True Atheism

[Bododio]

Is there such a thing as true atheism, or a true atheist? Or maybe those words don't adequately describe what/who I'm talking about. For lack of better terminology, I'll use "nullism" and "nullist" from here.

In my mind, atheism is a response to theism: a person is exposed to theism and rejects it. Having been exposed to theism, is that person "contaminated" and can never be a true nullist? A new-born baby has never been exposed to theism. Is the baby a nullist? If so, not for long. The various world cultures will almost certainly immediately begin the delusional indoctrination.

In my case, I'm an atheist because I was raised as a catholic, then I rejected the whole thing. I've come to the point where it occupies so little of my thinking that I might be as close to being a nullist as an atheist can get. But I still feel I'm tainted by my previous close encounter with the deluded.

Is there such a thing as nullism? Is it attainable, or are atheists always affected by their exposure to theism? I'm not sure I'm being clear. It wouldn't be the first time.

[ImaginalDisc]

Is there such a thing as a True Scottsman?

[Cello Man]

As for the question, is atheism a response to theism...I think it was RandFan who recently weighed in with an anonymous quote:

"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby."

[The Atheist]

Is there such a thing as true atheism, or a true atheist? Or maybe those words don't adequately describe what/who I'm talking about. For lack of better terminology, I'll use "nullism" and "nullist" from here.Why the need to change terminology?

"Nullist" has little - if any - meaning whereas "atheist" is simply "no god".

I get your point about the tainting of the mind with theism first, but I think that there are plenty of "true" atheists, because all it implies is that the person does not recognise god/s. "Nullist" would be just too vague as it would appear to equate to "non-extistence-ist", meaning that the person wouldn't believe in anything at all - no science, no religion, no morals, no laws, nothing. Just doesn't work.

[Jorghnassen]

"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby."

Except that I don't think there is anyone who doesn't collect stamps that gives a damn about the people who do, or makes it a hobby to discuss the implications of collecting vs no collecting stamps, pointing out the triviality of making collections in the first place, etc...

/atheism isn't a religion, but some atheists do appear religious-like in their nonbelief

[GodMark2]

Is there such a thing as a True Scottsman?

A True Skeptic would know the answer to that.

[Bododio]

Why the need to change terminology?

"Nullist" has little - if any - meaning whereas "atheist" is simply "no god".

I get your point about the tainting of the mind with theism first, but I think that there are plenty of "true" atheists, because all it implies is that the person does not recognise god/s. "Nullist" would be just too vague as it would appear to equate to "non-extistence-ist", meaning that the person wouldn't believe in anything at all - no science, no religion, no morals, no laws, nothing. Just doesn't work.

Thanks for your reply. I guess what I'm trying to find out is if there are levels of non-belief in god(s). An atheist has been exposed to theism where the nullist (and I use that word only in the context of belief or non-belief in god(s)) either has not been exposed, or has at one point been exposed and has so divested him/herself of the effects of the exposure so as to become a nullist.

Continuing with the baby scenario, the baby is not exposed to theism yet, so is at birth a nullist. During the ensuing life the child/adolescent/adult is exposed to theism. A conscious decision is made to not accept theism and become an atheist. The person so rejects theism so completely s/he becomes a nullist again.

In one of the Star Trek movies, Spock is trying to achieve "Koh-i-Noor" (I'm probably wrong on the spelling and exact name), a complete divesting of all emotion, and fails. Maybe it's a dumb question, but is the same state achievable atheistically?

[The Atheist]

Maybe it's a dumb question, but is the same state achievable atheistically?I guess one could approach it in some Zen-like manner to divest what one has digested, but what's the point?

And why does it matter?

[Ginarley]

Dawkins continuum in the God Delusion covers this nicely, with 7 levels of "theism" ranging from Strong Atheist (what you are describing) through to Strong Theist. I loaned the book to someone so can't quote it exactly here but I think it covers your question. Dawkins argues that he himself is not a strong theist since he concedes that theism "may" be possible but that there is no reason to suppose it is, but that it is not possible to 100% rule it out.

I also think it is worth noting the difference between atheists and antitheists - I'd argue the latter was in response to theists, not the former. As Dawkin's so eloquently puts it - we're all atheists about most of the gods that have ever exsited - it is not a response, just a fact.

[aargh57]

I think in "Atheism - The Case Against God" the author goes through this subject. This is from memory so I don't remember everything exactly but he (and others) doesn't define atheism the way you did. Atheism isn't a response to thiesm. Atheism is an absence of belief not a rejection of it. All babies are born atheists because they do not believe in God. Again, he can later become a theist if he accepts the B.S. that Mommy and Daddy tell him about the Big J.C. and the gang or he can continue being an atheist.

[Canadian Malcontent]

"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby."

One who consciously does not collect stamps is guilty of a hobby of omission.

The very fact that you feel the need to quantify yourself with respect to Theism puts you in the Theistic category. What you are experiencing with your 'atheism' is demonstrated denial.

If you didn't believe in God you wouldn't care. You wouldn't be in the conversation. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Your friend,
Canadian Malcontent

[Zygar]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/121664546d83daf1f9.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2300)

[Zygar]

"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby."

One who consciously does not collect stamps is guilty of a hobby of omission.

The very fact that you feel the need to quantify yourself with respect to Theism puts you in the Theistic category. What you are experiencing with your 'atheism' is demonstrated denial.

If you didn't believe in God you wouldn't care. You wouldn't be in the conversation. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Your friend,
Canadian Malcontent

Upon smoking it over, I disagree.

Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean you don't care. The whole point of JREF and this forum is that we care that people are being misled, bilked, and hornswaggled. Being an athiest doesn't mean that you don't care about people, it means you don't believe in a god. There is quite a difference.

If all the people who didn't believe in Sylvia Brown just shut up and left the subject alone, there would be no one fighting her.

If all of the people who don't believe that aliens are visiting us in the form of UFOs and harrassing our cows, fields, and rear-ends just left the subject alone, there would be no one fighting the ufologists.

If everyone who didn't believe that Loose Change tells us what happened on 9/11 just ignored it, we'd just let those a$$#@!* tell everyone that it is all a government plot and no one would bother fighting back.

"If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem." Just ignoring something does not make it go away.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[Dark Jaguar]

Okay, if you think talking about it means there's something "more" to it, think about drug users. Is someone who doesn't do drugs themselves and thinks of them as a waste a drug user of a different sort just because they care about others that do use them?

I think the original user's post might be trying to come up with an individual that not only does not believe in a god, but has never even heard of the concept of a god in their life, or thought about it. That sure would be interesting, but it's a small world after all these days, so it's unlikely there's any adults in such a situation.

Also, unless that kid grew up with a rational mindset, they may just create their own pantheon.

[bruto]

Okay, if you think talking about it means there's something "more" to it, think about drug users. Is someone who doesn't do drugs themselves and thinks of them as a waste a drug user of a different sort just because they care about others that do use them?

I think the original user's post might be trying to come up with an individual that not only does not believe in a god, but has never even heard of the concept of a god in their life, or thought about it. That sure would be interesting, but it's a small world after all these days, so it's unlikely there's any adults in such a situation.

Also, unless that kid grew up with a rational mindset, they may just create their own pantheon.I'm assuming that too, but you run into a problem even of testing for true atheism then if you have to ask the true atheist any questions to determine his status. After the moment when he says "Huh? God who?" and you have to explain, he becomes indistinguishable from any other atheist, doesn't he? If he is to remain an atheist, he must actively reject the thing he had up till now not thought of. We can imagine some planet X on which the concept of god or gods is so alien and atheism so normal a core component of sanity or rationality, that no distinctive word for that aspect of sanity would exist until the first theist came along. At that point, the theist would be labeled with some negative-connotation word to describe his deviation or absence of sanity, and the atheist with the un-prefixed positive which had until then remained unneeded; just as for example, people customarily walk forward when we go anywhere. If a cult appeared that compelled its members to walk backward, they would be described as backward-walkers, and as a result, we would now have to describe ourselves as forward-walkers, a qualification that had until then been unnecessary - simply one of the many unspecified components of "normal."

But once that event happens, the atheist is an atheist relative to theists, and the distinction between the natural atheist and the self-made atheist blurs again.

[Piscivore]

Except that I don't think there is anyone who doesn't collect stamps that gives a damn about the people who do, or makes it a hobby to discuss the implications of collecting vs no collecting stamps, pointing out the triviality of making collections in the first place, etc...

/atheism isn't a religion, but some atheists do appear religious-like in their nonbelief

Well, to be fair, there are few stamp collecters going house to house trying to sell others on the hobby, passing out stamp collecting books to children and prisoners, trying to get the 10 rules of stamp collecting put into government buildings, writing stamp collecting into the constitution, voting based on a candidate's stamp collecting preferences, discriminating against people who lick instead of dry-mounting, or threatening or harming others that collect a different kind of stamps.

[Antiquehunter]

Well, to be fair, there are few stamp collecters going house to house trying to sell others on the hobby, passing out stamp collecting books to children and prisoners, trying to get the 10 rules of stamp collecting put into government buildings, writing stamp collecting into the constitution, voting based on a candidate's stamp collecting preferences, discriminating against people who lick instead of dry-mounting, or threatening or harming others that collect a different kind of stamps.

Although, since the American Philatelic Society is going through a membership drive, perhaps I can recommend this post to them for some recruitment ideas.

[Piscivore]

Although, since the American Philatelic Society is going through a membership drive, perhaps I can recommend this post to them for some recruitment ideas.

Just so long as no-one outbids me at the Inverarity Estate auction.

[Ginarley]

"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby."

One who consciously does not collect stamps is guilty of a hobby of omission.

The very fact that you feel the need to quantify yourself with respect to Theism puts you in the Theistic category. What you are experiencing with your 'atheism' is demonstrated denial.

If you didn't believe in God you wouldn't care. You wouldn't be in the conversation. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Your friend,
Canadian Malcontent

I then apply this logic to the bible which denies the existence of all other deities thereby proving their existence. I think god dissapears in a puff of logic (or is it pipe smoke?) at this point...

