Atheists -Skeptics : STOP the mockeryng about theists. [Archive]

Cain

10th May 2003, 01:44 AM

In the politics forum especially, no one hesitates to state that their opponent has surrendered her skepticism to .

I have not read Hal's article yet, but, for me, skepticism is just another word for "intellectual honesty." Is someone willing to subject their most cherished beliefs to scrutiny? Disturbingly, our time is limited and not [i]everything can be rigorously investigated unless you want to squander precious moments of life deciding relatively unimportant issues.

There's a simple, intuitive rule: the more central the belief, the more skepticism required. For example, many people think there's life on other planets. Statistically speaking, they're probably right. Unfortunately, quite a few people believe intelligent life exists on other planets, and those aliens seek to destroy earth and everything on it. If that's something you worry about, then it should be subjected to thoughtful inquiry.

I am an anti-racist. I find racists despicable (See Science forum on _Guns, Germs, and Steel_). The same goes for Holocaust deniers. If someone put a gun to my head forcing a public debate against a confident, well-spoken Holocaust denier, I'd probably get my ass embarrassed. Of course, I could research their claims, find the inconsistencies, the hasty inferences, the missing evidence, and expose their lies. But who wants to spend a great deal of their time proving something as elementary (and horrifying) as the Holocaust?

Fortunately, there are hard-working, capable, and intelligent people who dedicate a signifcant amount of their time to refuting this bunk. James Randi is one of these people; Stephen Jay Gould another; Carl Sagan still another; and so on. We can give most ideas a fair hearing.

But...
Religion is one of those belief systems that organizes, filters, and arbitrates all of our other ideas, thoughts, and actions. My problem with the faithful is their insistence that this particular collection of beliefs -- their most valued and indisputably critical -- cannot be questioned. It's these beliefs that require relentless personal investigation. We must go much further than reading a popular book or engaging in the occasional discussion. You've got to sit down and really think things through.

I do not believe deism can be fairly lumped in with religion. Allow me to make a trivial statement (imagine this profound truth coming from the mouth of an innocent five year-old): A deist is merely an atheist that believes in a god. I'm of the opinion that deism has many problems, but it's certainly a view I can respect. Indeed, I would say deists are inclined towards skepticism-- i.e. intellectual honesty.

The same goes for a number of Christians, though, obviously, they're largly disinclined toward skepticism. No single group has a monopoly on the term -- and anyone who claims to should be met with the utmost skepticism. We can, however, distinguish our between our natural allies (deists) and sworn enemies (Faith's victims). Skepticism is a process rather than any set of ideas, and blurring the battle lines any further makes no sense.

Yahzi

10th May 2003, 02:00 AM

A deist is merely an atheist that believes in a god
LOL!

What you are really trying to say is that a deist can also be a humanist.

But I agree with you: Hal's deism cannot withstand critical scrutiny. The idea of god is either obviously unreasonable, or so watered down that it is irrelevant.

I never understood why it was ok to give religion a special exemption. "These are the rules by which we judge truth claims for our religious beliefs, and then over here are the rules we use for everything else." How do you justify such an exemption?

Darwin

10th May 2003, 05:15 AM

This is a public forum,that means that if you participate you have to consider the possibility that you may wind up reading things you would not like to.
I think that does read in the rules.

"If your leaders agree , you must obey."
?

10th May 2003, 06:21 AM

Originally posted by Darwin
This is a public forum,that means that if you participate you have to consider the possibility that you may wind up reading things you would not like to.
I think that does read in the rules.

"If your leaders agree , you must obey."
?

Dear Darwin:

When I proclamed the same stuff, the answer I received from supporters of the JREF was that is a private forum, and that belongs to Randi and is under the rules of Hal and Linda.

Thanks,
S&S

10th May 2003, 06:28 AM

Originally posted by The Fool

I'm sorry that Hal's article was beyond your capacity to understand. Possibly, you could ask your wife to explain it to you?

Dear Fool :

I just want to STOP the mockery against theists in this Forum.

If you read the posts of different members in this thread ,the article is beyond THEIR cappacity of understanding.

You said Amen and agree with Hal and Randi.
My wyfe also said Amen.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
"I am going to miss you when you are gone."

Lord Emsworth

10th May 2003, 06:40 AM

STOP the mockeryng about theists.

Why?
Everything should be able to sustain a little mockery.
Especially beliefs. If not, it's no good.

10th May 2003, 06:50 AM

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth

Why?
Everything should be able to sustain a little mockery.
Especially beliefs. If not, it's no good.

Hi L.E.

I am assuming you don't agree with Hal and Randi response .

quote by Hal Bidlack
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can a person be both a skeptic and a person of faith?

The answer is, Mr. Randi and I agree, a resounding YES.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am assuming you don't belong to the JREF organization .

Then you are free to mocker about the response.

But why mockering?

Thanks,
S&S

K-W

10th May 2003, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by S&S

Hi L.E.

I am assuming you don't agree with Hal and Randi response .

quote by Hal Bidlack
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can a person be both a skeptic and a person of faith?

The answer is, Mr. Randi and I agree, a resounding YES.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am assuming you don't belong to the JREF organization .

Then you are free to mocker about the response.

But why mockering?

