A load of old Symbolics: split from- Atheist Bumpersticker [Archive]

Big Les

19th December 2007, 02:47 AM

Here goes nothing.

Why is it an atheist symbol?

The adaptation and subversion of a famous christian symbol using another symbol strongyl associated with science is implicitly anti-christian, if not specifically "atheist". Further, its creation by an atheist (unknown, but checkable) and its purchase by atheists in order to spread an atheist "message", and whether other atheists, theists and agnostics interpret it as "atheist" is what really matters. Consider the swastika - many possible interpretations, but only one will be arrived at by most people.

How do you know it isn't offensive?

In a strict sense, we can't know, obviously. In fact, more than likely, a subversion of a religious symbol will offend some people.

However, in a relative sense, it is clearly less overtly offensive than "Nails 3, Jesus 0" (kudos to nails3jesus0) or "I hate Christians, they're all morons", or in terms of symbols, an upside-down cross with a goat skull on top of it. The rocket/fish is a relatively neutral symbol emphasising science in preference to religion as a way of understanding the world (and I realise that the two are not mutually exclusive).

CFLarsen

19th December 2007, 03:51 PM

The adaptation and subversion of a famous christian symbol using another symbol strongyl associated with science is implicitly anti-christian, if not specifically "atheist".

No, you're quite right: Anti-Christian does not mean atheist.

Further, its creation by an atheist (unknown, but checkable) and its purchase by atheists in order to spread an atheist "message", and whether other atheists, theists and agnostics interpret it as "atheist" is what really matters.

Then, we are back to the question: Why is the Science rocket fish atheist?

Consider the swastika - many possible interpretations, but only one will be arrived at by most people.

Depends where you are in the world - and which way it turns. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika)

In a strict sense, we can't know, obviously. In fact, more than likely, a subversion of a religious symbol will offend some people.

Maybe, but that doesn't make it atheist. You can draw a caricature of the prophet Muhammed, and not be atheist.

However, in a relative sense, it is clearly less overtly offensive than "Nails 3, Jesus 0" (kudos to nails3jesus0) or "I hate Christians, they're all morons", or in terms of symbols, an upside-down cross with a goat skull on top of it. The rocket/fish is a relatively neutral symbol emphasising science in preference to religion as a way of understanding the world (and I realise that the two are not mutually exclusive).

How do you know what is more offensive than other symbols?

The questions still stand, whenever skeptigirl returns:

Why is the Science rocket fish an atheist symbol?

How does skeptigirl know the Science fish isn't offensive?

Silentknight

19th December 2007, 06:16 PM

By the way--

The inverse cross is not an atheist symbol or a Satanist symbol. It actually originated as a Christian symbol known as the Cross of St. Peter. As the story goes, the martyred St. Peter was to be crucified, but he chose to be crucified upside down because of his belief that Jesus was the only one who deserved to be crucified the traditional way. Even though it would have taken him much longer to die that way, it was a sign of humility and respect on the part of Peter, and those virtues are what the symbol originally stood for. Later on, some Christian scribes discovered the symbol in their writings and mistook it for an anti-Christian symbol, since it was the reverse of the cross they were more familiar with. In a way, this became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Also, the Jesus fish is actually a pagan symbol known as the vesica pisces. It was originally drawn facing up, and was a representation of "down there" on a woman, specifically that of the mother goddess. Women were seen as the sacred givers of life, so some polytheistic cultures attributed divine powers to the female reproductive organs. In other words, the Jesus fish is another of the pagan symbols adopted by Christianity. In some early Christian art, the unborn baby Jesus is depicted inside a vesica symbol representing Mary's womb, and the resurrected Jesus is depicted ascending to Heaven inside a vesica. The story that the fish symbol originated with Christians living under Roman rule in order to secretly identify each other is nonsense; any pagan Roman seeing them draw it would have instantly recognized it as the symbol of the goddess.

Here's a good one that I saw in someone's sig a while back:
"There is a sucker born every minute. Some Christians are born twice."

arthwollipot

19th December 2007, 07:25 PM

The story that the fish symbol originated with Christians living under Roman rule in order to secretly identify each other is nonsense; any pagan Roman seeing them draw it would have instantly recognized it as the symbol of the goddess.And that's why it was considered to be a good symbol for marking secret meeting places - because the Romans would not recognise it for a Christian symbol.

Well, that's what I heard, anyway.

Big Les

20th December 2007, 04:15 AM

Also, the Jesus fish is actually a pagan symbol known as the vesica pisces. It was originally drawn facing up, and was a representation of "down there" on a woman, specifically that of the mother goddess. Women were seen as the sacred givers of life, so some polytheistic cultures attributed divine powers to the female reproductive organs. In other words, the Jesus fish is another of the pagan symbols adopted by Christianity. In some early Christian art, the unborn baby Jesus is depicted inside a vesica symbol representing Mary's womb, and the resurrected Jesus is depicted ascending to Heaven inside a vesica. The story that the fish symbol originated with Christians living under Roman rule in order to secretly identify each other is nonsense; any pagan Roman seeing them draw it would have instantly recognized it as the symbol of the goddess.

Is there any evidence for this? Sounds rather like retrospective myth-making by neo-pagans to me.

Big Les

20th December 2007, 04:38 AM

Then, we are back to the question: Why is the Science rocket fish atheist?

Some atheists are also anti-theist, which makes her comment still relevant. More importantly, it's atheist because it's being used by atheists. You'd have to conduct a straw poll of sticker-users and sticker-readers to establish this, but I think it's a fair assumption that most buyers are atheists, and are at least intending that readers will see it as an atheist symbol, whether or not it can be definitely said to be such by analysis.

Depends where you are in the world - and which way it turns. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika)

My original comment should have tipped you off to the fact that I am well aware that there are many different interpretations of that symbol. I said "most people", and indeed, most people will assume the Nazi association. If you insist I can clarify "most people in the western world".

Besides, as far as I know, the direction of "rotation" makes no difference at all. It carried the same meaning (whatever that might be at whatever time in whatever place) whichever way round it was depicted. Although ironically, being more of a national flag/military colour/corporate logo, the Nazi swastika did have a prescribed configuration.

Maybe, but that doesn't make it atheist. You can draw a caricature of the prophet Muhammed, and not be atheist.

Of course you can. It's down to whoever's employing the symbol, and the interpretation of the observer. All you can say is that in this context, the rocket fish is intended, and typically observed, as an "atheist" symbol. It can be many other things to, but it's the intention and subsequent interpretation that matters.

How do you know what is more offensive than other symbols?

I don't know; it's an assessment based upon observation of how religious people have reacted to similar symbols and sentiments. Same way you "know" that Sylvia Brown(e) does what she does mainly for a power-trip (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2324072&highlight=sylvia+browne+money#post2324072).

To summarise, symbols do not work by pre-agreed checklist definition. They work by common consensus - if people think something represents something, then it does. This is why meanings change all the time.[/quote

Piscivore

20th December 2007, 06:53 AM

But you can't say that science advances in the direction of atheism. If that was the case, we'd see a lot more atheism than we do now

What is your basis for this statement?

Furi

20th December 2007, 08:21 AM

But you can't say that science advances in the direction of atheism. If that was the case, we'd see a lot more atheism than we do now - in this age where scientific discoveries happen faster than at any time before.

Are there a lot more atheists / irreligious peops now (as in %age) than in times where accessibility of information through either Literacy or access/quality of info were lower than they are now?

there is a big difference between number of scientific discoveries made in a timespan and their perceived impact on those not particularly interested in science. Gallileo Newton Faraday Watt Pasteur Lister Mendel Trevithick Baselgette Fleming Mendelev Rutherford Chadwick Hahn Einstein Fermi and a hell of a lot more. Helped to make things Tangible, predictable, safer etc and helped remove the miraculousness of certain claims.

Just look at the advances that JET and ITER have made in fusion, most people couldn't give a flying one, it is of no importance too them till the outcome effects their way of life or perception of the world, and there will still be someone somewhere saying that Fusion Power is truly a sign of Gods existance. Pah why can't these people allow Mankind to take some bloody credit.

CFLarsen

20th December 2007, 11:16 AM

"I ride with Jesus. He never has any smokes."

In some pockets of English-speaking areas, "riding" has a quite different meaning....

Some atheists are also anti-theist, which makes her comment still relevant.

Only if you want to argue that it is also relevant that some atheists are also anti-meat.

More importantly, it's atheist because it's being used by atheists. You'd have to conduct a straw poll of sticker-users and sticker-readers to establish this, but I think it's a fair assumption that most buyers are atheists, and are at least intending that readers will see it as an atheist symbol, whether or not it can be definitely said to be such by analysis.

It's an assumption alright.

My original comment should have tipped you off to the fact that I am well aware that there are many different interpretations of that symbol. I said "most people", and indeed, most people will assume the Nazi association. If you insist I can clarify "most people in the western world".

Thank you.

Besides, as far as I know, the direction of "rotation" makes no difference at all. It carried the same meaning (whatever that might be at whatever time in whatever place) whichever way round it was depicted. Although ironically, being more of a national flag/military colour/corporate logo, the Nazi swastika did have a prescribed configuration.

The direction of rotation makes all the difference in some cultures.

Of course you can. It's down to whoever's employing the symbol, and the interpretation of the observer. All you can say is that in this context, the rocket fish is intended, and typically observed, as an "atheist" symbol. It can be many other things to, but it's the intention and subsequent interpretation that matters.

How do you know what was intended? Or was that yet another assumption of yours?

I don't know; it's an assessment based upon observation of how religious people have reacted to similar symbols and sentiments. Same way you "know" that Sylvia Brown(e) does what she does mainly for a power-trip (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2324072&highlight=sylvia+browne+money#post2324072).

Absolutely not. I don't say anything about how Sylvia Browne is perceived by other people.

To summarise, symbols do not work by pre-agreed checklist definition. They work by common consensus - if people think something represents something, then it does. This is why meanings change all the time.

Indeed. Just be careful not to extrapolate your assumptions to encompass everyone else.

What is your basis for this statement?

Science has never been more advanced or prevalent in society as it is today.

Are there a lot more atheists / irreligious peops now (as in %age) than in times where accessibility of information through either Literacy or access/quality of info were lower than they are now?

Depends on how far back you want to go. The polls we usually see here go back a decade or two.

