But we never have closed threads simply because they've become boring or a little ornery. And we don't close threads at the originator's request. Once a thread is begun, it is the property of the community.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 11:30 PM

You clearly have a quarrel going on with someone about how they handle their religion, Steve....but it isn't me. ;-) What I wonder is, who is it?

"or tell your kids that they must believe in your God"

Who did that? Not me. And I wonder...did he also tell them that they must believe in flag, country, and some damned political party? Or did he just very strongly imply all of that by already doing so himself? That's what usually happens. As to which does more harm to children, that depends on specific circumstances, but ALL people who have children inadvertently program them into having a certain outlook on things, regardless of whether they try to do so or not. It just happens that way, because children imitate what their parents do...when they're quite young. That may change later on when they hit puberty, of course. ;-) It very often changes radically at that point.

"Having cleared up your misconception" Oh, YES, Steve! I am soooo grateful for that kindness on your part. You will surely be my moral deliverance and slowly move me in the direction of reason and sanity. La de da...

"as you're not a man of subtle understanding" (Snort!) Oh, GOOD one, Steve! Your satiric wit is razor sharp, as always. I am cut to the quick! I may have to commit ritual suicide, Japanese style, now that I am faced with the knowledge of my tragic lack of subtlety.

"Where I start to get bothered is when you try to get other people to believe your improbable notion." Really? Hmm. When did I try to do that? What is my improbable notion? Tell me.

"or that he's a better God than other people's Gods"

Say what? "He?" Where do you get "He"? What other Gods? Be specific now.

"and diss hard-working scientists" Sorry. I don't do that either. I like science. I'm not sure who you have in mind, but it isn't me.

"Religion needs to be fought." Aha! Now you have stated your position in a crystal clear manner, Steve. If you feel that religion has to be fought, then you're at war with religion. And that's what Jack's been saying all along.

What you're mostly doing, Steve, is fighting that war on these various threads, and assuming that anyone whom you think is on the other side of it fits all the loony stuff you're already assumed they would fit...such as "broke all nature's laws in order to create everything from nothing in some kind of flash of magic". Yeah, right...heh! In short, you are continually battling a straw man you have imagined, rather like Don Quixote charging at the windmills, convinced you are fighting the good fight to save society, children, etc. Get serious, man! You'll wear yourself out tilting with those windmills.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans Ian
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 01:55 AM

I suppose it is up to me to be flippant and irresponsible
Someone has to. ..

Mr Mather can't have any last word purely because he doesn't exist.

Musket exists, on the basis of posting. Ian exists and Ian Mather exists but Mr Mather has never posted on these threads.

If my title of Dr seems somewhat pedantic then let's not forget my comment is aimed at someone who picks up on the flimsiest word and extrapolates it to mean whatever twisted crap he wishes. Then gets confused when I return the compliment.

I wasn't aware the op had the right to close threads? Surely once you display your arse others have the right to take photos?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 02:11 AM

No, I don't think the OP has the right to close threads. I asked for that once myself, and I was informed that the thread, once started, belongs to the forum, not to me...even if it was my original idea. ;-)

That means this thread could theoretically go on FOREVER! Or at least until the forum ceases to exist.

That means there's no escape other than:

1. forbearance
2. one's own death
3. the end of Mudcat Cafe
5. the cessation of the Internet itself
6. a permanent power failure
7. worldwide nuclear war
8. an act of God shutting down this thread (joke!)

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans body
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 02:41 AM

You forgot reaching a stage where knocking on the door and running off isn't as much fun if there is nobody at home.

Most seem to have reached that point. Me too.

However, if the last word by default sums up the thread then I suppose it would be sad to leave it wallowing in the fantasy of the op. I suggest anybody reading this scrolls to the top and you will see what I mean.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 02:50 AM

Well yes. I admire the efforts of those who interpret God for themselves to fit their own personal mould. Unfortunately, this generally involves so much watering-down of the God concept that, well, the valiant interpreters might just as well be atheists themselves.

Once again, we have evidence that those who oppose religion, are able to see religious faith only through fundamentalist eyes. If believers have a concept of God that actually makes sense, they are dismissed as "might just as well be atheists themselves."

Hmmmmm?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 05:47 AM

You clearly have a quarrel going on with someone about how they handle their religion, Steve....but it isn't me. ;-) What I wonder is, who is it?

"or tell your kids that they must believe in your God"

Who did that? Not me. And I wonder...did he also tell them that they must believe in flag, country, and some damned political party? Or did he just very strongly imply all of that by already doing so himself? That's what usually happens. As to which does more harm to children, that depends on specific circumstances, but ALL people who have children inadvertently program them into having a certain outlook on things, regardless of whether they try to do so or not. It just happens that way, because children imitate what their parents do...when they're quite young. That may change later on when they hit puberty, of course. ;-) It very often changes radically at that point.

"Having cleared up your misconception" Oh, YES, Steve! I am soooo grateful for that kindness on your part. You will surely be my moral deliverance and slowly move me in the direction of reason and sanity. La de da...

"as you're not a man of subtle understanding" (Snort!) Oh, GOOD one, Steve! Your satiric wit is razor sharp, as always. I am cut to the quick! I may have to commit ritual suicide, Japanese style, now that I am faced with the knowledge of my tragic lack of subtlety.