Thanks,
S&S

Even if they could be both an atheist and a skeptic. Which clearly they can. That doesnt make thier theism above criticism judgement of mockery. Its possible to be a skeptic that kills people. That doesnt mean we cant criticise murder. Simply the possible existance of two things together does not mean that if you support one you cant mock another.

The issue is that a true skeptic is skeptic of everything and doesnt blindly follow a religion, but very few, if any, people are perfect skeptics. We all have our little stumbles into irrationality.

Lord Emsworth

10th May 2003, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by S&S
I am assuming you don't agree with Hal and Randi response .

quote by Hal Bidlack
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can a person be both a skeptic and a person of faith?
The answer is, Mr. Randi and I agree, a resounding YES.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that a person very well can be a skeptic(paranormal) and be a person of faith(religion/god).
Although I strongly feel that a person who does so, should check his/her premises and give some thought to the question: Is god paranormal?

I for my part think, God belongs to the realm of paranormality. Therefore I can not accept him, if I don't believe in, for example, spoonbending, as well.

Originally posted by S&S
I am assuming you don't belong to the JREF organization .
I don't. Still need some time to make my mind up if I should.

Originally posted by S&S
Then you are free to mocker about the response.

But why mockering?

I fear you have lost me here a bit. Which response? Yours? Which mockering then?

If you mean with "Why the mockering" mocking about religion/theism, then I can only respond with another question: Why not?
I might come up with a better response, when I've thought a little.

I hope you can follow me.

stamenflicker

10th May 2003, 07:33 AM

Well, I've read the Bidlack article and all the responses here except T.B. Ken's since he's the only person I've ever put on ignore. I suppose the only word that can possibly come close to defining the experience is "dismay."

I suppose I worked so very hard to escape fundamentalist ideologies in Christian circles that I've never really expected to find so many moonlighting as skeptics on this forum. I thought Bidlack's article pretty much nailed it at an ideological level. I think what might surprise me the most, is that I continue to be "dismayed" by so many of you. I see the complete utter inability to divorce yourself from your perspectives just long enough to give a thought breathing room.

In fact the skeptic position is the most logical position to take, on most everything, including our wonderful strong empirists, weak-atheists, materialist, logical positivism, Christian, whatever.

The idea that a theist in some way has to exchange intellect for faith is the most ludicrous idea I've heard in a long, long, time. The idea that religious belief is somehow exempt from skepticism is not practical, though I realize many folks live this way. I fail to see where even these poor souls have become a "victim" to anything other than a way of life that is meaningful. I fail to see what "standards" are not being applied to the deity in question. I suppose the dismay and logical inconsistency displayed on this forum must continue so long as our socially constructed criteria for meaning remain empirical.

Flick

PS-- you shouldn't let the mocking bother you SS. It's the weaker posture to debate. Recognize it and let it slide.

10th May 2003, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth

I fear you have lost me here a bit. Which response? Yours? Which mockering then?

If you mean with "Why the mockering" mocking about religion/theism, then I can only respond with another question: Why not?
I might come up with a better response, when I've thought a little.

I hope you can follow me.

Hi L.E.

I am refering about the posts (Atheist -Skeptics ) of formal mockery (and uncivil mockery ) about THEIST's and religion beleifs . Are posted in this R&P forum.

Expressions : troll , trolling , woo woo ,supertition , stupids, idiots etc.

Now that we have Randi and Hal supporting theists as skeptics , maybe those pseudo -skeptics that belong to the JREF will reconsider their position and simple obey they leaders.

It doesn't matter if they(Randi and Hal) are theists of the first type or from the last type. Now the both of them are in the same ship with theists.
And the Skeptic concept will be reconsider and discuss.

Thanks,
S&S

apoger

10th May 2003, 10:21 AM

I never understood why it was ok to give religion a special exemption.

I suspect many here feel it's important to get out the message that critical thinking is important, and being stoned, hanged, burnt, tortured, or otherwise exposed to the glory of religion, is a real deterent to helping others.

It's easy to be confrontational with people that believe that aliens have taken over the government, because such people are powerless fruitcakes.

Religion still has it's dirty hands tightly wrapped around the halls of power. Confronting religion in a straightforward manner is most often pointless, and attracts the venom of many who would gladly be your enemy.

If skeptics fly a banner of "choose religion or skepticism" we will find ourselves on the wrong end of a bad fight.

I feel it is important for skeptics to make good use of their lives so they are an example to others. By doing so, and by offering gentle alternatives to religious dogma we can slowely but surely pry loose the stranglehold that religion has over the multitudes.

Simply put, if we point at believers and say "We are right, you are wrong, change your stupid beliefs and be rational", we are certain to be ignored at best.

NoDeity

10th May 2003, 10:49 AM

I just want to STOP the mockery against theists in this Forum.[/B]
Well, if you're going to believe funny things, you're going to inspire laughter. :p

10th May 2003, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by NoDeity

Well, if you're going to believe funny things, you're going to inspire laughter. :p

If you want to keep on mockering (normal and uncivil) about Theists Beleivers (including Hal and Randi beleifs ) you are free to do it.

But I prefer just a civil debate in the R&P Forum. Maybe more Philosophy about the topics. Is my opinion , and you are free to disagree with me.

Thanks,
S&S

Yahzi

10th May 2003, 11:31 AM

S&S
You do realize that every post you make is a far, far greater mockery of religion than anything we poor athiests could hope to achieve, don't you?