I don't think you would find many open atheists during the times when it was decidedly unhealthy to be one.

there is a big difference between number of scientific discoveries made in a timespan and their perceived impact on those not particularly interested in science. Gallileo Newton Faraday Watt Pasteur Lister Mendel Trevithick Baselgette Fleming Mendelev Rutherford Chadwick Hahn Einstein Fermi and a hell of a lot more. Helped to make things Tangible, predictable, safer etc and helped remove the miraculousness of certain claims.

Just look at the advances that JET and ITER have made in fusion, most people couldn't give a flying one, it is of no importance too them till the outcome effects their way of life or perception of the world, and there will still be someone somewhere saying that Fusion Power is truly a sign of Gods existance. Pah why can't these people allow Mankind to take some bloody credit.

And yet, people are very aware of the advances in medicine and biology, because that impacts their lives in the most direct way.

They may be a bit fuzzy on the latest advances in particle physics, but you can bet they are the first to demand the newest methods of treatment from their doctor!

As we all are, of course. :)

Piscivore

20th December 2007, 11:41 AM

Science has never been more advanced or prevalent in society as it is today.
Yes, but why should we expect to "see a lot more atheism than we do now"? We do see more atheism in society than we have in times past, don't we? Does that not correlate with the increase in science and scientific thinking?

And yes, correlation does not imply causation, but it does not exclude it either. What evidence do you have for your argument that rates of atheism are insufficent? What would you expect the percentage of atheists in a population to be to be if science did promote atheism?

Big Les

20th December 2007, 02:08 PM

Only if you want to argue that it is also relevant that some atheists are also anti-meat.

It's all on the observer Claus. People will not readily associate anti-meat symbols with atheism, but they certainly will associate subversions of religious symbols with science-related overtones, with atheism. Not all, but a significant amount.

It's an assumption alright.

Are you seriously suggesting that people aren't buying those because they are atheists? I'm beginning to think you would happily argue black is white up until the point you got hit on the zebra crossing.

Thank you.

Ah, so that is what you were getting at. How long would you have strung that one on for if I hadn't managed to twig, I wonder?

The direction of rotation makes all the difference in some cultures.

In certain contexts in certain of those cultures, perhaps. Do you know of any? My point with that example was that the majority of people in the western world, when they see a swastika of any sort or rotation, will think "Nazi". Even if they are aware of other usages. The association is that strong. The rocket-fish is clearly not well known enough to trigger the same near-universal reaction, but a significant amount will "get" it.

How do you know what was intended? Or was that yet another assumption of yours?

Because it's bleedin' obvious that this is one of its interpretations. It sets science against religion; something that atheism is currently known for.

Absolutely not. I don't say anything about how Sylvia Browne is perceived by other people.

Oh but you do. Your own assumption is stated as fact, implying that if anyone else thinks differently, they are wrong. Nothing wrong with that, that's called an "opinion", and its an assessment on best available evidence. Mine is rather more cautious I would suggest.

Indeed. Just be careful not to extrapolate your assumptions to encompass everyone else.

I'm not. I'm saying that the symbol is marketed as an atheist symbol, it's bought as one, and its interpreted by at least some people as such when it is displayed. There is nothing at all unreasonable in that suggestion. Skeptigirl may have phrased it in rather general terms, but we can't be expected to dissect every aspect of what we post because you have some semantic problem with it.

CFLarsen

20th December 2007, 03:01 PM

It's all on the observer Claus. People will not readily associate anti-meat symbols with atheism, but they certainly will associate subversions of religious symbols with science-related overtones, with atheism. Not all, but a significant amount.

Are you seriously suggesting that people aren't buying those because they are atheists? I'm beginning to think you would happily argue black is white up until the point you got hit on the zebra crossing.

I have no idea why people would buy a sticker saying "Science". I do know that you can't assume that they are buying them because they are atheist.

Maybe they just want to point out that they like science. Maybe they just want to point out that they don't buy into the Creationist crap. But that doesn't necessarily make them atheists.

Does it?

Ah, so that is what you were getting at. How long would you have strung that one on for if I hadn't managed to twig, I wonder?

It is not my fault if you can't express yourself clearly.

In certain contexts in certain of those cultures, perhaps. Do you know of any?

Yes I do, and you should have known this, if you want to discuss swastika.

Why don't you educate yourself about the Swastika (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#Geometry_and_symbolism) first?

My point with that example was that the majority of people in the western world, when they see a swastika of any sort or rotation, will think "Nazi". Even if they are aware of other usages. The association is that strong. The rocket-fish is clearly not well known enough to trigger the same near-universal reaction, but a significant amount will "get" it.

Of course. But those who won't know the Christian-fish or even the Darwin-fish (you sure don't see many in Denmark) will see...what? An atheist symbol?

Because it's bleedin' obvious that this is one of its interpretations. It sets science against religion; something that atheism is currently known for.

No, it doesn't. It simply says "Science".

Take a look at this fish (http://www.sindioses.org/randi/031804-RandiFish.jpg). What does that say? Is that an atheist symbol?

Oh but you do. Your own assumption is stated as fact, implying that if anyone else thinks differently, they are wrong. Nothing wrong with that, that's called an "opinion", and its an assessment on best available evidence. Mine is rather more cautious I would suggest.

No, I don't. Don't tell me what I say and what I don't say.

I'm not. I'm saying that the symbol is marketed as an atheist symbol, it's bought as one, and its interpreted by at least some people as such when it is displayed. There is nothing at all unreasonable in that suggestion. Skeptigirl may have phrased it in rather general terms, but we can't be expected to dissect every aspect of what we post because you have some semantic problem with it.

I have yet to see how the Science fish is marketed as an atheist symbol.

As for how it is bought and interpreted by some in one way does not mean it is bought and interpreted by all the same way.

Piscivore

20th December 2007, 03:17 PM

It is not my fault if you can't express yourself clearly.

Why does it matter at all who's "fault" it is there was a misunderstanding?

Are you going to address my questions?

Big Les

20th December 2007, 04:14 PM

CFLarsen

20th December 2007, 04:44 PM

@CFL

"Educate myself"? You rude little man. I know enough about it to know that your claim was invalid. They appear both ways around in both Indian and Chinese art, and the notion that one way around means one thing, and the other, another (e.g. "good" vs "evil"), has no basis in fact that I am aware of. The very article you link to says;

So if you have further information, I would appreciate a link to it.

Your quote showed I was right: There is a difference, depending on the rotation. :rolleyes:

It's common sense that the most likely interpretation of the symbol for people who have seen the Christian and Darwin fish, is that the person displaying it is anti-religious. Whilst antitheism doesn't necessarily equal atheist, some (many) atheists are to some extent opposed to organised religion.

"Common sense", "most likely interpretation".

Those who won't know the Christian-fish or even the Darwin-fish (you sure don't see many in Denmark) will see...what? An atheist symbol?

Is your answer "no" to this question: "Do you think that someone liking science or not buying into the Creationist crap make that person an atheist?" ?

Ergo, though it could also be other things, it is also an "atheist symbol".

Take a look at this fish (http://www.sindioses.org/randi/031804-RandiFish.jpg). What does that say? Is that an atheist symbol?

Why does it matter at all who's "fault" it is there was a misunderstanding?

Why are you asking me? BigLes was the one pointing fingers, not I.

Are you going to address my questions?

Didn't see them.

Yes, but why should we expect to "see a lot more atheism than we do now"? We do see more atheism in society than we have in times past, don't we?

Does that not correlate with the increase in science and scientific thinking?

We don't have sound data from very far back. We do have some numbers from recent years, e.g.: (http://www.religioustolerance.org/amer_intol.htm)

Prejudice against Atheists has dropped slightly, but remains extremely high.

Yet, in a comment by Sam Harris: (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-harris24dec24,0,6970228,full.story)

SEVERAL POLLS indicate that the term "atheism" has acquired such an extraordinary stigma in the United States that being an atheist is now a perfect impediment to a career in politics (in a way that being black, Muslim or homosexual is not). According to a recent Newsweek poll, only 37% of Americans would vote for an otherwise qualified atheist for president.

Yes, a drop from 1999.

And yes, correlation does not imply causation, but it does not exclude it either. What evidence do you have for your argument that rates of atheism are insufficent? What would you expect the percentage of atheists in a population to be to be if science did promote atheism?

I would at the very least expect the acceptance of atheists to increase. It doesn't.

Piscivore

20th December 2007, 05:29 PM

Why are you asking me? BigLes was the one pointing fingers, not I.
He said nothing about fault.

We don't have sound data from very far back. We do have some numbers from recent years, e.g.: (http://www.religioustolerance.org/amer_intol.htm)
That link discusses the attitudes of Christians with regard to non-Christians, including Atheists. That has nothing to do with whether more people are self- identifying as Atheists now that previously.

Yet, in a comment by Sam Harris: (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-harris24dec24,0,6970228,full.story)
That quote is again about prejudice against Atheists. Interestingly, the same article states:

Given that we know that atheists are often among the most intelligent and scientifically literate people in any society, it seems important to deflate the myths that prevent them from playing a larger role in our national discourse.
and also:
Although it is possible to be a scientist and still believe in God — as some scientists seem to manage it — there is no question that an engagement with scientific thinking tends to erode, rather than support, religious faith. Taking the U.S. population as an example: Most polls show that about 90% of the general public believes in a personal God; yet 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not. This suggests that there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is.
Which directly contradicts your assertion that "...you can't say that science advances in the direction of atheism."

Yes, a drop from 1999.
Doesn't it make sense that when a competing world view gains ground that resistance to it from competitors increases? This is what we see in the history of the Mormons and the Scientologists, isn't it? Wouldn't that indicate that increasing hostility to Atheism might be the result of increasing numbers of Atheists?

I would at the very least expect the acceptance of atheists to increase. It doesn't.
That's not what you said, you said that "If that [science advancing in the direction of atheism] was the case, we'd see a lot more atheism than we do now".

Not a lot more "acceptance of atheists". And why would you expect a diminishing worldview to go quietly?

In any case, you still never really answered my question- what evidence do you have for your argument that rates of atheism are insufficent to demonstrate a connection to science and scientific thinking? What would you expect the percentage of atheists in a population to be to show science did promote atheism?

Retto_Pyrrah

20th December 2007, 05:40 PM

You can't say that science advances in the direction of atheism
I think that you can say that science does this, just not all science.

Furi

20th December 2007, 07:26 PM

And yet, people are very aware of the advances in medicine and biology, because that impacts their lives in the most direct way.