"Where I start to get bothered is when you try to get other people to believe your improbable notion." Really? Hmm. When did I try to do that? What is my improbable notion? Tell me.

"or that he's a better God than other people's Gods"

Say what? "He?" Where do you get "He"? What other Gods? Be specific now.

"and diss hard-working scientists" Sorry. I don't do that either. I like science. I'm not sure who you have in mind, but it isn't me.

"Religion needs to be fought." Aha! Now you have stated your position in a crystal clear manner, Steve. If you feel that religion has to be fought, then you're at war with religion. And that's what Jack's been saying all along.

What you're mostly doing, Steve, is fighting that war on these various threads, and assuming that anyone whom you think is on the other side of it fits all the loony stuff you're already assumed they would fit...such as "broke all nature's laws in order to create everything from nothing in some kind of flash of magic". Yeah, right...heh! In short, you are continually battling a straw man you have imagined, rather like Don Quixote charging at the windmills, convinced you are fighting the good fight to save society, children, etc. Get serious, man! You'll wear yourself out tilting with those windmills.

As I've been at pains to point out, I'm not fighting anyone. I react in these threads to what people say. The fighters are the thread-initiators. And a word of advice. You lost it big-time in this post. It doesn't chime at all with what I said in mine (misrepresentation, as I've said before, is the most accomplished dark art on this and most other discussion forums). You were flailing around, not for the first time. Stay cool and stay on top. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 05:49 AM

I'll try that again, with the italics in the right places. Sorry about that.

You clearly have a quarrel going on with someone about how they handle their religion, Steve....but it isn't me. ;-) What I wonder is, who is it?

"or tell your kids that they must believe in your God"

Who did that? Not me. And I wonder...did he also tell them that they must believe in flag, country, and some damned political party? Or did he just very strongly imply all of that by already doing so himself? That's what usually happens. As to which does more harm to children, that depends on specific circumstances, but ALL people who have children inadvertently program them into having a certain outlook on things, regardless of whether they try to do so or not. It just happens that way, because children imitate what their parents do...when they're quite young. That may change later on when they hit puberty, of course. ;-) It very often changes radically at that point.

"Having cleared up your misconception" Oh, YES, Steve! I am soooo grateful for that kindness on your part. You will surely be my moral deliverance and slowly move me in the direction of reason and sanity. La de da...

"as you're not a man of subtle understanding" (Snort!) Oh, GOOD one, Steve! Your satiric wit is razor sharp, as always. I am cut to the quick! I may have to commit ritual suicide, Japanese style, now that I am faced with the knowledge of my tragic lack of subtlety.

"Where I start to get bothered is when you try to get other people to believe your improbable notion." Really? Hmm. When did I try to do that? What is my improbable notion? Tell me.

"or that he's a better God than other people's Gods"

Say what? "He?" Where do you get "He"? What other Gods? Be specific now.

"and diss hard-working scientists" Sorry. I don't do that either. I like science. I'm not sure who you have in mind, but it isn't me.

"Religion needs to be fought." Aha! Now you have stated your position in a crystal clear manner, Steve. If you feel that religion has to be fought, then you're at war with religion. And that's what Jack's been saying all along.

What you're mostly doing, Steve, is fighting that war on these various threads, and assuming that anyone whom you think is on the other side of it fits all the loony stuff you're already assumed they would fit...such as "broke all nature's laws in order to create everything from nothing in some kind of flash of magic". Yeah, right...heh! In short, you are continually battling a straw man you have imagined, rather like Don Quixote charging at the windmills, convinced you are fighting the good fight to save society, children, etc. Get serious, man! You'll wear yourself out tilting with those windmills.

As I've been at pains to point out, I'm not fighting anyone. I react in these threads to what people say. The fighters are the thread-initiators. And a word of advice. You lost it big-time in this post. It doesn't chime at all with what I said in mine (misrepresentation, as I've said before, is the most accomplished dark art on this and most other discussion forums). You were flailing around, not for the first time. Stay cool and stay on top. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 05:51 AM

Wacko, dear fellow, have a little think about the difference between being demonised and feeling demonised. Then go to the back of the class with Little Hawk in the misrepresentation naughty corner.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 06:01 AM

But Joe, we end up with so many "concepts of God" that the concept becomes almost meaningless. He's a spirit that exists in all things. Or he's a force that drives nature. Either of these can be sentient or non-sentient. Or he's a big beardie-weirdie in the sky. He sets up the world to let it run on its own (justification for the all the nasty things that happen on his watch). Or he's all-seeing and all-knowing and he can intervene arbitrarily if we ask him to in our prayers (otherwise, why would you ask?) You can have "your own personal concept" that manages to wriggle round all the objections that make you feel a bit queasy about him. Pointing out to you this incredible diversity of elaborate concepts is not seeing things through a fundamentalist lens. It is simply pointing out the absurdity of it all.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 06:15 AM

I have a hypothesis that people who start a thread and then ask for it to be closed usually do it because they wish they hadn't started the bloody thing in the first place, got out of their depth in it, made a twit of themselves in it and hope that, once it's closed, it will sink down the list without trace. So that, after a few weeks of dignity-repair, they can come back and start another stupid thread or two. When you think about it, Wacko, we're doing you a big favour by subverting that process by keeping this one going.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: TheSnail
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 07:18 AM

Since the "Militant" thread seems to have gone even further down the road of childish abuse than this one, may I draw attention to my post there thread.cfm?threadid=150071&messages=918#3522330? I which never really received a satifactory response from either Joe or Steve.