Your sheer absurdity, and the tenacity with which you cling to that silliness, is vastly more insulting to the faithful than any words we could pen.

Plus your syntax is a virtual mockery of the English language.

10th May 2003, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by Yahzi
S&S
You do realize that every post you make is a far, far greater mockery of religion than anything we poor athiests could hope to achieve, don't you?

Your sheer absurdity, and the tenacity with which you cling to that silliness, is vastly more insulting to the faithful than any words we could pen.

Plus your syntax is a virtual mockery of the English language.

Yahzi :

I understand why you are upset. My opening post maybe disturbed your own beleifs about Randi and Hal. Just keep on supporting your cult.

English is not my first language , I am sure my sintaxis and spelling are not the best I wish.
I apologize for not write a correct English as you do.

Thanks,
S&S

DialecticMaterialist

10th May 2003, 11:51 AM

I do not believe deism can be fairly lumped in with religion.

Definately not. A religion is more then a mere belief in God or anything supernatural/paranormal.

A religion is a belief system made to promote a relatioship with something "sacred"(beyond the mere material world) and contains three elements(according to professors of religion)(Deists don't necessarily advocate a relatioship with one's God):

1) Myth: Not just in the sense of false or unproven history, but one made to give meaning to one's life. Deists lack myth.

2) Ritual: An act made to strengthen the connection with the sacred. Like prayer, mass or meditation. Deists lack ritual.

3) Dogma: Intellectual understanding of the "sacred". Usually in the form of written material. Though many believe the sacred cannot be "understood" many also believe their dogma(the Bible,Upanishads, etc) can help. Deists lack dogma.

Hence a Deist, who gives God a more "hands off" position is not adhering to a religion.

NoDeity

10th May 2003, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by S&S
But I prefer just a civil debate in the R&P Forum. Maybe more Philosophy about the topics. Is my opinion , and you are free to disagree with me. Well, the mockery probably has little or no place in a serious discussion about whether or not God or gods exist. However, after years and years of seeing the same easily refuted and dismissed arguments for God presented over and over again, it's pretty hard for some of us to keep taking the discussion seriously.

If someone passionately believes that anything associated with the number 13 is "unlucky" and refuses to drive on 13th street or to cash a cheque on the 13th of the month, you might find that funny. It's the same for us regarding theism.

I think I'm not likely to change your view on this matter but I hope you can understand a bit about why some of us laugh.

Lord Emsworth

10th May 2003, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by S&S
I am refering about the posts (Atheist -Skeptics ) of formal mockery (and uncivil mockery ) about THEIST's and religion beleifs . Are posted in this R&P forum.

Expressions : troll , trolling , woo woo ,supertition , stupids, idiots etc.

The term mocking was probably misleading me a little here. I thought you meant: making a joke here and there and making a few more if beliefs seem funny and shrewd to the atheist observer.

Expressions like trolls, stupids and idiots usually go too far and are insulting, but some posters are literally begging for them. I'm not sure if you do. I haven't read all your posts, but here you seem to be able to do some reasonable discussing.

As I've said before, a little mocking about religios beliefs is quite all right, but I add, insulting goes too far.

Woo woo seems to me like an expression used in this forum for persons claiming to have paranormal powers. A forum-internal sociolect, so to speak. :p

Originally posted by S&S
Now that we have Randi and Hal supporting theists as skeptics , maybe those pseudo -skeptics that belong to the JREF will reconsider their position and simple obey they leaders.
I hope not that there are many skeptics who blindly follow the position of their leaders. Blind following would cleary render their opinions as inconsequent or self-contradicting.

Changed intern to internal

10th May 2003, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by NoDeity
Well, the mockery probably has little or no place in a serious discussion about whether or not God or gods exist.

Hi NoDeity:

In any serious discussion of this forum about the existence or not of God , and about Theists beleifs , the average of normal mockering and uncivil mockering is strongly presented.
As a curiosity , those posters who did it were also JREF Members or supporters.
Now with the "news" about Hal and Randi commentaries, maybe will change their position.

That is the reason of my opening post.

I agree with you in how a real debate it should be.

Thanks,
S&S

evildave

10th May 2003, 01:07 PM

Well, S&S, if you could curb your own blanket ad-hominem about "all you atheists", I'm certain we could stop laughing at your rantings long enough to see what you're saying.

For instance, one simple, clear and repeated point being made is that Mr. Randi (and his representatives) are not in any way our "boss". Of course, all I can say for certain is, they're not my boss.

I am free to agree or disagree with all of them. There is no coersion here (i.e. "Do it or you GO TO HELL!").

Yes, it's fine to be religious and skeptical. People can have what I perceive to be "blind spots", and they can perceive my own perceptions as "blind spots". They're free to. I have the mature perspective that there's precious little to be done about either case.

I'm also free to be a touch offended by statements like "all you atheists are nothing but mockers", just as a statement like "all you theists are just a sermon away from being suicide bombers" could be considered offensive to a theist.

triadboy

10th May 2003, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by S&S

I am assuming you don't agree with Hal and Randi response .
quote by Hal Bidlack
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can a person be both a skeptic and a person of faith?
The answer is, Mr. Randi and I agree, a resounding YES.