[Canadian Malcontent]

"If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem." Just ignoring something does not make it go away.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

I have a problem with cults, fortune-tellers etc. I do not have a problem with the study of the Bible and the sharing of the Bible's message of love and kindness with one's children.
I do have a problem with people who believe they are in a position to dictate what myself and my friends/neighbours teach our children.
What is it exactly about Genesis Chapter 1, that threatens you or offends you?

Your friend,
Canadian Malcontent

P.S. I hereby withdraw the 'pipe' comment because it was too combative.

[Antiquehunter]

Nothing at all offends me about Genesis Chap 1. However if someone were to suggest that Genesis Chap 1 should supercede, or be held in the same light as all the scientific research completed since its authorship some x number of years ago, NOW I have an issue.

Teach whatever claptrap you want to your kids. Child abusers are everywhere. At least you aren't beating them over the head.

[Canadian Malcontent]

I then apply this logic to the bible which denies the existence of all other deities thereby proving their existence. I think god dissapears in a puff of logic (or is it pipe smoke?) at this point...


__________________



My Bible does not deny the existence of 'deities'. My Bible speaks of my Father who "created the heavans and the earth" who "... is Love" who ".. is infinite and eternal".
My Bible teaches me that the way to be happy is to love others and treat them as I would like to be treated.

I myself am ok with teaching children that the strongest force in the universe is infinite and eternal love, I am ok with teaching children to have regard for others and to treat them well.

There is the book, and there is the reader or the teller of the tale , I am sure untold evil has been perpetrated by Bible handlers. These people get into the newspapers.
There is more, seek out the churches in your community experience what else is done in the name of God. You may find some good people doing good selfless things.

[Canadian Malcontent]

Nothing at all offends me about Genesis Chap 1. However if someone were to suggest that Genesis Chap 1 should supercede, or be held in the same light as all the scientific research completed since its authorship some x number of years ago, NOW I have an issue.

Teach whatever claptrap you want to your kids. Child abusers are everywhere. At least you aren't beating them over the head.

I have no problem with the teaching of reason logic scientific method etc. or covering any of mankinds recorded attemps at the above.
Should Darwins theory of evolution supercede Genesis 1?
We are talking apples and oranges.
Maybe Genesis 1 should be saved for Sunday school.
Maybe the Bible belongs to 'Literature' and should be taught as such if at all.
Maybe little children dont need some jerkwad teacher calling their father a liar. Talk about shaking faith. Maybe there are those among us who 'get off' on the idea of messing with the heads of small children, confusing their relationship with their parents. Maybe these people rationalize such evil with ridiculous apples and oranges arguments against faith in God.

Telling children that their parents beliefs are wrong is some of the worst child abuse. We did it here in Canada on a massive scale. We called them 'residential schools' we rounded up ALL the children of our first nations peoples and put them in what were basically concentration camps where they were taught that their parents traditions beliefs and language were inferior and wrong. They were maltreated underfed beaten and raped wholesale. I have close personal friends who experienced this , I have many friends and associates whose parents and grandparents experienced this. Now these people teach their children the old way and teach each other the old way and are better for it far beyond anything science could ever do.
To do this we first had to get together as a group and tell ourselves and each other that our way was better than theirs and that we would be helping them escape the evil of their way of life. Were it possible and expedient would you solve the Creation 'problem' in a similar manner? "Let's round up the children of these damn Christians and beat the nonsense out of them!" then everyone would think like you do. Would you be happy then?

Your friend,
Canadian Malcontent

[Antiquehunter]

I sense I've touched a nerve.

Troll.

[drkitten]

Except that I don't think there is anyone who doesn't collect stamps that gives a damn about the people who do, or makes it a hobby to discuss the implications of collecting vs no collecting stamps, pointing out the triviality of making collections in the first place, etc...


You've obviously never met my mother during one of her "why are you wasting time and money with that stupid hobby; get a life" rants.

[Tricky]

I have no problem with the teaching of reason logic scientific method etc. or covering any of mankinds recorded attemps at the above.
You seem to have a great deal of problem with it, based on what you say about "calling parents liars" etc.
Should Darwins theory of evolution supercede Genesis 1? In science class, yes.
We are talking apples and oranges. We are talking religion and science.

Maybe Genesis 1 should be saved for Sunday school.
Maybe the Bible belongs to 'Literature' and should be taught as such if at all. Maybe religion should be the choice of the family, not the school.
Maybe little children dont need some jerkwad teacher calling their father a liar. Maybe fathers don't need to be calling teachers jerkwads for teaching their subject. Disagreeing with someone is not the same as calling them a liar, by the way. It sounds as if you wish to believe that Christians are being persecuted. They are not, at least not in the US and Canada.

Talk about shaking faith. Maybe there are those among us who 'get off' on the idea of messing with the heads of small children... Interestingly, churches begin "messing with the heads" of small children long before schools do. They start indoctrinating them into religion while they are still infants.

...confusing their relationship with their parents. A good parent can always talk with their child.

Maybe these people rationalize such evil with ridiculous apples and oranges arguments against faith in God.
You're awfully quick to call things "evil". Did you know that it is still possible to believe in God and yet not demand Biblical inerrancy? Lots of Christians do it.


Telling children that their parents beliefs are wrong is some of the worst child abuse. That is simply ridiculous. Science should be taught the same for everybody. You couldn't possibly make it agree with every sort of religious outlook. By your definition, any kind of public schooling is child abuse, because they might say something that the parent disagrees with.

We did it here in Canada on a massive scale. We called them 'residential schools' we rounded up ALL the children of our first nations peoples and put them in what were basically concentration camps where they were taught that their parents traditions beliefs and language were inferior and wrong. I assume you are talking about Native Americans. Their abuse at the hands of Europeans was indeed a tragedy. Many were forced into Christianity. But that is beside the point when talking about teaching science. Science doesn't say different things to different religions and it does not force anybody to abandon their religion.

They were maltreated underfed beaten and raped wholesale. I have close personal friends who experienced this , I have many friends and associates whose parents and grandparents experienced this. I am sorry to hear this. You have a group of friends who are being raped wholesale? Why haven't you reported it to the RCMP?

Now these people teach their children the old way and teach each other the old way and are better for it far beyond anything science could ever do.
Do they? Good for them. I hope they're doing okay living without electricity, modern medicine, modern agriculture or any of the other things that science has "done". Are they Luddites? By the way, what is that thing you're typing on right now? Are computers part of the "old way" too?

To do this we first had to get together as a group and tell ourselves and each other that our way was better than theirs and that we would be helping them escape the evil of their way of life.

Thats funny, because you were just preaching about how people shouldn't tell others that their way is better. Make up your mind.

Were it possible and expedient would you solve the Creation 'problem' in a similar manner? "Let's round up the children of these damn Christians and beat the nonsense out of them!" Would you be happy then?
I have a better idea. Let's teach things in science class which can be objectively and independently verified. That way there won't be different "truths" when it comes to science, and we can continue doing things like inventing computers, curing diseases etc.

[drkitten]

"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby."

One who consciously does not collect stamps is guilty of a hobby of omission.


This might be true if the phrase "hobby of omission" were actually meaningful.

Unfortunately, it's simply gibberish.

Tell me, how many "hobbies of omission" do I have?

[Piscivore]

I am sorry to hear this. You have a group of friends who are being raped wholesale? Why haven't you reported it to the RCMP?

Hey, it beats being raped retail.

[Jorghnassen]

You've obviously never met my mother during one of her "why are you wasting time and money with that stupid hobby; get a life" rants.

So there are militant aphilatelists!

[Darth Rotor]

So there are militant aphilatelists!
Sadly yes, and they perpetrate their crimes against postage by never writing a letter, but rather sending only email, chat, and text messages.

They never write. :(

DR

[bruto]

I have no problem with the teaching of reason logic scientific method etc. or covering any of mankinds recorded attemps at the above.
Should Darwins theory of evolution supercede Genesis 1?
We are talking apples and oranges.

But that's exactly the problem we're facing, at least in many places here in the US: There are people who wish to legislate that apples exist and oranges do not; that Genesis should trump evolution, not only in faith but in the teaching of science.
Maybe Genesis 1 should be saved for Sunday school.Indeed, why should it not?
Maybe the Bible belongs to 'Literature' and should be taught as such if at all.Irrelevant if you take the previous sentence. Where it is appropriate to teach it, teach it as you please. Where it isn't, don't teach it at all.
Maybe little children dont need some jerkwad teacher calling their father a liar. Talk about shaking faith. Maybe there are those among us who 'get off' on the idea of messing with the heads of small children, confusing their relationship with their parents. Maybe these people rationalize such evil with ridiculous apples and oranges arguments against faith in God. I don't recall any such attempts being made during my education, or that of my children, for the simple reason that there was not a wholesale, organized attempt to de-secularize secular education. While it is gratuitously offensive for teachers or public schools in general to try to disabuse anyone of their faith, the other half of the bargain is that they teach no other faith, either directly or indirectly. And this is exactly what evangelical Christians these days are trying to undo, and many are doing it with deception, pseudo-science and outright lies. A great many people who ought to know better are confusing the idea that some things should remain secular with "secularism," or "secular humanism," the idea that everything must remain secular. That, I believe, is a dangerously, perniciously stupid idea, and those who espouse it are fools who endanger the very foundation of stable government and democracy.