---

Better link: /detail.cfm?messages__Message_ID=3522330

(copy the "printer-friendly" link)

That being said, I don't have anything to say in response. I think we're more-or-less in agreement, except perhaps for semantic differences.
-Joe-.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 07:21 AM

That's a massive thread that takes yonks to load. Copy 'n' paste it, yeah? No joining the pete lazy-school!

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 08:42 AM

""That's what Jack is referring to as lumping people together, and he started the thread NOT to lump all atheists together, but to point out that it's stupid to stereotype people BY lumping them all together as though they all shared some characteristic you don't like.""

Then he failed dismally, having spent almost all of this thread and two others he started, lumping all non believers together as an anti religious movement.

DUH?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 11:02 AM

Steve, I am simply having some fun with you. I'm taking the piss. Comprendo? You're so busy trying to somehow embarass me by proving that I'm not as "smart" as you are? Or as "subtle"? You hope to thereby crush me and make me crawl off miserably by scoring some devastatingly clever comeback?

Well, hey, that's what (virtually) ALL egos do to other egos in a Mudcat debate. All the time. You do it. Jack does it. I do it. Don does it. All the competing egos here do that. They can't help it, they're just made that way. But don't make the mistake of taking it seriously and imagining that it matters, because it doesn't.

I do actually care about the subject matter of this thread. Yes. But I don't actually care what you think about it, because it simply doesn't matter to me. Your thinking is something you have to live with, not me, so why should it matter to me?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: TheSnail
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 11:41 AM

No, Steve, I won't clutter this thread with stuff that's easily available elsewhere. It takes seconds to download so who's being lazy? You could have responded properly in the first place. Perhaps you are just looking for ways to dodge questions that don't fit your version of science.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 11:45 AM

"Once again, we have evidence that those who oppose religion, are able to see religious faith only through fundamentalist eyes. If believers have a concept of God that actually makes sense, they are dismissed as "might just as well be atheists themselves."

Joe, this thread is a load of crap perpetrated by ignorant people who have their own agenda and axe to grind. By supporting this stuff, you are enabling not a legitimate conversation but a futile defense. If there isn't a decent discussion about this topic, I'm outa' here and that probably means Mudcat in general. I'm annoyed at all the name-calling and condescension by those who purport to be religious. I was called names when I was trying to have a decent conversation about a topic I care about. The personal diatribes and brickbats thrown mean to me that Mudcat is no longer serving the purpose of fostering legitimate conversations but is a propaganda mechanism to be used by ignorant louts.

The words "god bless you" have sounded more like a curse than a nice greeting.

Good bye.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 12:03 PM

Can I have the last word?

Can it be "undercarriage"?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 12:08 PM

"If there isn't a decent discussion about this topic"

There never ends up being a decent conversation about any such topic here, stringsinger. That's a given. I used to try with all sincerity to have decent conversations about serious topics on Mudcat...I tried for over a decade...but it's hopeless. A bunch of the same ill-natured people here just get into their usual personal attacks, putdowns, insults, and silly ego-enhancement games and it all goes down the toilet in a very short time. I don't bother anymore to talk seriously to people who have nothing but snide ill will, lofty sneering, and rancour to offer in return. Instead, I amuse myself a bit with them, that's all.

If I want to have a decent conversation with someone, I do it where it actually can be done...in real 3-D life. One on one. Disrespect is way too easy for people on the internet. They can't see the other person, they can't read tone of voice or body language, and there appear to be no consequences to their own callous behaviour. That makes it a very poor environment for any kind of decent communication.

But it's so EAAAAASY! And that's why people do it. They don't even have to get dressed or get out of their chair. This is how the world ends, not with a BANG, but a keystroke.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 12:43 PM

Some here might find this BBC series interesting. Hosted by the excellent Johnathan Miller (The Body in Question) he converses one on one with 6 prominent atheists. The Atheism Tapes.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 01:31 PM

Looks like I mistakenly lumped Denys Turner together with some atheists.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 01:37 PM

Steve, I am simply having some fun with you. I'm taking the piss. Comprendo? You're so busy trying to somehow embarass me by proving that I'm not as "smart" as you are? Or as "subtle"? You hope to thereby crush me and make me crawl off miserably by scoring some devastatingly clever comeback?

Well golly and gosh, we do seem to have a little complex, don't we now?

But I don't actually care what you think about it, because it simply doesn't matter to me. Your thinking is something you have to live with, not me, so why should it matter to me?

Then why do you keep on not ignoring me? You do seem to get awfully worked up about stuff that doesn't matter to you and that you care not a jot about. Keep calm 'n' carry on...

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 01:48 PM

No, Steve, I won't clutter this thread with stuff that's easily available elsewhere. It takes seconds to download so who's being lazy? You could have responded properly in the first place. Perhaps you are just looking for ways to dodge questions that don't fit your version of science.

What "version of science"??

Frankly, you could have responded to the post that got your goat within the thread it's in. Claiming that you didn't because of all the childish abuse there is just piffle. There's just as much of that in this thread as there (those bloody Christians...). It's bad enough having all the natter-Jack threads on atheism without your mucking things around even more with you attempts at cross-stitching. Respond over there, and, if it's of any interest, I'll be right with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 03:08 PM

I think Stringsinger has a point. This subject has become tedious - and when Mudcatters get bored, they call each other names. And that's distasteful.