They may be a bit fuzzy on the latest advances in particle physics, but you can bet they are the first to demand the newest methods of treatment from their doctor!

As we all are, of course. :)

Are these the same peops that refuse vax, or deny treatment because of belief. the contamination of generic religous woo allows the growth of other less founded woo, this creates sections of the population making malformed medical decisions that not just affect themselves and their offspring but the entire community (and I use community to describe communal contact)

Some might accept the treatment as given, but do they accept it as a work of humankind or do they accept it as the distilled work of god, you have people controlling peoples thoughts actions and minds, purveying their interpretation of what is right with no individual acknowledgment, as far as the doctrine goes the individual is unimportant, it is an aetheric will that matters, (the previous sentence goes against my own personal beliefs), but can any believer in what is described as devinity work against innoculation of a child against known communable (communicable .. meh) disease.

So you say that religious believers accept the concept of virii and bacreria as methods of of transpoting Malaise, OK, before viral/bacterial theory what did people believe? maybe they believed a priest could cure dyptheria or cholera, maybe at a slight chanc amoebic dysantry. or did it take people that removed themselves from "Acts of divine retribution" to look at things from an organism point of view and work out just what was going on.

yay for scientific progression, and before I hear "Yes the good lord wants us to progress" I believe (I know don't rub it in) it is primarily through the suspension of belief that assists in growth, otherwise it would be as described by "erm oh he just happeed to forget to address Hepatitus, Caesarian birth, Blunt trauma, Migraines, Colour blindness, renal failure Aneurisms, Strokes, Cancer, Allergies and all points in between, Heck never even seemed to give us a decent idea of a general anaesthetics (seeing as he made all the plants an' all could of at least pointed us towards a few of the usefull stuff, Not even a pointer to fekkin clove oil FSMS)

So does the acceptance of medical advances and discoveries lean in Gods or Mans favour? does proof that we are now able through scientifically proven methods to assist and *calm* people that are in need of urgent physiological aid preclude a god, or are you arguing that it (God) decided for us to suffer till we had reached a certain technolgical threshold?

Would this mean that groups through religious belief that now deny vaccinations, are acting for or against the will of divinity? (yes I know it is a different question, but it is dependant on the previous one) and if those that are against vaccination propigate conditions to others, are they responsible or does their religion absolve them from asshattery (oooh if you didn't know my stance then you must be a right twunt)

CFLarsen

21st December 2007, 02:03 AM

He said nothing about fault.

Yes, he did. I would have "strung that one on", it he hadn't managed to "twig".

That link discusses the attitudes of Christians with regard to non-Christians, including Atheists. That has nothing to do with whether more people are self- identifying as Atheists now that previously.

That quote is again about prejudice against Atheists.

I said that data is hard to come by, but that we have some numbers regarding the issue of atheism in society.

With all that disdain - especially in the public - for atheists, do you think that it is easy for people to admit they are atheists?

Interestingly, the same article states:

and also:

Which directly contradicts your assertion that "...you can't say that science advances in the direction of atheism."

Read what he says: It isn't science that advances in the direction of atheism. It's the results that point to the non-existence of god(s).

You are blaming the doctor for finding cancer, and curing it. It isn't the doctor who is doing it, he can do it because of what science makes possible.

Doesn't it make sense that when a competing world view gains ground that resistance to it from competitors increases? This is what we see in the history of the Mormons and the Scientologists, isn't it? Wouldn't that indicate that increasing hostility to Atheism might be the result of increasing numbers of Atheists?

If that was the case, we would never see any oppression of anyone. No matter how much you oppressed a group, it would just grow stronger.

That's not what you said, you said that "If that [science advancing in the direction of atheism] was the case, we'd see a lot more atheism than we do now".

Not a lot more "acceptance of atheists".

The numbers prove you wrong.

And why would you expect a diminishing worldview to go quietly?

Where did I say I expect it to go quietly?

In any case, you still never really answered my question- what evidence do you have for your argument that rates of atheism are insufficent to demonstrate a connection to science and scientific thinking? What would you expect the percentage of atheists in a population to be to show science did promote atheism?

I'm sorry if you are not happy with the answer.

I think that you can say that science does this, just not all science.

It isn't science that advances atheism - the results of science point to the non-existence of god(s).

Are these the same peops that refuse vax, or deny treatment because of belief. the contamination of generic religous woo allows the growth of other less founded woo, this creates sections of the population making malformed medical decisions that not just affect themselves and their offspring but the entire community (and I use community to describe communal contact)

Some might accept the treatment as given, but do they accept it as a work of humankind or do they accept it as the distilled work of god, you have people controlling peoples thoughts actions and minds, purveying their interpretation of what is right with no individual acknowledgment, as far as the doctrine goes the individual is unimportant, it is an aetheric will that matters, (the previous sentence goes against my own personal beliefs), but can any believer in what is described as devinity work against innoculation of a child against known communable (communicable .. meh) disease.

So you say that religious believers accept the concept of virii and bacreria as methods of of transpoting Malaise, OK, before viral/bacterial theory what did people believe? maybe they believed a priest could cure dyptheria or cholera, maybe at a slight chanc amoebic dysantry. or did it take people that removed themselves from "Acts of divine retribution" to look at things from an organism point of view and work out just what was going on.

Look at Jehova's Witnesses and their refusal to accept blood transfusions. Look at Christian Science (http://www.skepticreport.com/medicalquackery/christianscience.htm) and how wacky those claims are. Look at the many miracle cures promoted throughout times, and still promoted, with a clear connection to religious phenomena.

yay for scientific progression, and before I hear "Yes the good lord wants us to progress" I believe (I know don't rub it in) it is primarily through the suspension of belief that assists in growth, otherwise it would be as described by "erm oh he just happeed to forget to address Hepatitus, Caesarian birth, Blunt trauma, Migraines, Colour blindness, renal failure Aneurisms, Strokes, Cancer, Allergies and all points in between, Heck never even seemed to give us a decent idea of a general anaesthetics (seeing as he made all the plants an' all could of at least pointed us towards a few of the usefull stuff, Not even a pointer to fekkin clove oil FSMS)

So does the acceptance of medical advances and discoveries lean in Gods or Mans favour? does proof that we are now able through scientifically proven methods to assist and *calm* people that are in need of urgent physiological aid preclude a god, or are you arguing that it (God) decided for us to suffer till we had reached a certain technolgical threshold?

Would this mean that groups through religious belief that now deny vaccinations, are acting for or against the will of divinity? (yes I know it is a different question, but it is dependant on the previous one) and if those that are against vaccination propigate conditions to others, are they responsible or does their religion absolve them from asshattery (oooh if you didn't know my stance then you must be a right twunt)

They don't have to think that they are acting against the will of God. God is held responsible for a lot of what medicine and science should really get credit for. God didn't give you cancer, but - after chemo and other scientific treatments - it was God who cured you.

Mr. Scott

21st December 2007, 06:57 AM

It sounds like some people all but claim that the only atheist car bumper sticker would be one that said "I AM ATHEIST." The beauty of a great bumper sticker is its subtlety, or meaning derived from its context in current events.

The Randi fish is atheist because, doggone it, Randi is an atheist.

The rocket science fish could conceivable be used by a Christian rocket scientist who feels Christianity and rocket science somehow dovetailed. However, the Christ symbol is replaced by the science symbol, echoing how science is replacing religion, so the chances of it being used to show compatibility of science and religion seems absurdly remote.

Symbols like the swastica have no intrinsic meaning that is independent on context. Otherwise, they wouldn't be symbols, would they? Context can change, but the context of the swastika today, ineither polarity, is painfully obvious.

All the symbols I based on the Jesus fish I know of are intended to satirize Jesus, and by extension, satire (and refute) God.

(Anyone hear of a devout Jew, Hindu, or Muslim brandishing a satire of the Jesus fish? Just wondering.)

I don't think the subtlety of a symbol, or dependence on context, renders it meaningless.

Piscivore

21st December 2007, 07:11 AM

I said that data is hard to come by, but that we have some numbers regarding the issue of atheism in society.
Well, I'm sorry, but just because the numbers you quickly Googled do indeed have someting to do "regarding the issue of atheism in society", they do dot reflect at all on the particular question of whether atheism itself is increasing or in decline as a world view. Go see if you can find some "numbers" that show that the growth rate for atheism as a world view has increased, remained steady, or even declined in the last 300 years. That is what is relevant data, not what other people think of Atheists.

With all that disdain - especially in the public - for atheists, do you think that it is easy for people to admit they are atheists?
That would only mean that there were more atheists than the data might report. How does that help your argument?

Read what he says: It isn't science that advances in the direction of atheism. It's the results that point to the non-existence of god(s).

a·the·ism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism) –noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

You are blaming the doctor for finding cancer, and curing it. It isn't the doctor who is doing it, he can do it because of what science makes possible.
I'm not "blaming" anyone for anything, and your metaphor makes no sense, either contextually or by itself. If the doctor "can do" the diagnoses and cure of the disease, it is him that "is doing it", no matter what makes it "possible". This sentence is nonsense by itself, so I can't imagine what you meant to illustrate with it. One might as well say the carpenter does not build the house he is building, because he couldn't do it without a hammer.

One could say that, but it would be incorrect.

If that was the case, we would never see any oppression of anyone. No matter how much you oppressed a group, it would just grow stronger.
I did not say that oppression of a group made the group stronger, I said it seemed that the stronger a group got, the more it appeared resistance to the group increased in competing groups.

But even if what you said was correct, your first sentence does not follow from the second.

The numbers prove you wrong.
Not the ones you provided. The ones you provided were not germane to the question. You need to find numbers that show that the growth rate for atheism as a world view has increased, remained steady, or even declined in the last 300 years.

Where did I say I expect it to go quietly?
"I would at the very least expect the acceptance of atheists to increase."

I'm sorry if you are not happy with the answer.
I'm not happy with the response. You have yet to provide an answer.

what evidence do you have for your argument that rates of atheism are insufficent to demonstrate a connection to science and scientific thinking?

What would you expect the percentage of atheists in a population to be to show science did promote atheism?

It isn't science that advances atheism - the results of science point to the non-existence of god(s).
Upon what point do you think this distinction has merit? Intent? No one said that science intended or was designed to increase atheism. But if an increase in atheism is the "result" of the process of science, then science is, in fact, increasing atheism.