Telling children that their parents beliefs are wrong is some of the worst child abuse. We did it here in Canada on a massive scale. We called them 'residential schools' we rounded up ALL the children of our first nations peoples and put them in what were basically concentration camps where they were taught that their parents traditions beliefs and language were inferior and wrong. They were maltreated underfed beaten and raped wholesale. I have close personal friends who experienced this , I have many friends and associates whose parents and grandparents experienced this. Now these people teach their children the old way and teach each other the old way and are better for it far beyond anything science could ever do.
To do this we first had to get together as a group and tell ourselves and each other that our way was better than theirs and that we would be helping them escape the evil of their way of life. Were it possible and expedient would you solve the Creation 'problem' in a similar manner? "Let's round up the children of these damn Christians and beat the nonsense out of them!" then everyone would think like you do. Would you be happy then?I certainly agree that that was an awful thing to do, harmful, stupid, abusive and many other things; but this effort was, If I am understanding it right, a cultural and religious effort, designed to eradicate the language, culture, and most importantly, the religion of its victims. That was certainly very wrong, but it was also the action of a government strongly infused with both cultural imperialism and Christianity. It would of course be wrong whoever did it, but I don't see any parallel here with the current struggle to keep religious doctrine out of secular education. In fact, it much more parallels the opposing struggle to make public education a vehicle for religious and cultural indoctrination. The main difference here seems to be that the Christian forces currently attacking secular education are doing it with far less honesty. And although some people on this forum are pretty flamboyant in their declarations of atheism and anti-religious sentiment, I have not seen much evidence of people in the real world of this struggle attempting to undermine religious faith, except as it is perceived by those whose faith cannot stand to share a room with reason and secular science. Nor have I seen anyone in these forums actually advocating rounding up Christian kids and indoctrinating them. It's a strawman, and a pretty poorly stuffed one at that.

Your friend,
Canadian Malcontent

[Canadian Malcontent]

Drkitten,

One person's gibberish is another person's humour.

yf,
CM



Tricky said:
I have a better idea. Let's teach things in science class which can be objectively and independently verified. That way there won't be different "truths" when it comes to science, and we can continue doing things like inventing computers, curing diseases etc.

Evolution is a theory. To teach children it's a fact is abuse. To offend faith held in families for generations is what? Apply your science to that question.

Thats funny, because you were just preaching about how people shouldn't tell others that their way is better. Make up your mind.

This, Tricky, was a historical account of how our society, in Nazi-like fashion, perpetrated cultural genocide on ALL the First Nation's children, beginning around 1900 and ending in the 1960's. Read it again.

Do they? Good for them. I hope they're doing okay living without electricity, modern medicine, modern agriculture or any of the other things that science has "done". Are they Luddites? By the way, what is that thing you're typing on right now? Are computers part of the "old way" too?

I refer to the "old way" of relating to one another, to society, and to the natural world.

I am sorry to hear this. You have a group of friends who are being raped wholesale? Why haven't you reported it to the RCMP?

I said 'were', past tense. What are you, a speed reader? It was reported, people went to jail, our federal government apologised, as did the Anglican and Catholic churches which administrated the 'residential schools'.

I assume you are talking about Native Americans. Their abuse at the hands of Europeans was indeed a tragedy. Many were forced into Christianity. But that is beside the point when talking about teaching science. Science doesn't say different things to different religions and it does not force anybody to abandon their religion.

But do you, Tricky, demand that the theory of evolution be taught as fact?

That is simply ridiculous. Science should be taught the same for everybody. You couldn't possibly make it agree with every sort of religious outlook. By your definition, any kind of public schooling is child abuse, because they might say something that the parent disagrees with.

To tell children that the story of Creation is not true is akin to telling a five year old there is no Santa Claus. It's an invasion of the family and the rights of the parents. I'm sure, in time, and with the benefit of a well-rounded education, children grow into rational adults capable of making up their own minds. Invading and offending the traditions of their families is not part of a well-rounded education. You can teach a theory, but to tell people that their's is a false god...is that teaching?

I'll be back later to finish this.

Your friend,
Canadian Malcontent.

[bruto]

Hey, it beats being raped retail.While I think Canadian Malcontent was mistaken in his perceived parallels as he applies it to the current thread, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the abuse he's referring to was quite real and truly shameful.

[Anacoluthon64]

Evolution is a theory. To teach children it's a fact is abuse. To offend faith held in families for generations is what? Apply your science to that question.You know about as much of the meaning of "theory" as used in the context of science as you do about evolution and other facts, such as a heliocentric solar system. And why precisely should faith, regardless of its heritage, be exempt from reasoned scrutiny?


To tell children that the story of Creation is not true is akin to telling a five year old there is no Santa Claus. It's an invasion of the family and the rights of the parents.Poor analogy: five-year-olds aren't taught evolution. By the time youngsters learn about the science behind evolution they should, one would hope, already know the facts about Santa Claus. But perhaps not in certain households.


I'm sure, in time, and with the benefit of a well-rounded education, children grow into rational adults capable of making up their own minds. Invading and offending the traditions of their families is not part of a well-rounded education. You can teach a theory, but to tell people that their's is a false god...is that teaching?.Really? Like the Germ Theory of Disease versus the Christian Scientists' disdain for medicine doesn't warrant interference? How is someone's faith more important than the life or wellbeing of a child?


I'll be back later to finish this.That should be entertaining.

'Luthon64

[andyandy]

To tell children that the story of Creation is not true is akin to telling a five year old there is no Santa Claus.
Your friend,
Canadian Malcontent.

there's....no...santa?
:cry1

[Tricky]

Evolution is a theory. To teach children it's a fact is abuse.
All of science is theories, and that is how it is taught. Some, like evolution and gravity, have a lot of evidence, so much so that it is not necessary to point out that they are "just theories" all the time.

To offend faith held in families for generations is what? Apply your science to that question.
Science does not offend any faith. Some people decide to take offense at knowledge. That is unfortunate, but we really can't do anything to protect all the thin-skinned people in the world.

This, Tricky, was a historical account of how our society, in Nazi-like fashion, perpetrated cultural genocide on ALL the First Nation's children, beginning around 1900 and ending in the 1960's. Read it again.
I know a good deal about it, and I'm not denying it is shameful. That does not mean that shamanistic beliefs should be taught in science class. Apples and oranges, remember?

I refer to the "old way" of relating to one another, to society, and to the natural world.
Which "old way" was that? There were many. They weren't always great with the natural world either. Have you ever been to "Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump" in Alberta? They killed whole herds of buffalo by stampeding them off of cliffs, leaving most of them to rot. They often "related" to one another by killing members of other tribes. Read some anthropological history books, CM. You seem to have some kind of candy-coated version of the "noble savage".

I said 'were', past tense. What are you, a speed reader? It was reported, people went to jail, our federal government apologised, as did the Anglican and Catholic churches which administrated the 'residential schools'.
You said you had "close personal friends" who experienced this. I assumed that would mean that it happened in the not-too-distant past. And yes, lots of people have justifiably apologized to the Native Americans, but I don't notice them giving them back the country.

But do you, Tricky, demand that the theory of evolution be taught as fact?
No. I think it should be taught as an extremely well-supported theory. I don't "demand" anything.

To tell children that the story of Creation is not true is akin to telling a five year old there is no Santa Claus.
At what age do you stop telling your kids that there is a Santa Claus? Teaching evolution is akin to teaching the "Your parents give you the presents" theory of Christmas. Do you object to your children learning that?

It's an invasion of the family and the rights of the parents.
It is an invasion of family rights to teach? I tell you what. Why don't you teach religion at home and let the school teach science at school. That way, they get a balanced account. Are you afraid that they will find evolution more believable than the mythology of the Bible?

I'm sure, in time, and with the benefit of a well-rounded education, children grow into rational adults capable of making up their own minds. Invading and offending the traditions of their families is not part of a well-rounded education. You can teach a theory, but to tell people that their's is a false god...is that teaching?
Okay, how about you don't teach your kids anything about the Bible until they are "capable of making up their own minds". Is that okay with you? If not, it sounds to me like you want them well-indoctrinated before they learn any science. It seems you don't want equal treatment, but preferential treatment for religion.

Incidentally, in all my schooling, which was totally secular, not one teacher or professor ever told anybody that their God was false. Most of the were Christians, even the science teachers. I was a Christian too for most of my young life.

[bruto]

Canadian Malcontent writes:To tell children that the story of Creation is not true is akin to telling a five year old there is no Santa Claus.

Wowweee Zowieee! CM, are you really comparing your religious views, or those of any religious adherent, to the silly myth of SANTA CLAUS? Am I hearing right? Have you given that parallel any actual thought?

[Tricky]

Wowweee Zowieee! CM, are you really comparing your religious views, or those of any religious adherent, to the silly myth of SANTA CLAUS? Am I hearing right? Have you given that parallel any actual thought?
Fish in a barrel.

[ChristineR]

A surprising number of theists claim that we are born with a belief in God. They point to the near-universiality of religion and of the tendency for atheists to analyze the hell out of everything.

What they don't mention is that there is no consensus on the nature of God or gods. A better way of putting it would be "all cultures throughout all time have believed in the existence of unseen beings, beings with their own personal agendas, that interfere with the world in general and human beings in particular." There certainly are quirks of the human brain that bias people to see meaning and pattern where there is none.

I don't think that you could ever have a nullist community, even if you somehow managed to raise babies without any exposure to theistic ideas. The children would quickly create their own supernatural entities, and the adults would be back to explaining why a human's perceptions of fairies in the closet and monsters under the bed are not always reliable.

[Level]

It is my understanding that change in the gene pools of populations over time has been directly observed in and out of the lab enough times to be stated as fact. Is this not correct?

[Bododio]

I guess one could approach it in some Zen-like manner to divest what one has digested, but what's the point?

And why does it matter?

It probably matters little or nothing in the all...

From The Sot-Weed Factor by John Barth: "My dear fellow," Burlingame said, "we sit here on a blind rock careening through space; we are all of us rushing headlong to the grave. Think you the worms will care, when anon they make a meal of you, whether you spent your moment sighing wigless in your chamber, or sacked the golden towns of Montezuma? Lookee, the day's nigh spent; 'tis gone careening into time forever. Not a tale's length past we lined our bowels with dinner, and already they growl for more. We are dying men, Ebeneezer: i'faith, there's time for naught but bold resolves!"

Time is short, and we might as well discuss things that are fun and interesting.

[Bododio]

Dawkins continuum in the God Delusion covers this nicely, with 7 levels of "theism" ranging from Strong Atheist (what you are describing) through to Strong Theist. I loaned the book to someone so can't quote it exactly here but I think it covers your question. Dawkins argues that he himself is not a strong theist since he concedes that theism "may" be possible but that there is no reason to suppose it is, but that it is not possible to 100% rule it out.