I know I don't agree with it. (I am assuming a "person of faith" is someone who believes something there is no evidence for - such as religion)

To be a skeptic is to question ideas for reasonableness. And then to want to see some proof. The idea of God, the devil, heaven and hell are ideas that have been passed down to us. These concepts are not reasonable nor provable.

Have I been guilty of shirking my skeptical duties? Yes. As of a year ago, I was constantly being taken in by urban legend emails. The stories were so great, I had to pass them on. However, now I check stories out at truthorfiction.com or snopes.com before I send it on.

Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung discovered that this wonderful story of Jesus, Moses, Mohammed, Mithra, Attis, Serapis, Dionysus, Osiris, etc - was a story that for some reason is ingrained in the psyche of man. We connect with this story somehow. Unfortunately for the world, Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe this story is history.

10th May 2003, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by triadboy

I know I don't agree with it. (I am assuming a "person of faith" is someone who believes something there is no evidence for - such as religion)

To be a skeptic is to question ideas for reasonableness. And then to want to see some proof. The idea of God, the devil, heaven and hell are ideas that have been passed down to us. These concepts are not reasonable nor provable.

Maybe Hal have faith to find a kind of God in his life.

arcticpenguin

10th May 2003, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by stamenflicker

In fact the skeptic position is the most logical position to take, on most everything, including our wonderful strong empirists, weak-atheists, materialist, logical positivism, Christian, whatever.

The idea that a theist in some way has to exchange intellect for faith is the most ludicrous idea I've heard in a long, long, time. The idea that religious belief is somehow exempt from skepticism is not practical, though I realize many folks live this way. I fail to see where even these poor souls have become a "victim" to anything other than a way of life that is meaningful. I fail to see what "standards" are not being applied to the deity in question. I suppose the dismay and logical inconsistency displayed on this forum must continue so long as our socially constructed criteria for meaning remain empirical.

Flick

For a rather different take on intellect and faith, look here: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=204728&highlight=benefits+AND+untruth#post204728

If it could be demonstrated as an untruth (and to date it cant), I'd probably still be Christian. I see too many benefits... it would be like telling my two year old there is no Santa. What good would that really do? It's different when he's old enough to know better, but in the meantime why spoil the mystery and the good times?

10th May 2003, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by evildave
Well, S&S, if you could curb your own blanket ad-hominem about "all you atheists", I'm certain we could stop laughing at your rantings long enough to see what you're saying.

For instance, one simple, clear and repeated point being made is that Mr. Randi (and his representatives) are not in any way our "boss". Of course, all I can say for certain is, they're not my boss.

I am free to agree or disagree with all of them. There is no coersion here (i.e. "Do it or you GO TO HELL!").

Yes, it's fine to be religious and skeptical. People can have what I perceive to be "blind spots", and they can perceive my own perceptions as "blind spots". They're free to. I have the mature perspective that there's precious little to be done about either case.

I'm also free to be a touch offended by statements like "all you atheists are nothing but mockers", just as a statement like "all you theists are just a sermon away from being suicide bombers" could be considered offensive to a theist.

Hi Evildave:

Then your resume position : "I agree with Randi and Hal".

Is fine to you , so stay relax.

Thanks,
S&S

10th May 2003, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth

As I've said before, a little mocking about religios beliefs is quite all right, but I add, insulting goes too far.

Hi LE:

I will like your opinion about this kind of post (is just an example ):

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Dark Cobra
I told Jesus I loved him once.

He smiled at me, stroked his hand though my hair, and looked into my eyes.

I wrapped my arms around him, and then we... we... we kissed.

One thing led to another and before I knew it we started having sex.

He was rough, for my first time. I told him to be gentle but he wouldn't! I bled for five days after that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17541&highlight=jesus+my+friend

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.

Respect , a real debate about the Theists beleifs and a fair administration of this forum ,is all I want .

stamenflicker

10th May 2003, 04:11 PM

AP,

For a rather different take on intellect and faith, look here: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/show...ruth#post204728

I'm struggling to see where you are going with this one. If you are suggesting that living an untruth for the perceived benefit is not intellectual, then that wouldn't correspond to the facts. After all if it could be demonstrated that god was an untruth, then one could merely accept it intellectually before acting from one's will to make a value judgment, which places meaning above fact. That in no way implies intellectual dishonesty, as much as is does personal preference.

It would likened to caring for your dying mother. Sure she's going to die, but you make a value judgment to spend your weeks and months at her bedside anyway-- why? Because you find it meaningful.

So where exactly is the intellect / faith issue? I'm clouded as to what you mean.

Flick

Cain

10th May 2003, 04:27 PM

Yahzi wrote:
What you are really trying to say is that a deist can also be a humanist.

Nah. Humanist has become such an evil, loaded word (like liberal) that it's lost all meaning. I do not regard Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin, T. Jefferson, David Hume, or Voltaire -- all deists -- as enemies of reason. Of course, these brilliant guys predated Darwin, which makes them more rational (in my opinion) than contemporary deists. As Dawkins writes (I'm paraphrasing) in the Blind Watchmaker: "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

Deism is not an outlook on life (same goes for atheism).

I can never understand the parochial squabbling on these matters. It's even worse on the Left.