If I turn on a machine that in the process of its operation drains a nearby lake, and all the fish in that lake die, we can say that the machine is kiiling the fish, even though it is the lack of water that is specifically killing them, not the machine.

skepHick

21st December 2007, 08:33 AM

I know! How about a bumper sticker that reads something like:

"I believe in promoting science over religion, particularly the christian religion, which is dominant in my culture and actively promotes creationism over science, and if I were a theist just trying to promote another religion over christianity I would have a symbol or statement of said religion here instead of this sticker, so feel free to interpret this sticker as a statement of an atheistic world view, which I share. Just so you know."

Although, that's an awful lot to read on a bumper sticker, so it's probably not very effective. If only there were some symbol that could communicate all this. I dunno, maybe like some rocket/fish/science thing that spoofs the christian Jesus fish? Anyone ever see anything like that? Anyone?

Big Les

21st December 2007, 08:40 AM

That was truly inspired skepHick. May your non-religiously specific holiday period be marked by the receipt of copious amounts of stickers of the vehicle application variety, that can in some circumstances and by some people, be interpreted as in some way representative of atheism.

skepHick

21st December 2007, 08:56 AM

Thanks, Big Les! Same to you! May Rocketsciencefish bless us...every one!

CFLarsen

21st December 2007, 09:03 AM

Well, I'm sorry, but just because the numbers you quickly Googled

We can't use Google anymore?

Excellent. :mgduh

do indeed have someting to do "regarding the issue of atheism in society", they do dot reflect at all on the particular question of whether atheism itself is increasing or in decline as a world view. Go see if you can find some "numbers" that show that the growth rate for atheism as a world view has increased, remained steady, or even declined in the last 300 years. That is what is relevant data, not what other people think of Atheists.

Why in 300 years?

What could possibly possess you to think we have sound data from 300 years back?

That would only mean that there were more atheists than the data might report. How does that help your argument?

No, it would mean that in some societies less tolerant of atheists, there could be more atheists.

a·the·ism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism) –noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

....and?

I'm not "blaming" anyone for anything, and your metaphor makes no sense, either contextually or by itself. If the doctor "can do" the diagnoses and cure of the disease, it is him that "is doing it", no matter what makes it "possible". This sentence is nonsense by itself, so I can't imagine what you meant to illustrate with it. One might as well say the carpenter does not build the house he is building, because he couldn't do it without a hammer.

One could say that, but it would be incorrect.

No, he is "doing it" because science has enabled him to "do it". He doesn't make it up as he goes, nor is he going by his own experiences only. He has been trained for years - sometimes decades - to learn how to "do it", solely because of science.

I did not say that oppression of a group made the group stronger, I said it seemed that the stronger a group got, the more it appeared resistance to the group increased in competing groups.

Not just that: You also pointed to Mormons and Scientologists, and followed with:

Wouldn't that indicate that increasing hostility to Atheism might be the result of increasing numbers of Atheists?

More Atheist hostility => Increasing numbers of Atheists.

Not the ones you provided. The ones you provided were not germane to the question.

The ones I provided showed an increase of intolerance toward Atheists. How is that not germane to the question if atheists were more accepted or not?

"I would at the very least expect the acceptance of atheists to increase."

That doesn't mean a diminishing world view would go quietly.

Piscivore

21st December 2007, 09:45 AM

We can't use Google anymore?

Excellent. :mgduh
I did not say that. I implied your Googling was sloppy, that you latched on to the first data that mentioned "Atheist", because the data you presented did not relate to the question.

Why in 300 years?
Isn't that about how long the scientific method as we know it has been in operation? I may be mistaken on that.

What could possibly possess you to think we have sound data from 300 years back?
I have no idea what is available. I certainly do not want to hinder the discussion by assuming evidence isn't there before we look for it. We would want to look at the entire period in question so as not to acidentally allow the data to be skewed by small anomolies, right?

No, it would mean that in some societies less tolerant of atheists, there could be more atheists.
Indeed. There might be hordes of atheistic Saudis afraid to come out of the closet. What has that to do with the question of whether science and scientific thinking promote Atheism?

....and?
Nothing. I was mistaken about the distinction you were trying to make. I addressed it in the part you ignored:
"It isn't science that advances atheism - the results of science point to the non-existence of god(s)."
Upon what point do you think this distinction has merit? Intent? No one said that science intended or was designed to increase atheism. But if an increase in atheism is the "result" of the process of science, then science is, in fact, increasing atheism.

Is "intent" the distinction you think exists between the practice of science and its results? If not, what was the point you were trying to make?

No, he is "doing it" because science has enabled him to "do it". He doesn't make it up as he goes, nor is he going by his own experiences only. He has been trained for years - sometimes decades - to learn how to "do it", solely because of science.
And that is relevant exactly how? The only thing this would illustrate would be that science promotes cancer cures, which would be analogous to my point, not yours.

Not just that: You also pointed to Mormons and Scientologists, and followed with:
...increasing hostility to Atheism might be the result of increasing numbers of Atheists?

More Atheist hostility => Increasing numbers of Atheists.

You've got it backwards. I said the increasing hostility was the result of the increasing number of Atheists. Your equation should correctly read:

More Atheist hostility <= Increasing numbers of Atheists.

The ones I provided showed an increase of intolerance toward Atheists. How is that not germane to the question if atheists were more accepted or not?
It is germane to the question of whether atheists were more accepted or not, but we were not discussing whether atheists were more accepted or not, we were discussing whether there were more atheists or not, and what relation that might have to the increase of science and scientific thinking.

That doesn't mean a diminishing world view would go quietly.
Then I misunderstood you, my apologies.

Back to the point at hand, what evidence do you have for your argument that rates of atheism are insufficent to demonstrate a connection to science and scientific thinking?

What would you expect the percentage of atheists in a population to be to show science did promote atheism?

CFLarsen

21st December 2007, 10:21 AM

I did not say that. I implied your Googling was sloppy, that you latched on to the first data that mentioned "Atheist", because the data you presented did not relate to the question.

"First data that mentioned 'Atheist'"?

Then you will have no problems recreating the google search parameters that shows the link as the first one.

Please do so.

Isn't that about how long the scientific method as we know it has been in operation? I may be mistaken on that.

I have no idea what is available. I certainly do not want to hinder the discussion by assuming evidence isn't there before we look for it. We would want to look at the entire period in question so as not to acidentally allow the data to be skewed by small anomolies, right?

How do you suggest we find census data polling people about their religious stance, from 300 years back?

Indeed. There might be hordes of atheistic Saudis afraid to come out of the closet. What has that to do with the question of whether science and scientific thinking promote Atheism?

You asked about prejudice against atheists, so I answered.

Is "intent" the distinction you think exists between the practice of science and its results? If not, what was the point you were trying to make?

That science itself doesn't advance atheism. Scientific discoveries show there is no evidential god, which could lead some to the conclusion that there is no god.

And that is relevant exactly how? The only thing this would illustrate would be that science promotes cancer cures, which would be analogous to my point, not yours.

No, science discovers cancer cures. It says nothing about if they should be used or not.

You've got it backwards. I said the increasing hostility was the result of the increasing number of Atheists. Your equation should correctly read:

More Atheist hostility <= Increasing numbers of Atheists.

Could it be because Atheism - e.g., Dawkins' recent media appearances - is more in focus, due to more focus on belief in general?

After Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 9-11, Bali, London and Madrid, as well as the JP Muhammed Cartoons, we sure have talked a lot about religion, haven't we?

It is germane to the question of whether atheists were more accepted or not, but we were not discussing whether atheists were more accepted or not, we were discussing whether there were more atheists or not, and what relation that might have to the increase of science and scientific thinking.

I am discussing whether atheists are more accepted or not. Join in or not.

CFLarsen

21st December 2007, 10:30 AM

It sounds like some people all but claim that the only atheist car bumper sticker would be one that said "I AM ATHEIST." The beauty of a great bumper sticker is its subtlety, or meaning derived from its context in current events.

When you put a bumper sticker on your car, you don't do it so you can read it. You do it so others can read it. If your message isn't crystal clear, you are wasting your time.

The Randi fish is atheist because, doggone it, Randi is an atheist.

Really? I see a magician's hat. How is that atheist related? Atheists are dressed in a tux?

Symbols like the swastica have no intrinsic meaning that is independent on context. Otherwise, they wouldn't be symbols, would they? Context can change, but the context of the swastika today, ineither polarity, is painfully obvious.

That depends on when the object carrying the symbol is from. You sure don't think that the Carlsberg brewery (http://picasaweb.google.com/chrisculley11/Denmark/photo#5119041675114331730) is a Nazi supporter, do you?

I don't think the subtlety of a symbol, or dependence on context, renders it meaningless.

If it is so subtle that people don't get it, it is meaningless to them.

Piscivore

21st December 2007, 10:55 AM

"First data that mentioned 'Atheist'"?

Then you will have no problems recreating the google search parameters that shows the link as the first one.

Please do so.
I withdraw the suggestion that it was the "first" data, then. :D I have no way of knowing in what search order your link came from, but it is still not germane to the question of whether science or scientific thinking increases atheism or not.

How do you suggest we find census data polling people about their religious stance, from 300 years back?
A library, perhaps? Ask an anthropologist? A researcher into comparative religions?

There are lots of ways besides just assuming the data isn't there.

You asked about prejudice against atheists, so I answered.
Did I? Reading back I do not see that I did. You offered information about prejudice against atheists, but I asked about your assertion that the rates of growth for atheism was not sufficent to indicate science and scientific thinking promote atheism.

What evidence do you have for your argument that rates of atheism are insufficent to demonstrate a connection to science and scientific thinking?

What would you expect the percentage of atheists in a population to be to show science did promote atheism?

That science itself doesn't advance atheism. Scientific discoveries show there is no evidential god, which could lead some to the conclusion that there is no god.

And what do we call someone who concludes there is no god?

No, science discovers cancer cures. It says nothing about if they should be used or not.
You are mixing apples and oranges. Atheism is not a tool, like a medical treatment, that is used. It is, as you said, a conclusion.

A more apt version of your analogy would be that science discovered a cancer cure, so some doctors understood that cancer could be cured.

Could it be because Atheism - e.g., Dawkins' recent media appearances - is more in focus, due to more focus on belief in general?

After Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 9-11, Bali, London and Madrid, as well as the JP Muhammed Cartoons, we sure have talked a lot about religion, haven't we?
Point?

What has this to do with whether science or scientific thinking promotes atheism?