I also think it is worth noting the difference between atheists and antitheists - I'd argue the latter was in response to theists, not the former. As Dawkin's so eloquently puts it - we're all atheists about most of the gods that have ever exsited - it is not a response, just a fact.

Thanks for mentioning this book. I'll have to give it a look. In color theory it is said there is no such thing as pure black or pure white. There's always some kind of impurity that keeps it from being perfect.

[Bododio]

I think in "Atheism - The Case Against God" the author goes through this subject. This is from memory so I don't remember everything exactly but he (and others) doesn't define atheism the way you did. Atheism isn't a response to thiesm. Atheism is an absence of belief not a rejection of it. All babies are born atheists because they do not believe in God. Again, he can later become a theist if he accepts the B.S. that Mommy and Daddy tell him about the Big J.C. and the gang or he can continue being an atheist.

Before the word "atheist" was coined, wouldn't the word "theist" already have had to exist?

[Bododio]

I think the original user's post might be trying to come up with an individual that not only does not believe in a god, but has never even heard of the concept of a god in their life, or thought about it. That sure would be interesting, but it's a small world after all these days, so it's unlikely there's any adults in such a situation.

I think you're right. But the individual I'm theorizing is familiar with the god concept, and has rejected such to the point of putting it out of his/her mind completely, as if the damage had never been done. Kind of like Spock, who wants to reject emotion completely and embrace total logic.

[Bododio]

I'm assuming that too, but you run into a problem even of testing for true atheism then if you have to ask the true atheist any questions to determine his status. After the moment when he says "Huh? God who?" and you have to explain, he becomes indistinguishable from any other atheist, doesn't he? If he is to remain an atheist, he must actively reject the thing he had up till now not thought of. We can imagine some planet X on which the concept of god or gods is so alien and atheism so normal a core component of sanity or rationality, that no distinctive word for that aspect of sanity would exist until the first theist came along. At that point, the theist would be labeled with some negative-connotation word to describe his deviation or absence of sanity, and the atheist with the un-prefixed positive which had until then remained unneeded; just as for example, people customarily walk forward when we go anywhere. If a cult appeared that compelled its members to walk backward, they would be described as backward-walkers, and as a result, we would now have to describe ourselves as forward-walkers, a qualification that had until then been unnecessary - simply one of the many unspecified components of "normal."

But once that event happens, the atheist is an atheist relative to theists, and the distinction between the natural atheist and the self-made atheist blurs again.

This is very funny. :roll: Back in the 60's and 70's if someone had said this, we would have said, "Far out!" :cool: You have explained this very well, far better than I could have.

[Bododio]

A surprising number of theists claim that we are born with a belief in God. They point to the near-universiality of religion and of the tendency for atheists to analyze the hell out of everything.

What they don't mention is that there is no consensus on the nature of God or gods. A better way of putting it would be "all cultures throughout all time have believed in the existence of unseen beings, beings with their own personal agendas, that interfere with the world in general and human beings in particular." There certainly are quirks of the human brain that bias people to see meaning and pattern where there is none.

I don't think that you could ever have a nullist community, even if you somehow managed to raise babies without any exposure to theistic ideas. The children would quickly create their own supernatural entities, and the adults would be back to explaining why a human's perceptions of fairies in the closet and monsters under the bed are not always reliable.

Thanks for coming back to the original topic. Nicely put, but is it possible for someone already having been tainted by theism to become, in his/her own mind, a nullist?

Sorry for having so many posts in a row. I'm not trying to build up my post count, although I'm envious of those who have avatars. It's just that I get so little time to spend here and I don't know when I can get back again. So I try to get in as much as I can while I can.

[Mercutio]

Before the word "atheist" was coined, wouldn't the word "theist" already have had to exist?

Yes. "Atheist" only makes sense as a negative definition; prior to some sort of theistic belief, you would refer to someone who has no theistic belief as "that guy over there".

A colleague of mine, a lay minister, heard that I am an atheist, and asked me "which god is it that you don't believe in?" He thought it was a devastating attack, given that (in his mind) one could not not believe in something without first believing. My answer, "probably only one more than you", put it in perspective. He is a-thorist, a-zeusist, a-osirisist, and so on through multiple pantheons. But it is much easier to define him positively: he is a christian. Believers are not merely believers in something, they are believers in some specific thing. Atheists cannot be so easily categorized; there is no universal creed defining us, as there is with any specific group described by a shared belief. There is no single category to collect us, other than "none of the above". And "none of the above" only makes sense when there is some alternative above to frame it.

[Region Rat]

I have a problem with cults, fortune-tellers etc. I do not have a problem with the study of the Bible and the sharing of the Bible's message of love and kindness with one's children.

I've got to ask, do you also share the bible's message of violent retribution, infant murder, virgin kidnapping, genocide, capital punishment for acts that are not even misdemeanors in today's law, polygamy, sacrifices, and acceptable slavery with your kids? Would you call a teacher a liar if they told your kids that those things were bad?

Just asking, because there are some who like to cherry pick the warm and fuzzy things out of the bible, while totally discounting the truly horrific things as if they don't exist.

[Region Rat]

Thanks for mentioning this book. I'll have to give it a look. In color theory it is said there is no such thing as pure black or pure white. There's always some kind of impurity that keeps it from being perfect.

I picked up The God Delusion last week and am about half way through it. I hope I'm not infringing on any copyright rules, but here's the spectrum according to Dawkins:

1- Strong Theist. 100% probability of god. In the words of C.G. Jung, "I do not believe, I know".

2- Very high probability but short of 100%. De facto theist. I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in god and live my life on the assumption that he is there.

3- Higher than 50% but not very high. Technically agnostic, but leaning towards theism. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in god".

4- Exactly 50%. Completely impartial agnostic. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."

5- Lower than 50% but not very low. Technically agnostic, but leaning towards atheism. "I don't know whether god exists, but I'm inclined to be sceptical."

6- Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. "I cannot know for certain but I think god is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

7- Strong atheist. "I know there is no god, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one."

I consider myself a 6.

[Foster Zygote]

I consider myself a 6.

"Who is Number One?"

"I am Number Two."

"Who is Number One?"

"You are Number Six."

"I am not a number. I am a free man!"

Yeah, I'm a six too. Welcome to the forum. Are you a Region Rat from 'Da Region'?

Steven

[Foster Zygote]

Are you afraid that they will find evolution more believable than the mythology of the Bible?

That is a real danger. It's what happened to me.:D

Steven

[Foster Zygote]

Atheists cannot be so easily categorized; there is no universal creed defining us, as there is with any specific group described by a shared belief. There is no single category to collect us, other than "none of the above". And "none of the above" only makes sense when there is some alternative above to frame it.

Wonderfully stated! Joobz and I were recently discussing our dismay that some atheists seem to want for atheism symbols and other such marks that strike me as the trappings of religion.

Steven

[Ginarley]

Wonderfully stated! Joobz and I were recently discussing our dismay that some atheists seem to want for atheism symbols and other such marks that strike me as the trappings of religion.
Steven

They are in a sense - atheists are not stupid and it is abundently clear that the religious model of societal influence is remarkably effective - the one thing they DID get right (motives aside). The desire of atheists to fight fire with fire is a rational one.

It does raise some thorny issues around indoctrination into atheism which is far from ideal and needs someone cleverer than I to figure out, but IMO we have to be aggressive in fighting religion and that means organised activity. And who better to turn to than religion to find out how to do that?

[Beerina]

I get your point about the tainting of the mind with theism first

This is why the unicorn metaphor is so appropriate as an example -- essentially everyone is an a-unicornist, seeing no reason to believe in a unicorn. And yet, almost nobody was raised to believe in unicorns.

It also makes a good parody of Pascal's Wager: You'd better believe in unicorns, or one will kick you in the balls.

[RandFan]

Except that I don't think there is anyone who doesn't collect stamps that gives a damn about the people who do, or makes it a hobby to discuss the implications of collecting vs no collecting stamps, pointing out the triviality of making collections in the first place, etc...

/atheism isn't a religion, but some atheists do appear religious-like in their nonbeliefIf theism were as benign as stamp collecting then atheists wouldn't give a damn about theists.

[Apathia]

I've begum collecting Gods! I purchased Hermes from an antique shop, and found Thor in a yard sale. Next week I'll be going over to Insmouth to look for Dagon.
I hear Yahweh is very rare. Most churches don't even have him.

[Taffer]

Evolution is a theory. To teach children it's a fact is abuse. To offend faith held in families for generations is what? Apply your science to that question.

No, evolution is a fact. It has been observed happening. It is the mechanism behind this change which is 'just a theory'. Perhaps you should study the philosophy of science to understand that calling the theory of evolution "just a theory" is actually a complement.

[Canadian Malcontent]

Randfan,

Eggzackly!!!
The very word 'atheist' is recognition of God.
Yf,
CM

[Taffer]

It is my understanding that change in the gene pools of populations over time has been directly observed in and out of the lab enough times to be stated as fact. Is this not correct?

Yes, absolutely correct. Or, perhaps I should say "no, it is not not correct". Hmm, double negatives confuse me. :(

[Taffer]

Randfan,

Eggzackly!!!
The very word 'atheist' is recognition of God.
Yf,
CM

No, it is a recognition that people believe in a god.

[Mercutio]

Randfan,

Eggzackly!!!
The very word 'atheist' is recognition of God.
Yf,
CM

No. Read and understand Taffer's post, just above.

In no way is "none of the above" equal to "one or more of the above."