10th May 2003, 06:16 PM

There is an involution in the Skepticism of Randi and Hal.
According to pure Skepticism.
But also can be interpretated as a searching or insecurity of their beleifs.

Thanks,
S&S

c4ts

10th May 2003, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by ex-latin

Maybe Hal have faith to find a kind of God in his life.

Except that the whole point of Deism is to use reason rather than faith.

10th May 2003, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by c4ts

Except that the whole point of Deism is to use reason rather than faith.

When the excuses were invented to justicate fanatism , then all can be accepted.

Thanks,
S&S

Lord Kenneth

10th May 2003, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by S&S

When the excuses were invented to justicate fanatism , then all can be accepted.

Thanks,
S&S

Is fanaticism defined as "crazy guy who stays on message board for over a hear and insults people there because he didn't follow rules correctly and didn't have a claim to attempt to win a million dollar prize?

10th May 2003, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

Is fanaticism defined as "crazy guy who stays on message board for over a hear and insults people there because he didn't follow rules correctly and didn't have a claim to attempt to win a million dollar prize?

DC

Relax , if you are upset because I posted your uncivil mockering about Jesus , just debate about the topic .
You are free to do it again in your uncivil tone. Is your option.

If you want to create a thread about me , you are also free to do it. And I will debate with you on it.

If you don't have excuses(only insults) to justificate your actions, then stay in silence.

Thanks,
S&S

NoDeity

10th May 2003, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by S&S
In any serious discussion of this forum about the existence or not of God , and about Theists beleifs , the average of normal mockering and uncivil mockering is strongly presented.
You might be getting the wrong idea about me, though. Take note of my sig. If the theist can have a discussion about God without presenting stupid arguments or if the theist is able to recognize that an argument is silly when that is pointed out, then there will be no mockery -- at least from me.

As a curiosity , those posters who did it were also JREF Members or supporters.
Now with the "news" about Hal and Randi commentaries, maybe will change their position.[/B]
I disagree with the position presented in Hal's column.

thaiboxerken

10th May 2003, 09:11 PM

DC

Relax , if you are upset because I posted your uncivil mockering about Jesus , just debate about the topic .

S&S [/B]

It is not uncivil to mock superstition.

evildave

10th May 2003, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by S&S

Hi Evildave:

Then your resume position : "I agree with Randi and Hal".

Is fine to you , so stay relax.

Thanks,
S&S

I'm not certain how to parse that.

Are you stating I have assumed a position of agreement with Randi and Hal, or that I have reverted back to a state of agreement with Randi and Hal?

In short, where Randi is more politically and socially savvy, downplaying whatever his feelings for religion are to make his message of skepticism and education more palettable to those who will hear it, Dawkins is less appologetic about his treatment of religion as a disease.

I rather like Richard Dawkins' descriptions of religion as a virus in Viruses of the Mind (http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1993-summervirusesofmind.htm). The 'Misguided Missiles (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4257777,00.html)' article is also a favorite.

"Disease" much more nearly approximates my feelings about religion than total tolerance and understanding of people's feelings abour their mental condition.

As long as people can believe I'm "damned" to an eternity in Hell for not believing as they do, and that anything from me short of totally adopting their favorite mythology and gods is "intolerance", then I can certainly believe there are some wires seriously crossed in their skulls.

c4ts

10th May 2003, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by S&S

When the excuses were invented to justicate fanatism , then all can be accepted.

Thanks,
S&S

To the best of my knowledge, there is no such thing as a fanatic Deist.

11th May 2003, 12:44 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

DC

Relax , if you are upset because I posted your uncivil mockering about Jesus , just debate about the topic .

S&S

It is not uncivil to mock superstition. [/B]

If you do it in a civil way your mockering , you will win a lot.
If you do it in an uncivil way , you are the uncivil.

Thanks,
S&S

thaiboxerken

11th May 2003, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by S&S

If you do it in a civil way your mockering , you will win a lot.
If you do it in an uncivil way , you are the uncivil.

Thanks,
S&S

Mockering is not a word, dumbass.

Mocking superstition is not about winning, it's about showing the absurdity of superstition, it's about pointing out how stupid superstition is. Oh, and it's about making fun of people..which is always fun.

Now go be like Jesus and crucify yourself.

11th May 2003, 01:19 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Mockering is not a word, dumbass.

Mocking superstition is not about winning, it's about showing the absurdity of superstition, it's about pointing out how stupid superstition is. Oh, and it's about making fun of people..which is always fun.

Now go be like Jesus and crucify yourself.

You seems to be upset with my reply, when you recured (...) to your insults and uncivil way, to express and sustant your nonsense.

Thanks,
S&S

thaiboxerken

11th May 2003, 01:22 AM

Originally posted by S&S

You seems to be upset with my reply, when you recured (...) to your insults and uncivil way, to express and sustant your nonsense.

Thanks,
S&S

You really make very little sense to me. It's not uncivil to mock fools like you or their religions.

Be like jesus and go hang out on the hill.

11th May 2003, 01:27 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

You really make very little sense to me. It's not uncivil to mock fools like you or their religions.

Be like jesus and go hang out on the hill.

Maybe you are hanged already . That can explain your reaction.

Thanks,
S&S

thaiboxerken

11th May 2003, 01:30 AM

Originally posted by S&S

Maybe you are hanged already . That can explain your reaction.