I think that most of us who have participated in this thread, have ideas that are really not that far apart. Most of us are fairly rational, and most of us are not fundamentalists.

But most of us need to have a little more tolerance.

I suppose that the only thing proved by this "atheist" series of threads, is that Jack the Sailor likes to fight, and Steve Shaw likes to fight. It does at times make it difficult for the rest of us to carry on a civil discussion and come to some kind of meeting of the minds. Can't say I know what to do about that.

I don't do "disciplinary" moderation any more. Max removed me because I was fast becoming the most hated person at Mudcat, and being a hated person is not the "real" Joe Offer. So, now I do music editing and tech work and new member registration. Most of the negative responses were due to my refusal to stop certain people from speaking, no matter how obnoxious they might be. So, now such things are handled by an Anonymous Moderation Team, which doesn't handle things much differently than I did. But it has never been officially announced who they are, so people are left to guess.

Mudcat remains a free forum for a wide variety of discussion, both the good and the bad. When I get tired of the bad stuff, I stay in the music section. It's still very nice there - most of the time. And there is lots of research work left to be done on the vast collection of folk songs that have been posted in the Forum.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 03:39 PM

Thread #151015   Message #3525521
Posted By: Steve Shaw
12-Jun-13 - 06:01 AM
Thread Name: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?

But Joe, we end up with so many "concepts of God" that the concept becomes almost meaningless. He's a spirit that exists in all things. Or he's a force that drives nature. Either of these can be sentient or non-sentient. Or he's a big beardie-weirdie in the sky. He sets up the world to let it run on its own (justification for the all the nasty things that happen on his watch). Or he's all-seeing and all-knowing and he can intervene arbitrarily if we ask him to in our prayers (otherwise, why would you ask?) You can have "your own personal concept" that manages to wriggle round all the objections that make you feel a bit queasy about him. Pointing out to you this incredible diversity of elaborate concepts is not seeing things through a fundamentalist lens. It is simply pointing out the absurdity of it all.

---

But then we get down to brass tacks, Steve. One idea about God that is almost universally held, is that God is ineffable, that God is beyond definition. Any attempt to define or even name God, falls short. So, all the words said about God, are approximations. As I've said before in one or the other of these too many threads, the tradition in Judaism is not to pronounce the name of G-D / YHWH, writing God's name without vowels. The Orthodox Christian tradition is to always speak of God in oxymorons, as I do when I speak of That Who Is Beyond and That Who Is Within.

So, than it ends up being a choice, not a matter of proof. You choose belief, or you don't. Either one is OK by me. People don't usually choose belief based on "blind faith" (which usually means doing what somebody else tells you to do). They choose belief because it makes sense in their lives, for one reason or another - oftentimes, it's because they have had one or several experiences that they perceive as the Presence of God. Belief should have some sort of rational basis, but it is by definition beyond rationality.

So, that's the deal, as I see it. Most or many nonbelievers see faith as some sort of control mechanism or some sort of obeisance to authority, but it's not that way in my life. My wife will tell you that I don't have an obedient bone in my body, and that I'm totally out of control.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans Ian
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 03:48 PM

Errrr...

Bollocks?

Just thought I'd add to the conversation in the manner expected.

Joe is right on this. Once the argument reaches the point you need to move more fundamentally than you are comfortable wr revert to name calling. Twas ever thus.

I decided to get there sooner than most and to be honest I feel vindicated.

A pity because now and then I tried posting seriously and to be fair it was generally well received but when I started taking the piss out of Sailor Jack reality took a back seat.

I still reckon he tries to be a dangerous idiot but luckily the good catters can see through his clumsy preaching disguised as questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 07:45 PM

I suppose that the only thing proved by this "atheist" series of threads, is that Jack the Sailor likes to fight, and Steve Shaw likes to fight.

If you think that you can get to me by way of this entirely dishonest gambit, think again. There is no equivalence between me and Wacko Jacko. There is not one rational member of this board that would see me and him as some kind of equal and opposite. I don't even need to go into the reasons. I know precisely what you're trying to do here, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

So, than it ends up being a choice, not a matter of proof. You choose belief, or you don't. Either one is OK by me. People don't usually choose belief based on "blind faith" (which usually means doing what somebody else tells you to do). They choose belief because it makes sense in their lives, for one reason or another - oftentimes, it's because they have had one or several experiences that they perceive as the Presence of God. Belief should have some sort of rational basis, but it is by definition beyond rationality.

Unfortunately for your rather circuitous argument, most people who end up believing have not chosen belief. They have had belief foisted on them by accident of birth. They have been instructed by religious "education" exactly what to believe, and that has included an all-too-clear threat of the sanctions for demurring. Your belief may well make sense in your life, but there are far better ways of making sense in your life that you have chosen to (or been forced to) reject. Belief in God cannot enjoy any scintilla of rational basis, as it is based on the summary rejection of all the evidence belonging to the contrary view. It is blind faith every time, in the sense that you close your eyes to rationality. Now I know that there are more things in life than rationality. We are not all Mr Spocks. But let's at least be honest about what comes under the umbrella and what doesn't. Joe Offer may well be a particularly enlightened example of what a believer can potentially be, but he is not a microcosm of the whole of the rotten world of religious faith, not by a long chalk, and that argument is a pretty poor defence of religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: TheSnail
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 08:25 PM

Steve Shaw
What "version of science"??
Your version in which you say "Evolution is true" even though you say science cannot prove it to be so.
Your version in which you say "Evolution is true" (even a "great truth") and yet you have just said on the other thread that it isn't dogma.
Your version in which you say that a theory can be declared true by the weight of evidence. This is a philosophy of science called Logical Positivism that was discredited forty years or more ago.
Your version in which you brush aside the the idea of falsifiability despite the fact that it is basic orthodoxy in modern scientific thinking.