[Canadian Malcontent]

Look you guys the point is that people have the right to their faith, to the sanctity of their family.
Evolution is a great theory, probably the best example for the teaching of theory itself.
The Bible is a great Book, probably the best Book for the teaching of the human spirit.
We surely can respect and appreciate one another as we labour together for the common good.
I repeat a question.
Please give examples of skeletal remains of bona fide homo sapiens from 10, 15 25,000 years ago?
I believe that none have ever been found in the 25,000 years ago period and I have doubts about 10 an 15.
We seem to have no shortage of amatuer evolution researchers so I am sure meeting my request will not be difficult.
Please spare me conjecture, suggestion and innuendo, just the facts please.
If no examples can be found I would delight in hearing theories as to why.
Yf,
CM

[bruto]

Randfan,

Eggzackly!!!
The very word 'atheist' is recognition of God.
Yf,
CM

Not at all. "Atheist" is only a recognition that the concept of some god exists in some people's minds. It need not exist in the ontological sense that we usually mean when we say "exist." Otherwise, the mere mention of any zany idea would bring it into being. Atheism gets its own name because because the mainstream of culture which produces languages considers it important and at variance with the norm. There is no specific word, as far as I know, for "people who don't believe in unicorns." Unicorns are a mental construct which has meaning when the word is used, but actual unicorns do not, as far as I know and believe, exist. I am a unicorn disbeliever. You may well be one too. If the distinction became important enough that a unique word was coined for "aunicornists," it would not mean that the critters had suddenly popped into existence somewhere.

Some ideas deserve thought.

[Canadian Malcontent]

Taffer,

The ".. armour of God" ( Huntster- Chap. and Verse ?) has faith as shield, knowledge as helmet, the Righteousness of Christ as breastplate, and the Truth as a two-edged sword.

any thoughts?

Yf,
CM

[Anacoluthon64]

I repeat a question.
Please give examples of skeletal remains of bona fide homo sapiens from 10, 15 25,000 years ago?Here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cromagnon.html) you go.

'Luthon64

[andyandy]

I picked up The God Delusion last week and am about half way through it. I hope I'm not infringing on any copyright rules, but here's the spectrum according to Dawkins:

1- Strong Theist. 100% probability of god. In the words of C.G. Jung, "I do not believe, I know".

2- Very high probability but short of 100%. De facto theist. I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in god and live my life on the assumption that he is there.

3- Higher than 50% but not very high. Technically agnostic, but leaning towards theism. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in god".

4- Exactly 50%. Completely impartial agnostic. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."

5- Lower than 50% but not very low. Technically agnostic, but leaning towards atheism. "I don't know whether god exists, but I'm inclined to be sceptical."

6- Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. "I cannot know for certain but I think god is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

7- Strong atheist. "I know there is no god, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one."

I consider myself a 6.

did dawkins really paraphrase an agnosticist position as "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable." ? :)


if we define "God" as a sentient being/entity responsible for the creation of the universe, then I'd imagine most JREFers would score a 6...

if we define "God" a sentient being/entity responsible for the creation of the universe in six days - who formed Adam from dirt, who condemns sinners to hell and opens heavens gates to saints, then I'd imagine most JREFers would score a 7.....

if we "define" God as a subjective term that defies definition then scores are meaningless.......

[Tricky]

Look you guys the point is that people have the right to their faith, to the sanctity of their family. Nothing about teaching evolution threatens that right. Suppose, for example, a person thought that children should not be taught mathematics because it is "demonic". Would they be right to keep schools from teaching math?


The Bible is a great Book, probably the best Book for the teaching of the human spirit.
We surely can respect and appreciate one another as we labour together for the common good.
There are good words of wisdom in the Bible. There's also a lot of very bad stuff. I've known some very good people who use the Bible as inspiration, and some very bad ones. I've also known some very good and very bad people who use other holy books and some who use no holy books. What that says to me is that it is not the Bible that is the source of common good, but the person.

I repeat a question.
Please give examples of skeletal remains of bona fide homo sapiens from 10, 15 25,000 years ago?
I believe that none have ever been found in the 25,000 years ago period and I have doubts about 10 an 15.
We seem to have no shortage of amatuer evolution researchers so I am sure meeting my request will not be difficult.
Please spare me conjecture, suggestion and innuendo, just the facts please.
If no examples can be found I would delight in hearing theories as to why.
Yf,
CM
Here is a link to information about skeletons of various ages (http://www.humboldt.edu/~mrc1/homo.shtml).with Homo sapiens examples from as old as 200,000 years ago, but including some in the range you request.

Really though, there are a lot of skeletons in the age you request. It wasn't that long ago, paleontologically speaking. I'm afraid that whoever told you that there were no such skeletons was giving you poor information.

[Taffer]

Please give examples of skeletal remains of bona fide homo sapiens from 10, 15 25,000 years ago?
I believe that none have ever been found in the 25,000 years ago period and I have doubts about 10 an 15.
We seem to have no shortage of amatuer evolution researchers so I am sure meeting my request will not be difficult.
Please spare me conjecture, suggestion and innuendo, just the facts please.
If no examples can be found I would delight in hearing theories as to why.
Yf,
CM

Hahahaha.

Human remains, 62,000 years old. Link (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10330330&dopt=Citation)
Human remains, 25,000-32,000 years old. Link (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0043-8243(197006)2%3A1%3C39%3APHRFAA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23#abstract)
Human remains, various, 40,000-50,000 years old. Link (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=12594511&dopt=Citation)

2 second google scholar search.

[Mercutio]

The Bible is a great Book, probably the best Book for the teaching of the human spirit.

I had a student once argue for the truth--er, Truth, of the bible. A few examples demonstrated that taken literally, it cannot be seen as true. So he then said it was Morally True, by which he meant roughly what you have said here, that it teaches about the human spirit.

Could you kindly give some passages that demonstrate this? As an experimental psychologist, I note just over a century of scientific examination of "the human spirit", and see that a great deal of folk wisdom is as wrong as the bible is about, say, the age of the earth. Could you support your claim that the bible is the best book for such teaching? Do you mean the whole bible, or just bits and pieces?

[Taffer]

Taffer,

The ".. armour of God" ( Huntster- Chap. and Verse ?) has faith as shield, knowledge as helmet, the Righteousness of Christ as breastplate, and the Truth as a two-edged sword.

any thoughts?

Yf,
CM

I think it's more like "truth as the foundation, knowledge as the bricks and mortar, faith as an inaccurate building plan, and 'the righteousness of christ' as an earthquake". ;)

But seriously, what? :confused:

[Canadian Malcontent]

Bruto,
Is God any more than a 'Concept'? Need He be to fit His billing?
"Vanity of vanities, all is vanity." Ecclesiastes 1:1
Can science account for taste?

Are you up on quantum theory?
Particle accelerators?
Unified field theory?
Imagine the hunger that exists to actually put these ideas together and do something real, the possibilities are endless.
I wonder what the dollar value (expenditure) is that our secular nation devotes to these wacky unreal faith-based theories.
Is it so huge because to master these would make one like unto God Himself?

Your friend,
Canadian Malcontent

[I less than three logic]

Bruto,
Is God any more than a 'Concept'? Need He be to fit His billing?
"Vanity of vanities, all is vanity." Ecclesiastes 1:1
Can science account for taste?

Are you up on quantum theory?
Particle accelerators?
Unified field theory?
Imagine the hunger that exists to actually put these ideas together and do something real, the possibilities are endless.
I wonder what the dollar value (expenditure) is that our secular nation devotes to these wacky unreal faith-based theories.
Is it so huge because to master these would make one like unto God Himself?

Your friend,
Canadian Malcontent
Did you mean for this post to make any sense?

[Taffer]

Can science account for taste?

I know this post wasn't directed at me, but still. The answer to this would be "yes". Do you have any reason to think it couldn't?

Are you up on quantum theory?
Particle accelerators?
Unified field theory?
Imagine the hunger that exists to actually put these ideas together and do something real, the possibilities are endless.
I wonder what the dollar value (expenditure) is that our secular nation devotes to these wacky unreal faith-based theories.
Is it so huge because to master these would make one like unto God Himself?

Your friend,
Canadian Malcontent

How do any of those things have anything to do with faith?

[ImaginalDisc]

The Bible is a great Book, probably the best Book for the teaching of the human spirit.

Considering you can even say that, I'm pretty sure you haven't actually read the whole thing.

We surely can respect and appreciate one another as we labour together for the common good. I respect your right to believe lies. I do not respect your immagined right to teach lies while supressing the truth.
I repeat a question.
Please give examples of skeletal remains of bona fide homo sapiens from 10, 15 25,000 years ago?
I believe that none have ever been found in the 25,000 years ago period and I have doubts about 10 an 15.
We seem to have no shortage of amatuer evolution researchers so I am sure meeting my request will not be difficult.
Please spare me conjecture, suggestion and innuendo, just the facts please.
If no examples can be found I would delight in hearing theories as to why.
Yf,
CM


Let's just assume that you're completely right about the recency of human life. Does that invalidate evolution? No.

Bacteria have evolved to digest nylon in only the past few decades. In case you need to be told, nylon is synthetic, and does not exist in nature. The taxonomy of fossil species who are the ancestors of extant species correleates correlates extremely strongly with the genetic data shoowing how species are related. If an all powerful god made the world 6000 years ago, and created species in fixed distinct kinds, then this god must have created the world to look as though it is billions of years old, and has gone through millions of years of evolution. In short, if your god does exist, then it clearly wants us to believe in evolution.

[Canadian Malcontent]

Region Rat,

the Bible is a book and like every other book means what it means to the reader. Just like Huckleberry Finn.
" Interpretation of Scripture comes only from within by the Holy Spirit"
(Huntster, if you will?)
It means what it means to you and that is what it is meant to mean.
None can speak with authority on the meaning of Scripture as it is a personal thing based in a personal relationship with God.

Your friend,
CM

[advancedatheist]

I think in "Atheism - The Case Against God" the author goes through this subject. This is from memory so I don't remember everything exactly but he (and others) doesn't define atheism the way you did. Atheism isn't a response to thiesm. Atheism is an absence of belief not a rejection of it. All babies are born atheists because they do not believe in God.

That doesn't reflect the real, street-level understanding of "atheism," however. People spontaneously infer the meaning of "atheism" from what comes to mind when they think of "atheists." Babies, feral children and the profoundly retarded don't show up on the screen, but rather individuals like Richard Dawkins who articulate reasons why they reject theistic explanations of reality.