Thanks,
S&S

I might find this witty, if it made sense.

11th May 2003, 01:32 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

I might find this witty, if it made sense.

You are still upset . Relax .

Thanks,
S&S

thaiboxerken

11th May 2003, 01:42 AM

I might be upset, if you made any sense. Since you don't make sense, I'm amused.

11th May 2003, 01:49 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I might be upset, if you made any sense. Since you don't make sense, I'm amused.

Relax. You were the first to reply my opening post. You already denied Randi and Hal as your leaders, and you are in dissagreement with them.
Relax.

Thanks,
S&S

thaiboxerken

11th May 2003, 01:54 AM

I have no leaders. I'm not upset in the slightest, and I find your posts very nonsensical.

evildave

11th May 2003, 01:55 AM

Yes, I agree with S&S: we should relax.

Let's share some jokes.

What's this?
(Hold back of hand in front of face and make gnawing motions)

Jesus biting His nails.
----------------------------
Why can't Jesus eat M&Ms?

They fall through the holes.
----------------------------
Jesus slaps three nails on the motel counter and asks, "Can you put me up for the night?"
----------------------------
Two young nuns having just been ordained were on a holiday in New York City and were standing in front of the gorilla cage at the Bronx Zoo.

The gorilla took one look at this beautiful young nun, bent the bars, lept to the ground and ravished her. Then he went back into his cage, straightened the bars and resumed thumping on his massive chest.

The young nun got up off the ground, straightened and dusted her clothes, turned to her companion and said, "We shall never talk about this, agreed?" The other young nun consented.

Twenty five years later the two nuns, who had stayed close friends, were out having coffee, when all of the sudden, the second nun asked her friend, "I know I agreed never to talk about the event at the zoo but I have one question."

The other nun stared and said,"O.K., one question!"

The first nun stammered, then asked, "Did it hurt?"

"Did it hurt? Oh yes it hurt! He never called..., he never phoned..., he never sent flowers...!"
----------------------------
A woman had been dating a doctor for a short while when she became pregnant. The couple didn't know what to do.

About nine months later, just about the time she was going to give birth, a priest went into the hospital for a prostate gland infection. The doctor told the woman, "I know what we'll do. After I've operated on the priest, I'll give the baby to him and tell him it was a miracle."

"Do you think it will work?" she asked the doctor.

"It's worth a try," he said.

So the doctor delivered the baby and then operated on the priest. After the operation he went in to the priest and said, "Father, you're not going to believe this!"

"What?" asked the priest. "What happened?"

"You gave birth to a child!"

"But that's impossible!" cried the priest.

"I just did the operation," insisted the doctor. "It's a miracle! Here's your baby."

About fifteen years go by, and one day the priest realizes that he must tell his son the truth. So he sits the boy down and says, "Son, I have something to tell you. I'm not your father."

The son said, "What do you mean, you're not my father?"

The priest replied, "I'm your mother. The archbishop is your father."
----------------------------
“Two paedophiles were walking down the road one day when they came across a pair of small lacy knickers on the ground. The first one picks them up, smells them and goes, "Ahhhh... A seven-year-old girl." The other grabs them from him and also takes a smell and goes, "No, no ... Definitely an eight-year-old girl!"

The two of them are them smelling them in turns and arguing. "An eight-year-old!", "No, a seven-year-old!", "Definitely an eight-year-old!" .... and on like this, back and forth. So the local priest walks past and asks them what the commotion is all about. The first paedophile tells the priest, and asks him if he could mediate the argument, so the priest takes the knickers, has a good long sniff, and after pondering for a few moments he looks at the two men and says: "Definitely an eight-year-old girl. But not from my parish!"
----------------------------
Two ship captains were sitting at the bar one night getting good and lit when one turned to the other and said, "You know what gets me, though, is these damn sailors! Oh sure, they're fine for the first few weeks, but on those three-month trips at sea they start getting pretty hard up. With all the whacking off going on, it's a wonder any work is getting done, and it's making a mess all over the ship. I don't know what to do!"

The other captain smiles knowingly at his companion.

"Oldest trick in the book. You take the crew and divide them into two teams. Then you buy about 50 barrels and put them on the ship. You tell the crew that the team that fills the most barrels wins a bag of gold."

"Well that's a great way to keep the ship clean, but then I'm out a bag of gold every trip!"

"Not so," replied the other captain.

"After you get back to port, take all the barrels together and sell them to the wax factory to make into candles. You make a tidy profit every time."

The captain pondered this and the next day, he took his friend's advice and divided the crew, bought a bunch of barrels, and set off to sea. Before long, the crew took to the new system and began filling barrel after barrel. When they finally reached port, the captain sold the barrels for a huge profit. 'This is great,' thought the captain, 'before long, I'll be able to buy a new boat!'

This went on, voyage after voyage. Then one day, the ship happened back to that very first port. Coming down the gangplank, the captain was surprised to see the cops waiting for him. As they slapped the cuffs on him, the captain cried out, "What's the meaning of this?!"

"You sick bastard," replied the cop. "Remember all those barrels you sold to the candle factory last time you passed through town?"

"Sure," said the captain. "What about 'em?!"

"Well, they made them into candles, sold them to the convent, and now all the nuns are pregnant!"