I am discussing whether atheists are more accepted or not. Join in or not.
That's all well and good, but that's not what I asked you about. I asked you about your assertion that "...you can't say that science advances in the direction of atheism. If that was the case, we'd see a lot more atheism than we do now."

What evidence do you have for your argument that rates of atheism are insufficent to demonstrate a connection to science and scientific thinking?

What would you expect the percentage of atheists in a population to be to show science did promote atheism?

Join in or not.

HarryKeogh

21st December 2007, 10:56 AM

little side story that I've mentioned on this forum before. In my building live an Indian couple. On their door they placed swastika symbols along with some other stickers bearing symbols. At first I was like "what the???!" then I figured there had to be a reason for it (didn''t picture many people from Bombay being huge fans of the Third Reich) so I Googled around and got my answer that the swastika wasn't solely a Nazi symbol.

Still didn't stop one of our other neighbors from ripping it off their door, though.

Anyway...tofu wins the prize for most "dicks" in a post.

CFLarsen

21st December 2007, 11:47 AM

I withdraw the suggestion that it was the "first" data, then. :D I have no way of knowing in what search order your link came from

If you weren't so quick to suggest that I say something I don't, you wouldn't have to withdraw and apologize so much.

A library, perhaps? Ask an anthropologist? A researcher into comparative religions?

There are lots of ways besides just assuming the data isn't there.

Let me know what you found.

Did I? Reading back I do not see that I did. You offered information about prejudice against atheists, but I asked about your assertion that the rates of growth for atheism was not sufficent to indicate science and scientific thinking promote atheism.

You were posting about prejudice against atheists, so I responded.

And what do we call someone who concludes there is no god?

An atheist, of course.

Are you saying that we have to become atheists, if the scientific evidence show there is no god?

You are mixing apples and oranges. Atheism is not a tool, like a medical treatment, that is used. It is, as you said, a conclusion.

A more apt version of your analogy would be that science discovered a cancer cure, so some doctors understood that cancer could be cured.

Exactly: Likewise, some people could reach the conclusion from scientific progress that there is no god.

Point?

What has this to do with whether science or scientific thinking promotes atheism?

Don't fake confusion here, please. My response was to your post about hostility towards atheists. You are also discussing this, so please answer:

Could it be because Atheism - e.g., Dawkins' recent media appearances - is more in focus, due to more focus on belief in general?

After Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 9-11, Bali, London and Madrid, as well as the JP Muhammed Cartoons, we sure have talked a lot about religion, haven't we?

That's all well and good, but that's not what I asked you about. I asked you

And I gave you my answer.

Piscivore

21st December 2007, 12:13 PM

If you weren't so quick to suggest that I say something I don't, you wouldn't have to withdraw and apologize so much.
I actually suggested you did something you didn't, not said.

And withdrawing and apologising is not a problem for me. I'm not perfect, and I don't pretend to be.

Let me know what you found.
It was your assertion, the burden of proof is on you. I'm just trying to help you out.

You were posting about prejudice against atheists, so I responded.
I was posting in response to what you offered. I did not ask about prejudice against atheists. I'm not interested in prejudice against atheists right now, I'm curious about your assertion that that the rates of growth for atheism was not sufficent to indicate science and scientific thinking promote atheism.

An atheist, of course.

Are you saying that we have to become atheists, if the scientific evidence show there is no god?
Well, isn't a scientist or one who uses scientific thinking supposed to follow the evidence?

One does not have to follow where the evidence leads, of course- but then that's not science or scientific thinking, is it?

But if science produces a result, and that result leads someone to conclude that there is no god, that is science leading that person to atheism.

If p then q; if q then r; therefore, if p then r.

Exactly: Likewise, some people could reach the conclusion from scientific progress that there is no god.
Which contradicts your assertion that "...you can't say that science advances in the direction of atheism."

Don't fake confusion here, please. My response was to your post about hostility towards atheists. You are also discussing this, so please answer:

Could it be because Atheism - e.g., Dawkins' recent media appearances - is more in focus, due to more focus on belief in general?

After Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 9-11, Bali, London and Madrid, as well as the JP Muhammed Cartoons, we sure have talked a lot about religion, haven't we?
I am not faking, I am confused. I have no idea what you are trying to say with this.

FWIW, I do not think that Atheism is more in focus because of "more focus on belief in general". Dawkins' media appearances are a specific action designed to attract that attention, that focus. I do not see any indication that there is more focus on belief in general at this time, I think it is possible that there was greater focus on belief in general during the Crusades or the wars of the Reformation, for example.

I fail to see what this has to do with your assertion that that the rates of growth for atheism was not sufficent to indicate science and scientific thinking promote atheism. Except for perhaps as an attempt to change the subject.

And I gave you my answer.
Your answer was to evade the question? Why didn't I see that coming?

CFLarsen

21st December 2007, 01:16 PM

I actually suggested you did something you didn't, not said.

And withdrawing and apologising is not a problem for me. I'm not perfect, and I don't pretend to be.

I didn't say you had a problem with withdrawing and apologizing. I said you had a problem because you have to do it so often.

It was your assertion, the burden of proof is on you. I'm just trying to help you out.

When you insist on going back 300 years, before we have sound data, the burden falls on you.

You can't say "You go back to 1700 and find data, otherwise I won't be satisfied."

I was posting in response to what you offered. I did not ask about prejudice against atheists. I'm not interested in prejudice against atheists right now, I'm curious about your assertion that that the rates of growth for atheism was not sufficent to indicate science and scientific thinking promote atheism.

You were before, which was why I responded.

Well, isn't a scientist or one who uses scientific thinking supposed to follow the evidence?

One does not have to follow where the evidence leads, of course- but then that's not science or scientific thinking, is it?

But if science produces a result, and that result leads someone to conclude that there is no god, that is science leading that person to atheism.

If p then q; if q then r; therefore, if p then r.

OK, so you are saying that we have to become atheists. Those who are not accepting atheism, are...hypocrites? Willingly ignoring the consequences? What?

Which contradicts your assertion that "...you can't say that science advances in the direction of atheism."

No, it doesn't. If I said "all people will reach the conclusion", you would be right.

I am not faking, I am confused. I have no idea what you are trying to say with this.

FWIW, I do not think that Atheism is more in focus because of "more focus on belief in general". Dawkins' media appearances are a specific action designed to attract that attention, that focus. I do not see any indication that there is more focus on belief in general at this time, I think it is possible that there was greater focus on belief in general during the Crusades or the wars of the Reformation, for example.

Gee, how far back do you want to go? First 300 years, now all the way back to the Reformation and the Crusades? :rolleyes:

Have you not followed the discussions arising from the incidents I listed? Are you completely unaware? Really?

I fail to see what this has to do with your assertion that that the rates of growth for atheism was not sufficent to indicate science and scientific thinking promote atheism. Except for perhaps as an attempt to change the subject.

Why do you think this forum has become so popular in such a short time, with so many threads about current woo all around the world?

Big Les

21st December 2007, 01:31 PM

When you put a bumper sticker on your car, you don't do it so you can read it. You do it so others can read it. If your message isn't crystal clear, you are wasting your time.

Let's try a different tack. Do you accept that the symbol shows a representation of science (rocket) dominating one of religion (ichthys)?

CFLarsen

21st December 2007, 01:44 PM

Let's try a different tack.

No, let's try these first:

Those who won't know the Christian-fish or even the Darwin-fish (you sure don't see many in Denmark) will see...what? An atheist symbol?

Is your answer "no" to this question: "Do you think that someone liking science or not buying into the Creationist crap make that person an atheist?" ?

Take a look at this fish (http://www.sindioses.org/randi/031804-RandiFish.jpg). What does that say? Is that an atheist symbol?

Big Les

21st December 2007, 03:08 PM

No, let's try these first:

Those who won't know the Christian-fish or even the Darwin-fish (you sure don't see many in Denmark) will see...what? An atheist symbol?

You do enjoy treating everyone else like a moron, don't you? Of course those who don't know the Christian fish won't see an atheist symbol. Some of those who do still won't get the association. Symbolism is a subjective and ephemeral thing. But lots of those who do know the fish, and even more who've seen the initial (and very obvious) subversion of it, will understand that it is designed to imply that science is a preferable approach to understanding the world than is religion. Who cares if some people don't see it this way? That some will, and even that some are intending it that way, is enough to qualify it as an atheist symbol.

Is your answer "no" to this question: "Do you think that someone liking science or not buying into the Creationist crap make that person an atheist?" ?

Of course it doesn't. However, the symbol is not only anti-Creationist, since the fish is a universal symbol of christianity. Is is that, but it is also anti-Christian and pro-science. As are most, if not all, atheists.

Take a look at this fish (http://www.sindioses.org/randi/031804-RandiFish.jpg). What does that say? Is that an atheist symbol?

Yes, it is. For the same reasons. Amongst other interpretations, no doubt. Why do you exclude this very obvious one from the table?

Start a poll if you're that bothered about it.

Piscivore

21st December 2007, 03:25 PM

I didn't say you had a problem with withdrawing and apologizing. I said you had a problem because you have to do it so often.
And I do not see having to do it often as a problem.

When you insist on going back 300 years, before we have sound data, the burden falls on you.
I'm not insisting, it was just a place to start. Any further back than that I don't think would be relevant, and by only looking at the most recent data something might be overlooked.

You can't say "You go back to 1700 and find data, otherwise I won't be satisfied."
Good thing then that I did not say that. I'll be pleased with any evidence you can provide to support your assertion, just as long as it is actually evidence of the assertion and not unrelated like the stuff about prejudicial attitudes.

You do have some evidence of your assertion, right?

You were before, which was why I responded.
I was because you did.

OK, so you are saying that we have to become atheists.
"If", as you said "the scientific evidence show[s] there is no god", then this is the intellectually honest thing to do, isn't it?

Those who are not accepting atheism, are...hypocrites? Willingly ignoring the consequences? What?
There could be lots of reasons they might do so. I don't think there is any reason to start disparaging anyone though.

No, it doesn't. If I said "all people will reach the conclusion", you would be right.
Not quite, you have things backwards again. Your claim "you can't say that science advances in the direction of atheism" means that none of the people who engage in science or scientific thinking will follow it to atheism, because if some people do become atheists due to science and scientific thinking then science has advanced them in the direction of atheism. Not all of the people wo use science and scientific thinking have to become atheists for your claim to be false, just some of them.