[Taffer]

That doesn't reflect the real, street-level understanding of "atheism," however. People spontaneously infer the meaning of "atheism" from what comes to mind when they think of "atheists." Babies, feral children and the profoundly retarded don't show up on the screen, but rather individuals like Richard Dawkins who articulate reasons why they reject theistic explanations of reality.

This is true.

Also, Happy Birthday. :)

[Foster Zygote]

Bruto,
Is God any more than a 'Concept'? Need He be to fit His billing?
"Vanity of vanities, all is vanity." Ecclesiastes 1:1
Can science account for taste?

Are you up on quantum theory?
Particle accelerators?
Unified field theory?
Imagine the hunger that exists to actually put these ideas together and do something real, the possibilities are endless.
I wonder what the dollar value (expenditure) is that our secular nation devotes to these wacky unreal faith-based theories.
Is it so huge because to master these would make one like unto God Himself?

Your friend,
Canadian Malcontent

Are you really claiming that quantum theory, particle accelerators*, and unified field theory are "wacky, unreal, faith-based theories**"?

*Particle accelerators are real physical objects, not theories.
** You still seem to be clinging to that common usage definition of "theory". When the general public says "theory" they generally mean an unsubstantiated guess. When a scientists says "theory" they invariably mean a widely accepted explanatory idea that is broad in scope and supported by a large body of evidence.

Steven

[Anacoluthon64]

Foster Zygote, you have an "anal punctuation issue?" Ouch.

'Luthon64

[Canadian Malcontent]

Ty for skels, Trickey you rock " good comes from the person"
I dont have aprob with teaching evo, I have a prob with denying Creation
Quantum not faith? There is no time in quantum, how does that play with the scientific method? Not to mention the absence of matter itself.
Yf,
CM

[Foster Zygote]

"Vanity of vanities, all is vanity." Ecclesiastes 1:1
As long as were quoting the Bible, the best book for the teaching of the human spirit, I'd like to share one of my favorite passages.

Joshua 7:24-26

24 Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, the silver, the robe, the wedge of gold, his sons, his daughters, his cattle, his donkeys, his sheep, his tent, and all that he had; and they brought them up to the valley of Achor.

25 Joshua said, "Why have you troubled us? Yahweh will trouble you this day." All Israel stoned him with stones, and they burned them with fire and stoned them with stones.

26 They raised over him a great heap of stones that remains to this day. Yahweh turned from the fierceness of his anger. Therefore the name of that place was called "The valley of Achor" to this day.

Steven

[bruto]

Look you guys the point is that people have the right to their faith, to the sanctity of their family.
Evolution is a great theory, probably the best example for the teaching of theory itself.
The Bible is a great Book, probably the best Book for the teaching of the human spirit.
We surely can respect and appreciate one another as we labour together for the common good.
I repeat a question.
Please give examples of skeletal remains of bona fide homo sapiens from 10, 15 25,000 years ago?
I believe that none have ever been found in the 25,000 years ago period and I have doubts about 10 an 15.
We seem to have no shortage of amatuer evolution researchers so I am sure meeting my request will not be difficult.
Please spare me conjecture, suggestion and innuendo, just the facts please.
If no examples can be found I would delight in hearing theories as to why.
Yf,
CM

I'm all for leaving people's faith alone, as long as we remember what faith is. If by your rules evolution is just conjecture, you cannot honestly claim better for religious ideas, no matter how strongly held they are, and in fact, no matter how true they might be. I'm not sure whether anyone here is really arguing for the destruction of religion, or the undermining of faith in schools. If they are, then they are wrong, but you must remember that at least here in the United States, the issue is not "leaving faith alone," but protecting faith against other forces that are perceived by some to compete with it, and that is a far far different thing. It may be wrong for teachers or anyone else, to stand up in front of a school class and say "your religion is wrong." But it is certainly no better to be compelled to say "your religion is (or even may be) right;" far worse in my view if the subject requires no religious ideas at all. If religious people wish to inject their faith into their own views of science, that is their concern. It should not be the concern of science, and it should not be the concern of those, both religious and not, who believe that faith and secular science can coexist.

As far as I'm concerned, at least, secular education has no duty to protect religions against independent thought, contradiction and doubt. It is up to the people who teach those religions to make their case in their own time and their own place. The idea that the current (and possibly temporary) Christian fundamentalist majority should dictate not only what science teaches but what science actually is in order to protect their flock from the sowing of doubt is dangerously stupid. What comes next? We already have Muslim groups pushing for separate sports teams because they can't allow girls to play sports in public view. Shall we next require that Christian teachers wear burkas beause the mere absence of burkas undermines the Muslim students' beliefs? What happens when the demographics of religous majority change? If you believe that the creationist ideas of fundamentalist Christianity (or disingenuously disguised versions of it, such as ID) are permissible, what happens when the Hispanic population boom makes Catholics the majority? Shall we add catholic doctrine too? Shall we require that health teachers introduce the idea that masturbation is a sin, because simply not mentioning it is perceived as tacit acceptance? Shall we next require a change in the teaching of physics to accommodate the Christian fundamentalists who say that it's possible for the earth to have stood still, or to incorporate the wacko science fiction nonsense that Scientologists teach? Those are pretty silly ideas of course, but not really any sillier than requiring science teachers to promote religious ideas that are scientifically repugnant, simply to spare a special interest group from the perceived threat of competing ideas. We require fringe religions to stand alone and fight their own battles on their own turf. Majority religious deserve no better just because they're popular.

The battle here is not between science and religion, however the demagogues might rant otherwise, but over the very idea that anything can be considered secular if anyone's religon finds it a threat. If you are to teach anything that deserves the name of "science" in schools, then science is what it should be. It's not just about whether science gets it right or wrong every time. Even if it is found at some later date that the scientists somehow got it wrong, pretending that religious doctrine is scientific, as the proponents of "intelligent design" do, is really nothing but an abominable lie, and it's a threat not only to intelligent teaching and critical thought, but to the very basic idea, fundamental to our democracy, of a secular society, and ultimately, quite directly, a threat to true religious freedom.

[Foster Zygote]

Foster Zygote, you have an "anal punctuation issue?" Ouch.

'Luthon64

It's a rather embarrassing condition. My stool is not tapered at the end so my anus slams shut. I have a support group meeting tomorrow.

Steven

[Taffer]

Ty for skels, Trickey you rock " good comes from the person"
I dont have aprob with teaching evo, I have a prob with denying Creation
Quantum not faith? There is no time in quantum, how does that play with the scientific method? Not to mention the absence of matter itself.
Yf,
CM

Considering "quantum" was discovered, described, and evidenced by science, I'd say it has no problem with it. Also, you know nothing at all about quantum theory if you think "there is no time" and "the absence of matter itself".

[Foster Zygote]

Ty for skels, Trickey you rock " good comes from the person"
Was that even a sentence fragment?
I dont have aprob with teaching evo, I have a prob with denying Creation
Which creation? There are many creation myths besides the Judeo/Christian/Islamic one. Do you accept them all?
Quantum not faith? There is no time in quantum, how does that play with the scientific method? Not to mention the absence of matter itself.

Lifegazer, is that you? Actually, the instantaneous nature of changes in quantum state play just fine with the scientific method.

Steven

[I less than three logic]

Ty for skels, Trickey you rock " good comes from the person"
I dont have aprob with teaching evo, I have a prob with denying Creation
Quantum not faith? There is no time in quantum, how does that play with the scientific method? Not to mention the absence of matter itself.
Yf,
CM
No, quantum is not faith; it means a quantity, amount, or portion. What exactly did you mean by quantum? Your recent posts suggest you haven’t the slightest inkling of understanding of quantum mechanics.

[Anacoluthon64]

It's a rather embarrassing condition. My stool is not tapered at the end so my anus slams shut. I have a support group meeting tomorrow.

Steven"Hello. My name is Scat Ology, and I ... <BANG!> ... 'scuse my punctuation." :D

'Luthon64

[Foster Zygote]

Considering "quantum" was discovered, described, and evidenced by science, I'd say it has no problem with it. Also, you know nothing at all about quantum theory if you think "there is no time" and "the absence of matter itself".

Quite right. As I understand it, the instant of change in quantum state is akin to a point in space. It may have no dimension in space but it does have a coordinate that can be measured. The quantum leap (I'm opening this thread up to Scott Bacula jokes) may have no duration but it does have a coordinate in time.

Steven

[Tricky]

Ty for skels, Trickey you rock " good comes from the person"
You're welcome.

I dont have aprob with teaching evo, I have a prob with denying Creation.
Teaching evolution in science class never even mentions the Biblical creation story unless a student asks. Then the teacher is likely to say something like, "That is a religious explanation. This is science."

But surely you can see the problem. Pretty obviously, creation only happened once in our universe, so there really can't be multiple "truths" about how it happened. So if you are searching for truth, what is the criteria by which you judge it? For me, it is evidence. Now you can tell your children to disregard evidence if you like, but that does not mean that such evidence should not be taught. That is what schools do.

You cannot protect your children from ideas other than the ones you give them. They have minds of their own which hunger for knowledge. Please don't starve them on a "faith only" diet. Instead, teach them how to recognize good ideas from bad ideas.

[chriswl]

did dawkins really paraphrase an agnosticist position as "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable." ? :)
If we go by RR's posting then no, he listed that as one variant of agnosticism. 3, 4 and 5 are all described as agnostic and arguably 6 is (technically) agnostic as well as being (as he says) de facto atheist. Dawkins places himself in category 6 in case you were wondering.

[Region Rat]

Yeah, I'm a six too. Welcome to the forum. Are you a Region Rat from 'Da Region'?

Steven

Yup, born and bred, but currently living away- down south.

You see that little spot of tarnish on the buckle of the bible belt? That's my house.

You a rat too?

I've been lurking for quite a while and thought I might as well wade on in.

Be gentle.

[Tricky]

Yup, born and bred, but currently living away- down south.

You see that little spot of tarnish on the buckle of the bible belt? That's my house.

You a rat too?

I've been lurking for quite a while and thought I might as well wade on in.