11th May 2003, 01:57 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I have no leaders. I'm not upset in the slightest, and I find your posts very nonsensical.

Yes , of course. You beleive that. And I respect your beleif.

Thanks,
S&S

thaiboxerken

11th May 2003, 02:03 AM

Great jokes! LOL.

NoDeity

11th May 2003, 02:04 AM

Originally posted by S&S

Yes , of course. You beleive that. And I respect your beleif.
That's something that I fail to understand. What's this business about respecting belief and why is it supposed to be a good thing?

11th May 2003, 02:08 AM

Originally posted by NoDeity

That's something that I fail to understand. What's this business about respecting belief and why is it supposed to be a good thing?

Why did you interpretated as a good thing?
Maybe I was mockering also. Just in a civil way.

Thanks,
S&S

NoDeity

11th May 2003, 02:16 AM

Oh, I get it. By "civil" you mean that it is done in such a way that the person being mocked is unaware of the mockery. Some of us prefer the more straightforward and honest approach.

thaiboxerken

11th May 2003, 02:17 AM

All your base are belong to us.

11th May 2003, 02:32 AM

Originally posted by NoDeity
Oh, I get it. By "civil" you mean that it is done in such a way that the person being mocked is unaware of the mockery. Some of us prefer the more straightforward and honest approach.

NoDeity:

Not necerarily. The person is so upset , that he can not tell he is being mockered.
But the mockery is there, because he turned upset and used the insult as his reaction to the mockery.

Maybe you can not tell if I am mockering you , but others readers can interpretated that way. It only happens when you turn upset.

Thanks,
S&S

thaiboxerken

11th May 2003, 02:49 AM

"Maybe you can not tell if I am mockering you , but others readers can interpretated that way. It only happens when you turn upset."

Now this is hilarious, considering the source. This is like the pot calling the china black.

11th May 2003, 02:51 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
"Maybe you can not tell if I am mockering you , but others readers can interpretated that way. It only happens when you turn upset."

Now this is hilarious, considering the source. This is like the pot calling the china black.

Relax

Thanks,
S&S

NoDeity

11th May 2003, 02:54 AM

Originally posted by S&S
Maybe you can not tell if I am mockering you , but others readers can interpretated that way. It only happens when you turn upset.
If so, then it has not happened for me in this thread. http://nodeity.com/pics/emoticons/smirk.gif

thaiboxerken

11th May 2003, 02:55 AM

What's disturbing is that S&S actually thinks he's clever and that he's upsetting all of the rest of us. Oh well, many believers tend to think they have some divine knowledge that us poor atheists just can't understand.

At least this guy is too foolish and weak to be a threat to anyone.

thaiboxerken

11th May 2003, 02:56 AM

Originally posted by NoDeity

If so, then it has not happened for me in this thread. http://nodeity.com/pics/emoticons/smirk.gif

I mockering you! All your base are belong to us! ;)

11th May 2003, 02:58 AM

Originally posted by NoDeity

If so, then it has not happened for me in this thread. http://nodeity.com/pics/emoticons/smirk.gif

I already knew that.

Your style is different.

Thanks,
S&S

NoDeity

11th May 2003, 03:04 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

I mockering you! All your base are belong to us! ;)
http://nodeity.com/pics/emoticons/laughter.gif I am, indeed, well-mockeried.

Checkmite

11th May 2003, 05:32 AM

Does a person's religion really matter? The only time I bring up my belief in God is when the discussion centers around it.

But I'm still a member of the JREF. Do you think my belief in God would somehow make me incompatible with membership in this organization? Does "religion" matter when dealing with items of scientific import?

Lord Emsworth

11th May 2003, 05:40 AM

Originally posted by S&S
I will like your opinion about this kind of post (is just an example ):

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Dark Cobra
I told Jesus I loved him once.
He smiled at me, stroked his hand though my hair, and looked into my eyes.
I wrapped my arms around him, and then we... we... we kissed.
One thing led to another and before I knew it we started having sex.
He was rough, for my first time. I told him to be gentle but he wouldn't! I bled for five days after that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, it's a bad and adolescent joke. No need to be agitated.

Try this::rolleyes:

Or this::cool:

11th May 2003, 07:44 AM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
Does a person's religion really matter? The only time I bring up my belief in God is when the discussion centers around it.

But I'm still a member of the JREF. Do you think my belief in God would somehow make me incompatible with membership in this organization? Does "religion" matter when dealing with items of scientific import?

Hi Joshua:

All the time in the R&P forum , the discussion is center around God.
God is involved in every discussion or debate about religion.
It doesn't matter the denomination of the religion or the beleif in
God.

You are mature enough to take your own desisions (...) about your membership to the JREF. My opinion :is only dangerous when fanatism is involved (like in all stuffs ).

Religion matters , Philosophy matters , beleifs and non -beleifs matters , when you deal with with items of any kind (that includes scientific imports ). Not all scientists are Atheists ,and some scientists are also Philosophers.

Thanks,
S&S

evildave

11th May 2003, 12:10 PM

Um, no.

About half the time it's about "religion", and about half the time it's about "philosophy".

For the 50% of the time when it does center around "religion", it only centers around "god" occasionally. There is so much hay to be made in other areas of "religion" that "god" is a minority topic.