Gee, how far back do you want to go? First 300 years, now all the way back to the Reformation and the Crusades? :rolleyes:
This tangent has nothing at all to do with my question, so no, there would be no point in looking back to the Crusades and the Reformation for evidence of the impact of science and scientific thinking on the rates of atheism.

Have you not followed the discussions arising from the incidents I listed?
Your discussions with the other posters in this thread? No, I havent read any of your responses to anyone but me since I asked you why it mattered where "fault" rested in a mistunderstanding between you and Big Les.

Are you completely unaware?
Yep.

Really?
Really. In this thread I'm only interested in the assertion about which I asked.

Why do you think this forum has become so popular in such a short time, with so many threads about current woo all around the world?
Is it particularly popular, in terms of internet traffic? And isn't seven years a long time for a website? I have no idea that it has "become so popular in such a short time", let alone why. What does that have to do with your assertion that that the rates of growth for atheism was not sufficent to indicate science and scientific thinking promote atheism?

skepHick

21st December 2007, 03:46 PM

CFLarsen

21st December 2007, 03:52 PM

Of course those who don't know the Christian fish won't see an atheist symbol. Some of those who do still won't get the association. Symbolism is a subjective and ephemeral thing. But lots of those who do know the fish, and even more who've seen the initial (and very obvious) subversion of it, will understand that it is designed to imply that science is a preferable approach to understanding the world than is religion. Who cares if some people don't see it this way? That some will, and even that some are intending it that way, is enough to qualify it as an atheist symbol.

You still jump to the conclusion that you can't be religious and accept the progress of science.

Of course it doesn't. However, the symbol is not only anti-Creationist, since the fish is a universal symbol of christianity. Is is that, but it is also anti-Christian and pro-science. As are most, if not all, atheists.

Nope. The Darwin fish pokes fun at the Creationists' claims of biblical origins.

Take a look at these emblems. (http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/emblems.html)

Are you seriously saying that the Sushi Emblem is mocking Christianity? What about the Cat, Dog, Tuna, Freud, Dinner, Scuba, or the Lutefisk Emblems?

How the heck are those mocking religion?

Yes, it is. For the same reasons. Amongst other interpretations, no doubt. Why do you exclude this very obvious one from the table?

I didn't exclude anything. But how is a hat mocking religion?

I'm not insisting, it was just a place to start. Any further back than that I don't think would be relevant, and by only looking at the most recent data something might be overlooked.

Do you think that the scientific discoveries 300 years ago were accepted by the general populace?

Good thing then that I did not say that. I'll be pleased with any evidence you can provide to support your assertion, just as long as it is actually evidence of the assertion and not unrelated like the stuff about prejudicial attitudes.

You point to 300 years ago because you think it would be relevant. That means you won't be satisfied.

I was because you did.

:hb:

"If", as you said "the scientific evidence show[s] there is no god", then this is the intellectually honest thing to do, isn't it?

There could be lots of reasons they might do so. I don't think there is any reason to start disparaging anyone though.

And yet, you are calling people who don't become atheists are not intellectually honest. :rolleyes:

Not quite, you have things backwards again. Your claim "you can't say that science advances in the direction of atheism" means that none of the people who engage in science or scientific thinking will follow it to atheism

I didn't claim it did.

This tangent has nothing at all to do with my question, so no, there would be no point in looking back to the Crusades and the Reformation for evidence of the impact of science and scientific thinking on the rates of atheism.

Have you found any sound data from 300 years back?

Your discussions with the other posters in this thread?

No, the examples I gave of Rushdie, Hirsi Ali, etc.

Have you not followed the discussions arising from those incidents? Here, and in the media?

Is it particularly popular, in terms of internet traffic? And isn't seven years a long time for a website? I have no idea that it has "become so popular in such a short time", let alone why.

Has it totally escaped you that this forum has been the meeting place of choice for skeptics from around the world?

Piscivore

21st December 2007, 04:41 PM

Do you think that the scientific discoveries 300 years ago were accepted by the general populace?
In large part, probably not. Which is why I would expect that the percentage of the population that were atheist to be much smaller. Your claim seems to suggest that it woould be about the same or greater. That's why we look for evidence.

You point to 300 years ago because you think it would be relevant.
Yes, I suggested it because that seems to me to be the start of scientific thinking as we know it. It seems to me to be the place to begin looking if we wanted to examine the impact of scientific thinking on rates of atheism. Do you disagree?

That means you won't be satisfied.
No, I very plainly said "I'll be pleased with any evidence you can provide to support your assertion, just as long as it is actually evidence of the assertion and not unrelated like the stuff about prejudicial attitudes."

You may feel free to use this statement against me if I quibble about your evidence after you present it.

:hb:
Indeed.

And yet, you are calling people who don't become atheists are not intellectually honest. :rolleyes:
"If the scientific evidence show[s] there is no god". There is no such unequivocal evidence at this time that I know of. Do you have any?

That said, the domains traditionally ascribed to a diety- weather control, disease prevention, jurisprudence, etc. - seem no longer to be considered under the control of said gods, at least in cultures that value science or scientific thinking. This seems to me to show that where science and scientific thinking prevails, atheism tends to follow. Your assertion indicated otherwise, which is why I questioned it.

I didn't claim it did.
You do not have to. The way English works your claim "you can't say that science advances in the direction of atheism" means that none of the people who engage in science or scientific thinking will follow it to atheism.

Have you found any sound data from 300 years back?
No. The burden of proof falls on the one who made the claim, petulant wooish evasion notwithstanding.

No, the examples I gave of Rushdie, Hirsi Ali, etc.

Have you not followed the discussions arising from those incidents? Here, and in the media?
No, I have not. They seem to be largely Muslim related topics, from what common signifigance I can discern. Muslims concern me less that those among my fellow citizens that seek to abridge freedoms. Anyway, most politics to me is a lot of sound and fury.

Has it totally escaped you that this forum has been the meeting place of choice for skeptics from around the world?
And? What has that to do with your assertion that that the rates of growth for atheism was not sufficent to indicate science and scientific thinking promote atheism?

skepHick

21st December 2007, 04:53 PM

Hmmm...so, the next time I see one of these:

9512

I can't reasonably conclude that this is a pro-religious and/or creationist symbol? Perhaps this COULD be a symbol for atheists that just don't believe in the theory of evolution, right? It doesn't seem at all likely, but I can't be sure, I guess.

Mr. Scott

21st December 2007, 07:46 PM

Really? I see a magician's hat. How is that atheist related? Atheists are dressed in a tux?

http://www.sindioses.org/randi/031804-RandiFish.jpg

Do you see the word "Randi" on it? I wonder if that's a magic wand, or a club he's using for wack-a-woo.

But seriously, the point of the emblem is Randi is displacing Jesus.

Claus, I have tremendous respect for you, but you are pinning the needle on my Cognitive Dissonance detector. Why don't you sit down, take a stress pill, and tell yourself it's OK to occasionally be wrong about something.

Piggy

21st December 2007, 08:35 PM

But seriously, the point of the emblem is Randi is displacing Jesus.

I don't see it that way at all.

From my POV, the point of the emblem is that Randi is exposing the fact that there never was any "Jesus Christ, son of God, saviour" to displace.

Perhaps there was a man Jesus. But there never was any Christ, son of God, saviour.

If Christians are angered by secular or atheistic appropriations of their symbols, it is because they feel that their symbols are sacred, and therefore should not be parodied.

They want to own these symbols.

Yet the fact is, they do not.

They want everyone in the world to accept their symbols as representations of a real divinity.

Yet the fact is, many do not.

And the fact is, the status of "sacred" is an illusion in their minds, corresponding to nothing in the real world.

Therefore, from the atheist/secular/rational point of view, no violation has taken place, because they do not own these symbols, and blasphemy is an illusion.

To boil it down further, the Christians who are offended are merely petitioning to be exempt from criticism, parody, and ridicule.

Sorry, y'all don't own the world. We live here, too.

I don't care who's offended by my rational, evidence-based views.

I don't recognize your sacred cows.

I value the free exchange of ideas, not the coddling and protection of superstitious nonsense, not treating superstitious people as if they were babies needing to be sheltered from the storms of the real world.

Furthermore, I feel that such protectionary attitudes, and in fact the superstitious beliefs themselves, are patently false and in fact harmful, and therefore richly deserve to be parodied.

Fortunately, I live in an extremely free society (relatively speaking) which allows me to express my point of view on the matter by engaging in parody of patently ridiculous systems of thought such as Christianity.

And personally, given the current pro-theocratic atmosphere of the moment, I consider it the duty of free-thinking, rational persons to engage in such parodies.

These alt-fish are essentially saying, "Hey, y'know all that religious stuff you believe in -- it's a bunch of codswollop."

If we accept the tacit argument that superstitious worldviews should be upheld as unassailable even by those who consider them superstitions, then in effect we hand the victory over to the superstitious by default.

These parody symbols are a public indication that we have no intention of doing so.

CFLarsen

22nd December 2007, 03:09 AM

In large part, probably not.

So, you set up a time frame where you knew in advance that it would be impossible to find evidence.

"If the scientific evidence show[s] there is no god". There is no such unequivocal evidence at this time that I know of. Do you have any?

That said, the domains traditionally ascribed to a diety- weather control, disease prevention, jurisprudence, etc. - seem no longer to be considered under the control of said gods, at least in cultures that value science or scientific thinking. This seems to me to show that where science and scientific thinking prevails, atheism tends to follow. Your assertion indicated otherwise, which is why I questioned it.

Wait a moment. "No such unequivocal evidence"?

Are you saying that there is something in nature where it is as reasonable to assume that there could be a god as it is to assume that it is explainable by natural laws?

Or are you saying that it can never be established if the scientific evidence show there is no god?

You do not have to. The way English works your claim "you can't say that science advances in the direction of atheism" means that none of the people who engage in science or scientific thinking will follow it to atheism.

Nonsense. If 99 people go to the left and one go to the right, the trend is that people go to the left.

No, I have not. They seem to be largely Muslim related topics, from what common signifigance I can discern. Muslims concern me less that those among my fellow citizens that seek to abridge freedoms. Anyway, most politics to me is a lot of sound and fury.

If you deliberately keep away from religious/atheist subjects in the media, how can you even presume to speak about how atheism impacts the modern world?

You speak from ignorance. Educate yourself, if you want to participate in a serious discussion.

And? What has that to do with your assertion that that the rates of growth for atheism was not sufficent to indicate science and scientific thinking promote atheism?