Respond over there, and, if it's of any interest, I'll be right with you.

Actually, Steve, I am waiting for you to respond. I have already asked you to do so on the other thread and you ignored my request. I have asked you here and, again, nothing but evasion.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 08:32 PM

Bryan, I didn't think it was in you.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 08:37 PM

The only way I can respond to that is to repeat what I've said before to you ad nauseam. I positively refuse to churn it all out again. Incidentally, I don't brush aside anything (go to the back of the class with pete, Joe Offer, Wacko and Little Hawk in the naughty misrepresentation corner). I just happen to not particularly want to enter your booby-trapped and nice-but-irrelevant world of philosophical ramblings. Not now, thank you. For goodness sake, man. Have you nothing useful to be getting on with?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: number 6
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 08:55 PM

Will that be 1 lump or 2 ??

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 09:17 PM

All I gotta say, Steve Shaw, is that you posted the 300th message in this thread and didn't lay claim to it.

Why?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 10:49 PM

Joe, I said I WOULD NOT MIND if YOU close the thread if you wanted. Do you remember asking me not to start any more? I remember when you were moderating, you getting flack from OP's for closing threads. I was only saying that you wouldn't have to about me complaining if you do.



Dr. Mather? LOL!

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans Ian
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 01:23 AM

St Jack the Evangelist.   LOL







Do you know, that's the first and possibly the last time I have ever typed lol?   Oh bugger, just done it again.   

As Jack has hitherto failed to get his latest embarrassment closed, I invite all yet again to scroll up and read his op. The rest is gravy.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: TheSnail
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 07:21 AM

Steve Shaw
For goodness sake, man. Have you nothing useful to be getting on with?

From someone who spends a great deal of his time arguing with Jack and pete, that's a bit rich. Actually, I think trying to promote a better understanding of science is a very useful thing to be doing. Prof. Dawkins earned his living at it for quite a while.

The only way I can respond to that is to repeat what I've said before to you ad nauseam. I positively refuse to churn it all out again.

Good. I'm not asking you to. I'm asking you to address the points that I have raised. I'm asking you to think outside your oft repeated doctrines. I'm asking you to consider (as all scientists must) the possibility that you are wrong.

Incidentally, I don't brush aside anything...

How are you doing on falsifiability? Have you actually read any of the links I've put your way?

I just happen to not particularly want to enter your booby-trapped and nice-but-irrelevant world of philosophical ramblings.

Without the philosophy that underlies science what is it that you think distinguishes science from religion?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 08:44 AM

""I suppose that the only thing proved by this "atheist" series of threads, is that Jack the Sailor likes to fight, and Steve Shaw likes to fight.""

I would say it proves rather more than that Joe.

1. Jack the Sailor cannot stand the idea that there are people in the world who don't share his beliefs, and reacts by poking them with multiple sticks so that he can feel victimised by them. He takes their existence as a personal insult.

2. Steve Shaw will always fight back if poked in this way, but not because he likes a fight. He just insists on the right to make up his own mind and live his life his way.

3. Little Hawk analyses people he knows nothing about and comments on competing egos, while having the biggest ego around and a pathological need to feel superior to the rest.

4. I don't have a dog in this fight as I'm somewhere in the middle, but I feel much more at home with the Atheists, even though I don't share their lack of belief.

In short, I'm with Steve on most of this.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 12:37 PM

Just for Jack TS : Richard Dawkins and Ricky Gervais Discuss Religion...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=X8fUy6tqMKM

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 07:46 PM

Cheers, Don. We typify what this forum ought to be about. We can both think that the other can be a complete bastard at times but we both recognise a good call when we see it. Of course, that's gonna cause trouble. But not with you, I hope! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 08:06 PM

Snail hath quothed: Actually, I think trying to promote a better understanding of science is a very useful thing to be doing.

Of course. But you're not going to promote much of an understanding by preachifying your falsifiability stuff and other philosophical ramblings in a thread that is read mostly by non-specialists, nor are you going to promote much of an understanding by constantly nit-picking with a bloke you basically agree with on the substance. You will promote a better feeling of here-he-comes-again boredom, that's all.

Good. I'm not asking you to. I'm asking you to address the points that I have raised.

You see, the great thing about these internet forum doodahs is that you can either respond or not respond. Had I taken umbrage at all the people who had not responded to something I'd said I'd have slit me bloody own throat yonks ago. You really don't get to insist that I respond to all your minutiae, especially when you are in hector-mode, repeating your nigglings over and over again. I'm a busy fellow, you know. I get accused one minute of taking on stuff head-on, and the next minute of being evasive. Relax, babe. And reflect on the fact that you'll have it back whatever I say. There is a limit to how much time I can spend with you. I have Wacko to consider as well, you know.