"Religion" topics not having anything to do with your gods:

Infallibility versus Interpretation of biblical/sacred texts.

Religious organizations being jerks, or jerks in the name of their religious organizations.

Religiously biased politics.

So, obviously god is not *always* the center of these discussions.

What people do is.

It doesn't matter in these cases whether they behave poorly in the name of god or for their own personal interests.

As I've pointed out before, I give God, Jesus, Bullwinkle the Moose and Rocky the Flying Squirrel equal billing. What people do because of their belief in gods is on a par with what people do because of their belief in mind control satellites. Whether they believe cone-shaped tin foil hats are best, or spray glitter on football helmets, it's what they DO that's interesting.

Keep that in mind when we discuss "God" or "Jesus", because I'll discuss cartoon characters and episodes with equal zeal to biblical characters and stories.

11th May 2003, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by S&S
There is an involution in the Skepticism of Randi and Hal.
According to pure Skepticism.
But also can be interpretated as a searching or insecurity of their beleifs.

Thanks,
S&S

Or maybe they want to make bigger the target of donators.

11th May 2003, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by c4ts

Except that the whole point of Deism is to use reason rather than faith.

They use the reason with PRAYS !!!

11th May 2003, 08:33 PM

Originally posted by evildave

Religious organizations being jerks, or jerks in the name of their religious organizations.

Or : Skeptics organizations being jerks , or jerks in the name of their Skeptics organizations.

Nothing new under the sun .

Thanks,
S&S

NoDeity

11th May 2003, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
Does a person's religion really matter? The only time I bring up my belief in God is when the discussion centers around it.

But I'm still a member of the JREF. Do you think my belief in God would somehow make me incompatible with membership in this organization? Does "religion" matter when dealing with items of scientific import?
As as I see it, there's no reason that you can't be religious and still effective as a skeptic / scientist. However, if you are exempting your religious beliefs from skeptical inquiry, then you do have yourself a "sacred cow". I'd think you'd have to ask yourself, "If my faith is immune, then why shouldn't the same immunity be granted to those who believe in astrology or mediumship or dowsing?"

Checkmite

11th May 2003, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by NoDeity

As as I see it, there's no reason that you can't be religious and still effective as a skeptic / scientist. However, if you are exempting your religious beliefs from skeptical inquiry, then you do have yourself a "sacred cow".

Not at all; I like to think I constantly compare my personal beliefs to the body of known scientific fact, acquired through observation. That's not altogether unique, many religions make such a comparison. The difference is, while many such religions choose to dismiss scientific observation in favor of their preconceived notions about what the "truth" is (in the case of Christian fundamentalism, read "what the Bible says"), I behave in the opposite manner - adjusting my concept of "God" so that such does not conflict with science. In so doing, I've eventually worked down to the simplest model possible; to wit, "that which created/caused the universe". I suppose I could assert traits like "intelligence" or "omniopotence" without causing any problems on a scientific level; however, I choose not to. In any case, my model, in my opinion, fulfills the necessary function without adding any unnecessary "baggage" to the currently accepted scientific model of the universe.

Dancing David

12th May 2003, 03:07 PM

S&S:
I agree that mockery is not always the best way to comunicate an idea.
This is a free forum however, I had a post upon domestic violence which caused Jedi Knight to spew drivel in all directions at a furious pace. That is part of the freedom of the forum, sometimes other people do things we don't approve of. To quote the buddha: to slander the buddha is like spitting on the sky.

So, do you think that I am a devil worshipper because I prefer my dieties to be female? (There are worse things than mockery).

The beliefs of Hal and Randi are not always the beliefs of thier followers.

Peace

kourama

12th May 2003, 03:53 PM

As far as I can see, a skeptic is someone who accepts an idea based on evidence and reason.

It's human nature to be a little self-contradictory sometimes, and a skeptic is someone, in my opinion, who should strive to avoid self-contradictions as they are an indicator of error.

If Hal has a rational reason for belieiving in his Deity, then let him present it. If not, then let him admit to his degree of irrationality. He still qualifies as a skeptic, and as a regular, ol' imperfect human.

I think mocking believers helps build solidarity among those in the forum who are disbelievers. Being an atheist and a skeptic is a very, very lonely thing for some of us, especially when we are surrounded by friends and family who aren't.

Sometimes the mocking might go too far, and one or more of us rightfully gets an ear(eye?)full of backlash.

I don't think that's such a bad thing. It makes this place interesting.

Kimpatsu

12th May 2003, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
Not at all; I like to think I constantly compare my personal beliefs to the body of known scientific fact, acquired through observation. That's not altogether unique, many religions make such a comparison. The difference is, while many such religions choose to dismiss scientific observation in favor of their preconceived notions about what the "truth" is (in the case of Christian fundamentalism, read "what the Bible says"), I behave in the opposite manner - adjusting my concept of "God" so that such does not conflict with science. In so doing, I've eventually worked down to the simplest model possible; to wit, "that which created/caused the universe". I suppose I could assert traits like "intelligence" or "omniopotence" without causing any problems on a scientific level; however, I choose not to. In any case, my model, in my opinion, fulfills the necessary function without adding any unnecessary "baggage" to the currently accepted scientific model of the universe.
This is just a long-winded way of arguing the "god of the gaps". When all the gaps have been filled, where will you look for god then?