Why do you think people here have so many stories to tell about the boom in psychics, astrologers, palmists, faith healers, etc?

Hmmm...so, the next time I see one of these:

9512

I can't reasonably conclude that this is a pro-religious and/or creationist symbol? Perhaps this COULD be a symbol for atheists that just don't believe in the theory of evolution, right? It doesn't seem at all likely, but I can't be sure, I guess.

Take a look at the emblems I linked to in post #112.

Is the Sushi Emblem mocking Christianity? What about the Cat, Dog, Tuna, Freud, Dinner, Scuba, or the Lutefisk Emblems?

http://www.sindioses.org/randi/031804-RandiFish.jpg

Do you see the word "Randi" on it? I wonder if that's a magic wand, or a club he's using for wack-a-woo.

Take a look at the emblems I linked to in post #112.

Is the Sushi Emblem mocking Christianity? What about the Cat, Dog, Tuna, Freud, Dinner, Scuba, or the Lutefisk Emblems?

But seriously, the point of the emblem is Randi is displacing Jesus.

I know Randi well enough to know that he would never put himself in the place of a religious figure!

Mr. Scott

22nd December 2007, 03:43 AM

Take a look at the emblems I linked to in post #112.

There's no Randi emblem there, none with a top hat, none with a tux.

Is the Sushi Emblem mocking Christianity? What about the Cat, Dog, Tuna, Freud, Dinner, Scuba, or the Lutefisk Emblems?

Yes, I would say so. The reaction in Jesus worshippers would be annoyance and feeling mocked, and those that put them on their cars know this. That qualifies as mockery. To offend people, know you are offending people, but shrug your sholders and claim falsely you didn't mean to offend is just childish. To say "I just like sushi (or Randi, et al)" is either stupid or a lie.

I know Randi well enough to know that he would never put himself in the place of a religious figure!

However, his ideas displace those of religions, even though Randi's ideas are not in any way religious.

This reminds me of the moment in "Root of All Evil where the Orthodox Rabbi accuses Dawkins, sarcastically, of posing as a prophet. Randi is not a religious figure, but his ideas, proudly atheistic, displace the superstitions of cults like Christianity. Ergo the emblem I linked.

What is your point in denying this, Claus? How about instead of a terse denial, or implicitly disagreeing with a question, you explain why you are denying it, and elaborate on the differences between these concepts? Are you just teasing us?

skeptigirl

22nd December 2007, 04:57 AM

....
The questions still stand, whenever skeptigirl returns:

Why is the Science rocket fish an atheist symbol?

How does skeptigirl know the Science fish isn't offensive?Keep this up Claus and people are going to think you are obsessed with me.

However, I did have one comment, though maybe it's over your head. If it isn't an atheist (or at least anti-Christian) symbol, then why would it offend anyone? And if it is offensive, then why would that be if it wasn't an atheist symbol?

It would seem you have your answer either way.

CFLarsen

22nd December 2007, 05:02 AM

There's no Randi emblem there, none with a top hat, none with a tux.

No, but it sure is the same fish.

Yes, I would say so. The reaction in Jesus worshippers would be annoyance and feeling mocked, and those that put them on their cars know this. That qualifies as mockery. To offend people, know you are offending people, but shrug your sholders and claim falsely you didn't mean to offend is just childish. To say "I just like sushi (or Randi, et al)" is either stupid or a lie.

That's all very well. But does mocking Jesus worshippers amount to being atheist?

However, his ideas displace those of religions, even though Randi's ideas are not in any way religious.

This reminds me of the moment in "Root of All Evil where the Orthodox Rabbi accuses Dawkins, sarcastically, of posing as a prophet. Randi is not a religious figure, but his ideas, proudly atheistic, displace the superstitions of cults like Christianity. Ergo the emblem I linked.

There is a hell of a difference between someone displacing Jesus, and someone's ideas displacing Jesus'.

What is your point in denying this, Claus? How about instead of a terse denial, or implicitly disagreeing with a question, you explain why you are denying it, and elaborate on the differences between these concepts? Are you just teasing us?

I'm not denying that the fish is poking fun at Christians. I am questioning why poking fun at Christians makes someone an atheist.

I love that one.

Welcome back.

Why is the Science fish an atheist symbol?

How do you know it isn't offensive?

skeptigirl

22nd December 2007, 05:18 AM

I had read about it here:
http://altreligion.about.com/library/glossary/symbols/bldefsvesica.htm

Wikipedia however claims that new age authors have interpreted it as a yonic symbol and taken it as the traditional interpretation.I thought the fish was symbolic of the Sermon on the Mount and all the other "fisher of men" references associated with Jesus.

According to Wiki, the letters are Greek IchthysSymbolic meaning
An early circular ichthys symbol, created by combining the Greek letters ΙΧΘΥΣ, Ephesus.
An early circular ichthys symbol, created by combining the Greek letters ΙΧΘΥΣ, Ephesus.

The use of the Ichthys symbol by early christians appears to date from towards the end of the 1st century AD. Ichthus (ΙΧΘΥΣ, Greek for fish) is an acronym, which is a word formed from the initial letters of the several words in the name. It compiles to "Jesus Christ God's Son is Saviour" or "Jesus Christ God's Son Saviour", in ancient Greek "Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, Θεοῦ Υἱός, Σωτήρ"

* Iota is the first letter of Iesous (Ιησους), Greek for Jesus.
* Chi is the first letter of Christos (Χριστóς), Greek for "anointed".
* Theta is the first letter of Theou (Θεοῦ), genitive case of Θεóς "God".
* Upsilon is the first letter of Huios (Υἱός), Greek for Son.
* Sigma is the first letter of Soter (Σωτήρ), Greek for Savior.

Historically, twentieth century use of the ichthys motif is an adaptation based on an Early Christian symbol which included a small cross for the eye or the Greek letters "ΙΧΘΥΣ".

That Pagan stuff seems like a stretch but then maybe it has similar roots to the holidays the Christians stole from the Pagans. Maybe someone went a little overboard looking for Pagan roots in everything Christian, or maybe not...This Christian symbol might well have been intended to oppose or protest the pagan apotheosis of the Roman emperor during the reign of Domitian (AD 81 - AD 96). Coins found in Alexandria referred to him as Theou Huios (Son of God). In fact, even earlier, since the death and deification of Julius Caesar, Augustus (Octavian) already styled himself as divi filius, son of the divine (Julius), and struck coins to that effect. This practice was also carried on by some of the later emperors. Another probable explanation is that it is a reference to the scripture in which Jesus miraculously feeds 5,000 people with fish and bread (Mark 6:30-44,Matthew 14:15-21, Luke 9:12-17, and John 6:4-13). The ichthys may also relate to Jesus or his disciples as "fishers of men" (e.g., Mark 1:17). Tertullian, in his treatise On Baptism, makes a pun on the word, writing that "we, little fishes, after the example of our ΙΧΘΥΣ Jesus Christ, are born in water" (§1).

Some theories about the Historicity of Jesus suggest that Christianity adopted certain beliefs and practices as a syncretism of certain mystery religions such as Mithraism, and that this may be the origin of the ichthys in Christian circles. However, this theory is controversial and scholars are split on the probability (or even possibility) of such influence.[1]

skeptigirl

22nd December 2007, 05:45 AM

....
Take a look at this fish (http://www.sindioses.org/randi/031804-RandiFish.jpg). What does that say? Is that an atheist symbol?....Actually, it's hard to see any of these fish parodies as anything but what they are, a parody of the born-again Christians who adopted the Jesus Fish 20+ years ago as their symbol. Yes, the symbol was ancient, but it only started appearing as the popular "born again" symbol 20 or so years ago.

So you tell me Claus, why would you chose a parody of a popular born-again Christian symbol if you weren't commenting on at least that particular branch of theism?

Now tell me how many parodies of the Jesus fish have alternative religious symbols in them? Devils, flying spaghetti monsters, maybe a sprinkling of pagan or other alternative religions.

Do you see any Muslim symbols? See any Hare Krishna symbols? Buddhas?

And a Randi fish, we know it would have a component of anti-woo intended. Why would you debunk woo and use a parody of the born-agains to do it?

Let me guess, all the skeptic theists are Deists and they mock born-agains because Deists feel superior to other theists?

Are you suggesting theists are going to be insensitive to born-again Christians and use symbols that mock the born-agains?

The reason I think the science symbol is a little less offensive is the mocking is much less direct. You can believe in space ships because they don't contradict the Bible. If you believe in the evolution theory, you are saying there was no Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve, there was no original sin and if there was no original sin, then what was Jesus all about?

Why did the church fight the astronomers in Galileo's day? Because Galileo's science meant the church leaders were wrong. It threatened them. They eventually lost a lot of their power and influence (maybe they would have anyway). Why of all the sciences is evolution theory such a threat to Christians? Because it in incompatible with the main tenet of their beliefs, the original sin Jesus supposedly died for.

What does the Darwin Fish say about the Jesus Fish? Hello! It says you are wrong! Your beliefs are wrong! What Christian would insult fellow Christians that way even if they did accept evolution science?

So what Randi enthusiast would choose to use a parody of a born-again symbol if they weren't atheist? Your Deists perhaps? I doubt it.

skeptigirl

22nd December 2007, 06:00 AM

It isn't science that advances atheism - the results of science point to the non-existence of god(s).What kind of bizarre semantic argument is this? Why don't you just say science is neutral in terms of judgment of a question such as, do gods exist? It's the same with science and moral values or beauty. If you define the criteria you will judge by then you can address the answers with the scientific process , but the process itself is neutral toward what is right or wrong, beautiful or ugly and so on.

If you simply verbalized the concept instead of acting like you need to argue this point with anyone, you'd be surprised. People would just say, Oh I get what you are saying, and that would be the end of it. Two happy people, you share some insight and they get it.

Why do you insist on making some absurd argument out of everything? Have you ever considered antidepressants? Seriously? You are so bitter. Do you know some depressed people express their depression as anger and cynicism?

CFLarsen

22nd December 2007, 06:05 AM

Actually, it's hard to see any of these fish parodies as anything but what they are, a parody of the born-again Christians who adopted the Jesus Fish 20+ years ago as their symbol. Yes, the symbol was ancient, but it only started appearing as the popular "born again" symbol 20 or so years ago.

So you tell me Claus, why would you chose a parody of a popular born-again Christian symbol if you weren't commenting on at least that particular branch of theism?