I'm asking you to think outside your oft repeated doctrines. I'm asking you to consider (as all scientists must) the possibility that you are wrong.

I have no doctrines. I am unsure about everything. But evolution is true. It's all around you, going on right now. It's why we're here and it's lovely. If you think that's a doctrine, then tell me where it isn't true.

Without the philosophy that underlies science what is it that you think distinguishes science from religion?

The only "philosophy" I can think of right now is that science is predicated on evidence and religion is not. Do tell me if I need more. I'm sure you will. But I might be a bit busy this week.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 08:13 PM

All I gotta say, Steve Shaw, is that you posted the 300th message in this thread and didn't lay claim to it.

Why?

I've seen it a lot and always regarded it as an odd habit. 300 is no more special than 273, for example. Actually, to a physical scientist, 273 with a minus sign is far more significant (and I picked 273 there by accident!)

OK, pedants, 273.1.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 09:58 PM

I meant no disrespect to your degree Dr. Mather, I was just surprised that you wanted me to address you that way when you had never told me you had that degree.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans Ian
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 01:10 AM

You seem to fail to understand. The same with American / English spelling.

The object of the exercise is pointing out your pedantry and latching onto small irrelevant detail and throwing it back in people's faces.

I have said all along that my showboating in these atheism threads includes respondingyto you in kind, possibly with knobs on, and using it as an example of your absurdity if you insist on stereotyping with a purpose, or religious bigotry if you will.   I haven't hitherto used that term but if you insist on rational debate rather than flippant piss taking, I can do that too. So.. I'm sorry but a spade is a spade. If someone posted asking if all black people are like Robert Mugabe, and saying they are curious as to whether they are, I reckon bigot would be putting it mildly. So why huddle all non believers into the same paint spraying booth?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 12:25 PM

I seen discussions like this many times in bars, but they usually don't last nearly this long, and furniture ends up gettin' broke. Anyways, while contemplatin' my whiskey here, I come up with another way to lump all the atheists together.

We make 'em all dress in velcro clothing, see? Whenever they bump into another atheist, they'll get stuck to each other. After awhile you'll see clumps of 'em standin' around at intersections and in hallways, all lumped up together. In time these clumps of atheists'll have to be moved outta the way, maybe into holdin' areas like public parks and vacant lots.

Other atheists will wonder where their buddies are, and they'll go to those places and likewise get stuck in the clump.

After a year or so we call out the military, round up all them separate clumps and transport 'em to the Nevada desert so they won't get in other people's way.

That oughta do it. I will see about enactin' legislation to achieve this after I get elected, so help me God! ;-D Ook! Ook!

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 01:55 PM

"....tell me where it is,nt true"
well steve,- where it is not true is that what you see happening all around you is not goo to you evolution but natural selection.you are doing your switch and bait thing again.anything more has not been observed even though dawkins said that it had" ...it is just that there was no one there to observe it "!
of course if you have we are all ears.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 02:11 PM

I've set you right before, pete -- see above -- about the cognateness of 'evolution' & 'natural selection'. Can't you see that 'evolution' is an ongoing process driven by factors among the most prominent & important of which is 'natural selection'? You've accepted that point once, but seem to have developed some sort of taxonomic amnesia since then.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 02:13 PM

You believe as unadorned truth a load of religious stuff for which there is not a scrap of evidence. There is a ton of evidence for evolution, and the process of natural selection, the main driver of evolution, can be observed everywhere. I love that double standard. To take your vacuous (as ever) argument to the point of absurdity, we might as well say that nothing exists except at the instant of time we call "now". Nobody is seeing it ten seconds ago and nobody can see it in the future. Well, we can bat that one around all day if we like, but I'm a simple man and I prefer helpful notions personally. You're clutching at straws. Evolution is here. And it's true.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 02:14 PM

Bedbugs immune to insecticides was the instant example, just to refresh yr memory.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 02:20 PM

Then there's the good ol' peppered moth, though, strictly speaking, these are examples of the process of natural selection and not evolution. Yet!

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 02:32 PM

And even there, something of a distinction without a difference, maybe, Steve? Note first & last sentences of wikipedia's article on 'Peppered Moth - Evolution', with added emphases ~~

"The evolution of the peppered moth over the last two hundred years has been studied in detail .......   the peppered moth has become a common example used in explaining or demonstrating natural selection."

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 04:42 PM

""Of course, that's gonna cause trouble. But not with you, I hope! ;-)""

No Steve, not with me! Not on this subject anyway!

I try very hard not to get nasty with anybody simply because he disagrees with me (being human, I don't always succeed), but people who post with the sole intention of provoking a fight, especially if they start multiple threads in a concerted campaign of denigration, relly push my buttons.

Conflating non belief with religion and claiming that they are somehow equal but opposite, is the hypocritical negation of honest debate.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 06:02 PM

Cor, wish I hadn't mentioned the dreaded peppered moth... There are plenty of question marks over the integrity of the initial study of this poor beast. As for being an example of evolution, that's tricky. The dark form was present all along, but in low numbers, then a change in the environment favoured it, so its numbers increased. Natural selection. But the only way in which the species has changed is in the relative numbers of dark and light forms, and, if the environment changes back, this change is completely reversible.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 06:48 PM

Conflating non belief with religion and claiming that they are somehow equal but opposite, is the hypocritical negation of honest debate.