Be gentle.
Welcome aboard, RR. (Obviously, our ship isn't sinking, since the rats are swimming toward it.)

For us iggnerrant Sutheners, where is "da region"?

[Region Rat]

did dawkins really paraphrase an agnosticist position as "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable." ? :)


Straight out of the book. He seems to hold the middle ground for agnosticism, with some on one side of the fence and some on the other.

If you want to get technical, wouldn't 2 (de facto theist) be considered a level of agnostic too? 2's would give god a high probablility, but even they aren't 100% sure. They just choose to live as if they are right.

[Region Rat]

Welcome aboard, RR. (Obviously, our ship isn't sinking, since the rats are swimming toward it.)

For us iggnerrant Sutheners, where is "da region"?

Well, I hope my 'da region' is the same as FZ's. It's the Calumet Region of Indiana, the very northwest corner that is basically a suburb of Chicago. Gary, Hammond, East Chicago, etc. The rest of Indiana kind of treats us like a cyst or a boil or something. They might be right. It probably needs to be lanced.

Oh, and thanks for the welcome.

[Region Rat]

Region Rat,

the Bible is a book and like every other book means what it means to the reader. Just like Huckleberry Finn.
" Interpretation of Scripture comes only from within by the Holy Spirit"


Nope. Don't buy it. It's either the inerrent word of god, revealed to the authors by god himself, or its just a book of fairy tales. No cherry picking allowed.

But, since you choose to go this route, you are not allowed to call "No true christian" when confronted by the horrors perpetrated by your faith in the past 2000 years. That would mean that whatever they interpret, and however they have acted, is right and christian since it comes from the holy spirit, and you can't prove that it didn't.

BTW, just what does Huckleberry Finn mean to you?

Sorry.

[I less than three logic]

Wow, thought you were going to wade in RR, not dive in head first. :)

Welcome to the board.

:jrefwelcome

[kmortis]

Well, I hope my 'da region' is the same as FZ's. It's the Calumet Region of Indiana, the very northwest corner that is basically a suburb of Chicago. Gary, Hammond, East Chicago, etc. The rest of Indiana kind of treats us like a cyst or a boil or something. They might be right. It probably needs to be lanced.

Oh, and thanks for the welcome.

Those of us from Chicago agrees with Indiana. :p

Welcome.

[drkitten]

Nope. Don't buy it. It's either the inerrent word of god, revealed to the authors by god himself, or its just a book of fairy tales.

Oh, bullfrog.

We're fairly sure the story about Alfred the Great burning the cakes is a fairy tale. But we've also got coins minted by Alfred the Great. (Fairly cheap, too. I can get them for something like 50p each. So we've got a lot of them.)

Does it count as cherry-picking if I believe in Alfred, but not his cakes?


BTW, just what does Huckleberry Finn mean to you?


That's another good example. I believe in Missouri and in riverboats, but I don't believe in Huck Finn. Am I cherry-picking?

[Foster Zygote]

Yup, born and bred, but currently living away- down south.

You see that little spot of tarnish on the buckle of the bible belt? That's my house.

You a rat too?

I've been lurking for quite a while and thought I might as well wade on in.

Be gentle.

I grew up in Merrillville. In fact, so did Joobz, whom I went to high school with. Technically my house was in Crown Point but we were just south of 93rd Avenue so I was in the Merrillville school district. Oddly enough I'm living in the South now too. I'm uncomfortably near Bob Jones University but other than that it's quite nice here.

Steven

[Tricky]

Well, I hope my 'da region' is the same as FZ's. It's the Calumet Region of Indiana, the very northwest corner that is basically a suburb of Chicago. Gary, Hammond, East Chicago, etc. The rest of Indiana kind of treats us like a cyst or a boil or something. They might be right. It probably needs to be lanced.
Ah. I learned something today.

So I'll watch you carefully. After all, a watched boil never pops.

Oh, and thanks for the welcome.
You're welcome for the thanks for the welcome.

BTW, did anyone warn you about Dr. Kitten, the bane of skeptic and believer alike?:p

[Foster Zygote]

Oh, bullfrog.

We're fairly sure the story about Alfred the Great burning the cakes is a fairy tale. But we've also got coins minted by Alfred the Great. (Fairly cheap, too. I can get them for something like 50p each. So we've got a lot of them.)

Does it count as cherry-picking if I believe in Alfred, but not his cakes?



That's another good example. I believe in Missouri and in riverboats, but I don't believe in Huck Finn. Am I cherry-picking?

He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Region Rat was denying that there are elements of history woven into the Bible.

I do agree with his critique of CM's statement:
" Interpretation of Scripture comes only from within by the Holy Spirit"
Many people have wildly different interpretations of scripture. Which are inspired by the Holy Spirit and which are not? And many, if not most, Christians do cherry-pick the warm fuzzy bits of the Bible while ignoring the horrifying parts.

Anyway, that's how I interpreted RR's post. I don't think that denying elements of history (no matter how modified they might be) within scripture was his intent.

Steven

[Region Rat]

Wow, thought you were going to wade in RR, not dive in head first. :)

Welcome to the board.

:jrefwelcome

Nobody ever said I had any sense. Now I guess they never will.

Thanks.

[briandunning]

I just wish atheism wasn't such a dirty word. We are the most hated minority group in America.

[Tricky]

I just wish atheism wasn't such a dirty word. We are the most hated minority group in America.
That is why so many atheists, including myself, use the more benign but technically incorrect term "agnostic" when referring to our beliefs amongst the general populace. Otherwise, you spend ten minutes explaining what atheism really means.

[Region Rat]

He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Region Rat was denying that there are elements of history woven into the Bible.

I do agree with his critique of CM's statement:

Many people have wildly different interpretations of scripture. Which are inspired by the Holy Spirit and which are not? And many, if not most, Christians do cherry-pick the warm fuzzy bits of the Bible while ignoring the horrifying parts.

Anyway, that's how I interpreted RR's post. I don't think that denying elements of history (no matter how modified they might be) within scripture was his intent.

Steven

That's basically it. I tried to reply direct to DRkitten but for some reason I get blocked.

[Region Rat]

I grew up in Merrillville. In fact, so did Joobz, whom I went to high school with. Technically my house was in Crown Point but we were just south of 93rd Avenue so I was in the Merrillville school district. Oddly enough I'm living in the South now too. I'm uncomfortably near Bob Jones University but other than that it's quite nice here.

Steven

I moved around from Indiana Harbor, to Woodmar in Hammond, To Munster. I went to Munster HS.

Nice to meet you.

[Ginarley]

...snip...
I'm not sure whether anyone here is really arguing for the destruction of religion, or the undermining of faith in schools. If they are, then they are wrong, but you must remember that at least here in the United States, the issue is not "leaving faith alone," but protecting faith against other forces that are perceived by some to compete with it, and that is a far far different thing. It may be wrong for teachers or anyone else, to stand up in front of a school class and say "your religion is wrong." But it is certainly no better to be compelled to say "your religion is (or even may be) right;" far worse in my view if the subject requires no religious ideas at all. If religious people wish to inject their faith into their own views of science, that is their concern. It should not be the concern of science, and it should not be the concern of those, both religious and not, who believe that faith and secular science can coexist.


Actually I am very much arguing for the destruction of religion and not just undermining but the removal of faith and not just from schools but from all society. Religion of all forms is unnecessary mental baggage in a time where our society needs intelligence not faith. There is absolutely no need for it, and at best its harmless, and at worst its destructive. So yes - at least one person on this forum is definitely arguing for the destruction of religion and for good reason.

As far as I'm concerned, at least, secular education has no duty to protect religions against independent thought, contradiction and doubt. It is up to the people who teach those religions to make their case in their own time and their own place. The idea that the current (and possibly temporary) Christian fundamentalist majority should dictate not only what science teaches but what science actually is in order to protect their flock from the sowing of doubt is dangerously stupid. What comes next? We already have Muslim groups pushing for separate sports teams because they can't allow girls to play sports in public view. Shall we next require that Christian teachers wear burkas beause the mere absence of burkas undermines the Muslim students' beliefs? What happens when the demographics of religous majority change? If you believe that the creationist ideas of fundamentalist Christianity (or disingenuously disguised versions of it, such as ID) are permissible, what happens when the Hispanic population boom makes Catholics the majority? Shall we add catholic doctrine too? Shall we require that health teachers introduce the idea that masturbation is a sin, because simply not mentioning it is perceived as tacit acceptance? Shall we next require a change in the teaching of physics to accommodate the Christian fundamentalists who say that it's possible for the earth to have stood still, or to incorporate the wacko science fiction nonsense that Scientologists teach? Those are pretty silly ideas of course, but not really any sillier than requiring science teachers to promote religious ideas that are scientifically repugnant, simply to spare a special interest group from the perceived threat of competing ideas. We require fringe religions to stand alone and fight their own battles on their own turf. Majority religious deserve no better just because they're popular.

I agree - further the destruction of religion needs to come not from an external source (ie atheists don't go in and ruin a religion) but from internally - people need to open their eyes and start thinking so they can see for themselves what a waste of brain space it is.

The battle here is not between science and religion, however the demagogues might rant otherwise, but over the very idea that anything can be considered secular if anyone's religon finds it a threat. If you are to teach anything that deserves the name of "science" in schools, then science is what it should be. It's not just about whether science gets it right or wrong every time. Even if it is found at some later date that the scientists somehow got it wrong, pretending that religious doctrine is scientific, as the proponents of "intelligent design" do, is really nothing but an abominable lie, and it's a threat not only to intelligent teaching and critical thought, but to the very basic idea, fundamental to our democracy, of a secular society, and ultimately, quite directly, a threat to true religious freedom.

I almost agree - science is not a side of the battle and any sane person would rely on science to back up their opinions in some form. And that includes religious arguments and in a sense theology is a form of science - one based in remarkably dodgy assumptions but science nonetheless. Unfortunately religion is forced to suppress science when it starts making the things they teach look silly (because they are).