Like I already said: Sure the various fish are poking fun at Christianity. That doesn't make them atheist.

You claim otherwise. Please explain why poking fun at Christianity necessarily is atheist.

Now tell me how many parodies of the Jesus fish have alternative religious symbols in them? Devils, flying spaghetti monsters, maybe a sprinkling of pagan or other alternative religions.

Do you see any Muslim symbols? See any Hare Krishna symbols? Buddhas?

Why are you asking me this? You commented on the link in your post #121, so you know that there are other religious symbols.

And a Randi fish, we know it would have a component of anti-woo intended. Why would you debunk woo and use a parody of the born-agains to do it?

Anti-woo doesn't make it atheist.

Let me guess, all the skeptic theists are Deists and they mock born-agains because Deists feel superior to other theists?

Are you suggesting theists are going to be insensitive to born-again Christians and use symbols that mock the born-agains?

I have no idea how theists will react.

The reason I think the science symbol is a little less offensive is the mocking is much less direct. You can believe in space ships because they don't contradict the Bible. If you believe in the evolution theory, you are saying there was no Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve, there was no original sin and if there was no original sin, then what was Jesus all about?

But you didn't say the science symbol is a little less offensive. You said:

The science rocket fish (http://www.sciwear.com/pd_science.cfm) is a good atheist symbol that isn't offensive.

Emphasis mine.

CFLarsen

22nd December 2007, 06:07 AM

What kind of bizarre semantic argument is this? Why don't you just say science is neutral in terms of judgment of a question such as, do gods exist? It's the same with science and moral values or beauty. If you define the criteria you will judge by then you can address the answers with the scientific process , but the process itself is neutral toward what is right or wrong, beautiful or ugly and so on.

If you simply verbalized the concept instead of acting like you need to argue this point with anyone, you'd be surprised. People would just say, Oh I get what you are saying, and that would be the end of it. Two happy people, you share some insight and they get it.

Why do you insist on making some absurd argument out of everything? Have you ever considered antidepressants? Seriously? You are so bitter. Do you know some depressed people express their depression as anger and cynicism?

Attack the argument, not the arguer, please.

skeptigirl

22nd December 2007, 06:16 AM

Well, I'm sorry, but just because the numbers you quickly Googled do indeed have someting to do "regarding the issue of atheism in society", they do dot reflect at all on the particular question of whether atheism itself is increasing or in decline as a world view. Go see if you can find some "numbers" that show that the growth rate for atheism as a world view has increased, remained steady, or even declined in the last 300 years. That is what is relevant data, not what other people think of Atheists.....I already posted this evidence for Claus. He didn't have anything to counter the data. With some exceptions the trend toward atheism increases with increasing modernity. The US is an exception and we had a short discussion on this in another thread. Also, the data on a couple Asian countries like Vietnam are skewed for various reasons. Overall, the more advanced the science in a country, the larger the atheist/agnostic population. But progress is slow. Remember, advances in science have been logarithmic, think of the progress in the last couple decades compared to the last couple centuries compared to the last couple millennia. When you consider that progress and the increasing numbers of atheists, the trend is there.

The Largest Atheist / Agnostic Populations (http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html)

skeptigirl

22nd December 2007, 06:17 AM

Attack the argument, not the arguer, please.That's it Claus, ignore anything you cannot address with these avoidance lines.

skeptigirl

22nd December 2007, 06:20 AM

Like I already said: Sure the various fish are poking fun at Christianity. That doesn't make them atheist.

You claim otherwise. Please explain why poking fun at Christianity necessarily is atheist.

Why are you asking me this? You commented on the link in your post #121, so you know that there are other religious symbols.

Anti-woo doesn't make it atheist.

I have no idea how theists will react.

But you didn't say the science symbol is a little less offensive. You said:

Emphasis mine.I think everyone but you sees the logic that theists aren't likely to be using parodies against Christians. If that logic escapes you there is nothing anyone could say that would convince you of anything.

skeptigirl

22nd December 2007, 06:23 AM

This is too much. You are in your own very strange world, Claus. People point out the most obvious plain clear things to you and you still ask the same question that was clearly and plainly and logically answered. How you can't see that is incomprehensible, literally.

How much more clear can it be, the Darwin Fish is a direct attack on the very tenets of Christianity. Who but an atheist would directly attack the main tenets of Christianity? Mostly atheists and a few oddball Satanists and Pagans.

Or it this another semantic game, I forgot to say atheists and agnostics. I'm not sure many agnostics care enough about theists to directly make fun of Christian's most important tenet, Jesus died for their sins.

CFLarsen

22nd December 2007, 06:24 AM

I think everyone but you sees the logic that theists aren't likely to be using parodies against Christians. If that logic escapes you there is nothing anyone could say that would convince you of anything.

Why does poking fun at Christianity make you atheist?

Why does being anti-woo make you atheist?

Why have you changed your stance, from the Science fish not being offensive, to the Science fish being a little less offensive?

skeptigirl

22nd December 2007, 06:50 AM

Why does poking fun at Christianity make you atheist?You don't have a single shred of evidence that theists use Jesus Fish parodies to comment on Darwin or science or anything else. This is about Jesus Fish parodies. It is not about simply poking fun at Christians.

Why does being anti-woo make you atheist?This is about Jesus Fish parodies, Claus. Jesus Fish parodies, say it out loud. Jesus Fish parodies, repeat after me, Jesus Fish parodies. It is not about anti-woo making one an atheist.

Why have you changed your stance, from the Science fish not being offensive, to the Science fish being a little less offensive?OH MY GOD! I changed not offensive to less offensive. How could I have exaggerated so inappropriately there. I misled everyone in the thread. My apologies to you all for that tremendous faux pas. Here I thought I could just post a casual statement sharing my favorite Jesus Fish parody. I said it wasn't offensive. I used an adjective of absoluteness. I should never have used an adjective of absoluteness. The rocket-science fish is only an indirect attack on born-agains, how dare I suggest it was NO attack at all. How foolish of me. Little did I know Claus would visit the thread and point out my stupid glaring erroneous adjective. Such a terrible falsehood. I hope you all can forgive me.

But wait, if it isn't an atheist symbol, why would the Jesus Fish people be offended? Maybe it isn't offensive after all? No, I'm pretty sure it's a atheist symbol. Hmmmm...Oh the logic of it all, my head is spinning. :dqueen

CFLarsen

22nd December 2007, 07:10 AM

You don't have a single shred of evidence that theists use Jesus Fish parodies to comment on Darwin or science or anything else. This is about Jesus Fish parodies. It is not about simply poking fun at Christians.

That doesn't answer the question: Why does poking fun at Christianity make you atheist?

When a Muslim pokes fun at Christians using any of the Jesus fish parodies, is he really poking fun at religion in general?

This is about Jesus Fish parodies, Claus. Jesus Fish parodies, say it out loud. Jesus Fish parodies, repeat after me, Jesus Fish parodies. It is not about anti-woo making one an atheist.

So, the Randi fish is not about mocking any religion?

OH MY GOD! I changed not offensive to less offensive. How could I have exaggerated so inappropriately there. I misled everyone in the thread. My apologies to you all for that tremendous faux pas. Here I thought I could just post a casual statement sharing my favorite Jesus Fish parody. I said it wasn't offensive. I used an adjective of absoluteness. I should never have used an adjective of absoluteness. The rocket-science fish is only an indirect attack on born-agains, how dare I suggest it was NO attack at all. How foolish of me. Little did I know Claus would visit the thread and point out my stupid glaring erroneous adjective. Such a terrible falsehood. I hope you all can forgive me.

But wait, if it isn't an atheist symbol, why would the Jesus Fish people be offended? Maybe it isn't offensive after all? No, I'm pretty sure it's a atheist symbol. Hmmmm...Oh the logic of it all, my head is spinning. :dqueen

Why are you lashing out at me for?

If you have realized that you made a blanket statement you couldn't back up later, just admit it and move on.

No need to be such a drama queen.

skeptigirl

22nd December 2007, 08:15 AM

That doesn't answer the question: Why does poking fun at Christianity make you atheist?Jesus Fish, Claus, repeat after me, Jesus Fish. Here, let me ask the proper question for you, "Why would an atheist be more likely to use a Jesus Fish Parody than a theist?"

See, when you ask it that way, you can go back and find the answer. When you ask it your way, you can't find the answer because, NO ONE SAID POKING FUN AT CHRISTIANS MADE YOU AN ATHEIST.

When a Muslim pokes fun at Christians using any of the Jesus fish parodies, is he really poking fun at religion in general?Evidence?

Wait, let me elaborate. I don't believe you can provide any evidence that Muslims do make fun of born-agains using Jesus Fish parodies.

So, the Randi fish is not about mocking any religion?Jesus Fish parody, Claus, repeat after me, Jesus Fish parody. Any fish parody is about the Jesus Fish. Why would it be about religion in general? It isn't religion in general's symbol. It is the popular symbol for born-again Christians. The Randi Fish is a Jesus Fish parody. That implies it is making fun of the born-again Christians. Seems like something an atheist would be more inclined to use than a theist, wouldn't you think?

Why are you lashing out at me for?

If you have realized that you made a blanket statement you couldn't back up later, just admit it and move on. No need to be such a drama queen.It takes a while to find out what your ridiculous point is. :rolleyes: I was sharing my favorite Jesus Fish parody, Claus, remember. I wasn't making some blanket statement of fact that needed to be backed up. IT WAS A CASUAL COMMENT. DID YOU KNOW THERE IS A DIFFERENCE?

So now that those issues are cleared up, how about answering the questions you ducked with your feigned offense at my attempt to demonstrate to you why people find your posts rude and suggest a better way you might address your points. Here, let me repeat the questions for you. So how about an answer. I'm waiting.What kind of bizarre semantic argument is this? Why don't you just say science is neutral in terms of judgment of a question such as, do gods exist? It's the same with science and moral values or beauty. If you define the criteria you will judge by then you can address the answers with the scientific process , but the process itself is neutral toward what is right or wrong, beautiful or ugly and so on.

If you simply verbalized the concept instead of acting like you need to argue this point with anyone, you'd be surprised. People would just say, Oh I get what you are saying, and that would be the end of it. Two happy people, you share some insight and they get it.See that, I am asking you why you approached a problem one way, when it would have been so much more effective to approach it another way. Of course I can see why you felt attacked. The whole point of my post was addressing your rude behavior. You really don't have a clue how rude you are, do you?