That's it. And it usually smacks of frustration spiced with goading, neither of which would contribute much towards furthering any debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 07:36 PM

Conflating non belief with religion and claiming that they are somehow equal but opposite, is the hypocritical negation of honest debate.

Ah, but sometimes, it's the truth. Those who vehemently reject all other schools of thought, have a lot in common. That goes for many fundamentalists, including fundamentalist atheists. I think we can learn from almost all "open" schools of thought - from almost all thinking people, no matter what their paradigms.

When people are tied to rigid ideologies, it's downright impossible to carry on a discussion with them.

"Fundamentalist atheists" are just like "fundamentalist Christians." They allow only for their own ideology.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 08:24 PM

"Fundamentalist atheists" are just like "fundamentalist Christians." They allow only for their own ideology.

This is utter nonsense on several levels. First, there is no atheist ideology. We do keep trying to tell you this, but you clearly want us to have an ideology in order for you to have something to shoot at. I can sum up my atheism in about two lines (I often have done), and there is no tightly-argued quasi-antitheological corollary. That isn't fundamentalism - it's one big shrug.   Second, "fundamentalist" implies the possession of an ideology. See above. You can't be fundamentalist about nothing. Third, fundamentalism implies certainty. I have no certainty about any religious matter. I don't know whether there's a God (which is not to imply that I sit on the fence - I don't). Fourth, fundamentalist Christians have deliberately shut their eyes to evidence and reason. Well, if there is any such thing as an atheist, it's a person who has taken on board the evidence against a deity, which is strong, and applied all his powers of reason (any atheist who isn't like that isn't the kind of atheist I wish to associate with). Atheism cannot mean certainty, and certainty is a sine qua non of fundamentalism. Your post is what I described above: a mixture of frustration and goading. Well, you goaded me into this response. The frustration is all yours to deal with.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 09:49 PM

You have proved my point, Steve. You are, my friend, what I would call an "ideological atheist." Relax, and open yourself to other perspectives. Even if they're "wrong," you might learn something from them. You pay only lip service to doubt. Your certainty that others are wrong, is what is most apparent.

'nuff said.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans sans
Date: 15 Jun 13 - 01:39 AM

I reckon that whilst Joe has a point regarding opening your eyes to other perspectives in order to learn, this is very true in order to understand human emotion and seeing how others cope with reality.

Steve, Don and others including myself are pointing out the reality people are coping with.

If anyone could ever successfully reconcile that they would be lucky. As lucky as a cat with a strawberry flavoured arse.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 15 Jun 13 - 05:14 AM

thankyou steve for answering your own exanple!the similar answer pertains to M,s bugs,which he may recall,i think,jack had corrected him.and jack is an evolutionist!.
steve- what happened 10 seconds,days or decades ago has been observed.as you know,and continue to evade ,microbes to man evolution has not been observed.neither can you demonstrate how the new information can arise via mutations and natural .demonstrate if you can that those moths could have evolved into anything other than moths?!.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 Jun 13 - 06:39 AM

Nobody has 'corrected' me about the bugs because I was correct already.

Apart from that, I have lost any sense of what you might be on about, pete.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Jun 13 - 02:10 PM

No point speculating Mike.

Pete himself doesn't understand what he's talking about. That's why he cannot string two coherent sentences together.

Off to make music now.

More later.

Don T.

P.S. Joe, when did responding to fundamentalist personal attacks become a fundamentalist religion?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 15 Jun 13 - 06:00 PM

I have carefully read each post, and after much reflection, I have these two items to offer, and hope that they are properly considered.


The Extraterrestrial Teapot

Beatrice Lillie's "Fairies at the Bottom of our Garden"

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jun 13 - 07:21 PM

You have proved my point, Steve. You are, my friend, what I would call an "ideological atheist." Relax, and open yourself to other perspectives. Even if they're "wrong," you might learn something from them. You pay only lip service to doubt. Your certainty that others are wrong, is what is most apparent.

'nuff said.

'Nuff said my arse. If you think that repeatedly calling me an ideological atheist will somehow make it more true, you're seriously misguided. There is not one speck of ideology about my atheism. I'm an atheist for one reason (let's see if I can get it into two lines, as I claimed):

"There is no evidence for a God. The laws of nature can probably explain everything, though we do need to understand all those laws first. We are closing in on even the hardest issues still to be explained, and there's no need to interpose an "explanation" that explains nothing, least of all itself."

There ya go. Why I'm an atheist. There's no hidden ideology or complicated set of anti-theological textbooks behind it, unlike your theological tittle-tattle. Like me, it's really simple. By perpetually calling me ideological you are doing no more than indulging in the discredited scallywag's game of equating religion with atheism. By doing this you open yourself up to much-deserved ridicule. Do try to let go of it. As for who's right or wrong, I'm getting sick of telling you that I don't know what the truth is (why don't you listen?): I don't know whether God exists or not. There are good people who adhere to God and there are good people who do not. For someone who espouses religion and who makes his kids go to religious schools and say their prayers, it's a bit rich, to say the least, for you accuse me of paying lip service to doubt. There are billions of people of faith on this planet with whom you cheerfully throw in your lot, yet you have the gall to accuse me of certainty. Well, I must say, that's pretty typical of the narrow-minded religious mindset. The sort of thing you're always telling us you don't personally subscribe to, remember?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 15 Jun 13 - 10:20 PM

I have two questions:

1)How do you define God?

2) What would constitute evidence of this God's existence?

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jun 13 - 11:14 AM

1. I neither know nor care.

2. The same standard of evidence we demand for everything else. Plenty of independent corroboration for his apparitions would do for starters. That does not apply to the usual "evidence" for God put before us. Witness, hearsay, ancient tendentious texts selectively presented to us, edicts, ceremony and tradition all fall well short. In sum, we don't know what evidence would be good enough because we haven't had any as yet that is worthy of the necessary scrutiny.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans ethics research guidance
Date: 16 Jun 13 - 01:33 PM

The base is simple. As there is no evidence to say there is no god and the narrative is either in books or heads, you would find it difficult to get research funding to prove one way or another.

I love the Advertising Standards Authority's dilemma the other year. Dawkins & Co put up posters on buses saying there is no God. God botherers objected. The ASA had to intervene and rule. Basically, they had to rule as to whether there is a God or not. It seems there isn't....

Bit of a bugger really, considering the many fine historical buildings, not to mention the priceless art. No problem, I am sure the poor and needy could do with the proceeds of the sales.....

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jun 13 - 09:59 AM

I have no issue with the buildings and the art, especially the music, of which I'm particularly fond. They're as much as part of my heritage as they are of anyone else's. There are aspects of religion's ill-gotten wealth that I do have issues with. As for the art, though, Vaughan Williams, an avowed atheist, said "There is no reason why an atheist could not write a good Mass", and he proved it by writing one of great beauty.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Jun 13 - 10:41 AM

interesting that steve replied to your questions , stim,, by affirming that he neither knows nor cares. in light of that opening shot the rest of the post is somewhat redundant since it is evident that if he even had a "damascus road" experience such as paul had, he would simply say that science will eventually explain that as well!
and how about you stim - are you concerned about yourself in relation to the Almighty? worried about your spiritual lack?
i would be happy to try to help,were that the case,but if you are of similar stance to steve then i venture to suggest that whatever evidence i offer would not be accepted.

musket- the bus ads actually said "...PROBABLY no God....."
i heard that it turned out to be a bit of a "godsend" as it provided believers with opportunities to discuss the faith - at the expense of people opposed to that faith!.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans sin
Date: 17 Jun 13 - 11:05 AM

Yes it did say probably.

However, calling it a godsend is slightly ironic. Especially considering the many attempts to have them removed as contradicting religious teaching. ...

In any event, my bemusement was purely the dilemma of ASA.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jun 13 - 01:17 PM

We all know what a bloody liar you are, pete, and how you like to insult the intelligence of everyone else here by hoping we won't notice, but I did not answer Stim's questions in the way you claim. I answered only the first of the two questions that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Jun 13 - 01:38 PM

""interesting that steve replied to your questions , stim,, by affirming that he neither knows nor cares.""

So, how would you go about defining something you don't believe in, other than by sying you don't believe in it.

Define a non existent object for us. I would really be impressed if you could.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans shame
Date: 17 Jun 13 - 02:27 PM

pete does define a non existent object all the time.......



I know, cheap but fairly intellectual compared with his latest epistle on the other god thread....

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jun 13 - 07:38 PM

pete does define a non existent object all the time.......

Are you trying to claim that pete tries to define his own brain??

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 17 Jun 13 - 09:27 PM

Thanks for you answers, Steve. I appreciate your directness, clarity, and brevity very much.
I hestitate to comment more, because I think you made a very satisfactory accounting for yourself, and I don't want to detract from that at all.

By asking my questions, i seem to have convinced Pete that I am one of the faithless and Godless, and, since you have expressed the idea that I am a creationist fundie, my work here may be done;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 05:49 AM

I wasn't aware I'd expressed that idea. I don't think you are a creationist "fundie", if that helps!

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 07:03 PM

It was a while back, but i got over it;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 12:03 AM

"Define a non existent object for us. "

Logically all of these are plausible except for the lack of real world evidence.

unified field theory
In physics, a unified field theory (UFT), occasionally referred to as a uniform field theory,[1] is a type of field theory that allows all that is usually thought of as fundamental forces and elementary particles to be written in terms of a single field. There is no accepted unified field

Logically all of these are plausible except for the lack of real world evidence.

Unicorn, an imaginary horse with a horn.

Logically all of these are plausible except for the lack of real world evidence.

Don T's sense of humor.



"I would really be impressed if you could."

Impressed yet? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,Musket sans sailor seaman
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 02:57 AM

Err hang on, dont help me, let me guess.

A basket of guano flavoured bananas and an ostrich singing Et in Terra Pax, from Vivaldi's Gloria?

zzzzzzzz. Wake me up when his ship sails. zzzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 06:36 AM

""Unicorn, an imaginary horse with a horn.""

Another fiction you believe in Jack?

That is a description, not a definition.

My sense of humour is fine, and I derive considerable amusement from your pathetic attempts to cast those who don't believe as fundamentalist bullies who are personally attacking you.

You're not that significant mate! Just a minor irritant, like a wasp at a picnic.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 10:49 AM

it just sounds like you got stung at the picnic!

Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 03:55 PM

""it just sounds like you got stung at the picnic!""

And here comes the advance guard of the hive mind creationist ant colony.

Time to pack up the sarnies.

Don T.