Religious freedom is a valid concept but the very premise of most religions denies religious freedom. If true religious freedom existed there would be no religion because people would be allowed to think for themselves. Instead most religions enforce a strict "thou shalt worship no other" rule which effectively eliminates religious freedom. Science lets you believe whatever you believe and gives you the tools to test that belief. Only an irrational person would maintain belief if those tools indicated their belief was wrong. And that is what faith is all about.

[bruto]

Actually I am very much arguing for the destruction of religion and not just undermining but the removal of faith and not just from schools but from all society. Religion of all forms is unnecessary mental baggage in a time where our society needs intelligence not faith. There is absolutely no need for it, and at best its harmless, and at worst its destructive. So yes - at least one person on this forum is definitely arguing for the destruction of religion and for good reason.

I must disagree on this at least a little, but it depends on how one construes it. I do not think any group should seek to destroy the beliefs of any other group by the use of leverage, influence or advantage. I believe that that requires that government remain strictly secular and strictly aloof from religious issues, something that "secularists" as well as many people of faith agree to, but that many people of faith do not. I am not as convinced as you seem to be that faith and reason cannot coexist.



I agree - further the destruction of religion needs to come not from an external source (ie atheists don't go in and ruin a religion) but from internally - people need to open their eyes and start thinking so they can see for themselves what a waste of brain space it is. But you can't make them do it.


I almost agree - science is not a side of the battle and any sane person would rely on science to back up their opinions in some form. And that includes religious arguments and in a sense theology is a form of science - one based in remarkably dodgy assumptions but science nonetheless. Unfortunately religion is forced to suppress science when it starts making the things they teach look silly (because they are). On that I agree. Science is not a side of the battle, or should not be. It's the error and the sin of the fundies and others who wish to make it so, and to turn what is really a matter of appropriate place, a border dispute if you will, into a zero-sum cultural war.

Religious freedom is a valid concept but the very premise of most religions denies religious freedom. If true religious freedom existed there would be no religion because people would be allowed to think for themselves. Instead most religions enforce a strict "thou shalt worship no other" rule which effectively eliminates religious freedom. Perhaps, but the question of "religious freedom" simply doesn't apply within a religion. As long as there's no violation of rights, no coercion, it's as inappropriate for the secular arm of society to address that as it is for the religious to step out of their corner and start messing with science. Science lets you believe whatever you believe and gives you the tools to test that belief. Only an irrational person would maintain belief if those tools indicated their belief was wrong. And that is what faith is all about. I would take exception to that statement. I believe that it is possible for a "rational person" to maintain (edited to add "some") some faith.

[The Atheist]

Actually I am very much arguing for the destruction of religion and not just undermining but the removal of faith and not just from schools but from all society. Religion of all forms is unnecessary mental baggage in a time where our society needs intelligence not faith. There is absolutely no need for it, and at best its harmless, and at worst its destructive. So yes - at least one person on this forum is definitely arguing for the destruction of religion and for good reason.



I agree - further the destruction of religion needs to come not from an external source (ie atheists don't go in and ruin a religion) but from internally - people need to open their eyes and start thinking so they can see for themselves what a waste of brain space it is.

Religious freedom is a valid concept but the very premise of most religions denies religious freedom. If true religious freedom existed there would be no religion because people would be allowed to think for themselves. Instead most religions enforce a strict "thou shalt worship no other" rule which effectively eliminates religious freedom. Science lets you believe whatever you believe and gives you the tools to test that belief. Only an irrational person would maintain belief if those tools indicated their belief was wrong. And that is what faith is all about.Mate, that is an excellent piece!

Any more stuff like that and you'll undo all the bad work I've done in making Kiwis look like a bunch of uncultured swine! Still, in your case, it's not as though you're an ill-educated bum like myself.

Nominated.

[Region Rat]

Oh, bullfrog.

We're fairly sure the story about Alfred the Great burning the cakes is a fairy tale. But we've also got coins minted by Alfred the Great. (Fairly cheap, too. I can get them for something like 50p each. So we've got a lot of them.)

Does it count as cherry-picking if I believe in Alfred, but not his cakes?



That's another good example. I believe in Missouri and in riverboats, but I don't believe in Huck Finn. Am I cherry-picking?

I'm not sure if we're arguing here, but maybe I need to clear up what I mean by cherry picking.

Everybody knows that out of all of the literature throughout our history, the only book that is touted as the unerring word of god is the bible. Be that definition, believed by all followers, every word is as true as every other word. Therefore, believers who pick out little pieces of the whole to and profess that their god is a warm fuzzy teddybear of love are not being very honest. The god of the bible, as anyone can read, is most definately not a warm fuzzy teddybear. He is shown as spiteful, vengeful and quite nasty at times. To ignore the mean part and counter with some 'spiritual interpretation by the holy spirit' is dishonest. That is what I mean by cherrypicking.

My other point is that while believers may say the bible is the unerring word of god, I say its just a book with a lot of stories in it. Maybe the old war stories are true if you take god out of it, but since the whole thing is full of stories about god, that pretty much makes it a book of fairy tales to me.

Any other work of fiction, or non-fiction for that matter, can be picked apart all you want. Nobody said god wrote it. Have at it. That's somewhat of a straw man you threw out there at me.

And I'd like to say its nice to meet you :)

[RandFan]

No, evolution is a fact. You bet your sweet a** it is (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html).

[Taffer]

Palmerston North

Palmy eh? I don't suppose you're at Massey?

[Taffer]

...Kiwis look like a bunch of uncultured swine!

Hey, speak for yourself. :p

[Taffer]

You bet your sweet a** it is (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html).

:D

[Ginarley]

Mate, that is an excellent piece!

Any more stuff like that and you'll undo all the bad work I've done in making Kiwis look like a bunch of uncultured swine! Still, in your case, it's not as though you're an ill-educated bum like myself.

Nominated.

I'm quite happy if we're all labelled as uncultured swine, so long as no-one thinks we believe in some irrational fiction ;)

Palmy eh? I don't suppose you're at Massey?

I do suppose I am :)

[McCulloch]

Is there such a thing as true atheism, or a true atheist?
Some like to define an atheist as someone who believes there is/are no god(s).
Others define an atheist as someone who does not believe that there is/are any god(s).
The distinction is important. There are more people who do not believe that there is a god than there are people who believe that there is no god.

[Taffer]

I do suppose I am :)

Hooray! :)

Of course, since I'm at Dunners, I'm forced to think you're a twat. ;) :D

[Canadian Malcontent]

I had a student once argue for the truth--er, Truth, of the bible. A few examples demonstrated that taken literally, it cannot be seen as true. So he then said it was Morally True, by which he meant roughly what you have said here, that it teaches about the human spirit.

Could you kindly give some passages that demonstrate this? As an experimental psychologist, I note just over a century of scientific examination of "the human spirit", and see that a great deal of folk wisdom is as wrong as the bible is about, say, the age of the earth. Could you support your claim that the bible is the best book for such teaching? Do you mean the whole bible, or just bits and pieces?

Mercutio,

"Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.
Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil
For Thine is the Kingdom, the Power and the Glory
Forever
Amen"

How is that for experimental psychology.
Yeah I mean the whole thing even the parts where they do their sister, I mean really, who hasnt wanted to do their sister? Its still legal in some states.
Oedipus, Nimrod, Alexander... they all did their mommas. The Bible relates history my friend as well as commentary on the human condition as well as instruction on how to handle oneself.
The passage above is Biblically attributed to Christ. Twelve step programs are based on it and twelve step programs are not only the most popular form of consumer psychology but demonstrably the most effective. For some maladies, the twelve steps are accepted by society as the only remedy.

Your friend,
Canadian Malcontent

[Ginarley]

I must disagree on this at least a little, but it depends on how one construes it. I do not think any group should seek to destroy the beliefs of any other group by the use of leverage, influence or advantage. I believe that that requires that government remain strictly secular and strictly aloof from religious issues, something that "secularists" as well as many people of faith agree to, but that many people of faith do not. I am not as convinced as you seem to be that faith and reason cannot coexist.

I would argue religion has no place in a rational society, period. If a government is responsible for the wellbeing of it's constituents, it has a role to protect them from being deliberately mislead. Science doesn't influence in any way except by presenting evidence. Religion of almost all faiths attempts to influence, leverage and take advantage of people. A strictly neutral government would have no choice but to do something (rather permanent) about a large number of religious organisations.

But you can't make them do it.

Agreed - but the promotion of rational thought and the removal of religions ability to lie to the "faithful" should solve the problem rather rapidly.

On that I agree. Science is not a side of the battle, or should not be. It's the error and the sin of the fundies and others who wish to make it so, and to turn what is really a matter of appropriate place, a border dispute if you will, into a zero-sum cultural war.

Agreed to some extent. As Dawkins argues, however, religion IS an alternative view of the world to science - a world with an active creator is a very different place to one without one (unless that creator is so ambiguous as to have no meaning). Further, religion goes way beyond personal spiritual health when it starts meddling in politics and from what I gather in the US for example it is neck deep in it.

Perhaps, but the question of "religious freedom" simply doesn't apply within a religion. As long as there's no violation of rights, no coercion, it's as inappropriate for the secular arm of society to address that as it is for the religious to step out of their corner and start messing with science.

I totally disagree. People are coerced into belief and faith through religion which immediately contradicts religious freedom. Honestly - if people were given the freedom to see everything for themselves there is no way that religion would even exist.

I would take exception to that statement. I believe that it is possible for a "rational person" to maintain (edited to add "some") some faith.

The only "faith" I can see a rational person maintaining is that of hope and optimism - neither of which necessitates religion of any sort.

[Ginarley]

Hooray! :)

Of course, since I'm at Dunners, I'm forced to think you're a twat. ;) :D

"Get over it" ;)

[Canadian Malcontent]

I had a student once argue for the truth--er, Truth, of the bible. A few examples demonstrated that taken literally, it cannot be seen as true. So he then said it was Morally True, by which he meant roughly what you have said here, that it teaches about the human spirit.

Could you kindly give some passages that demonstrate this? As an experimental psychologist, I note just over a century of scientific examination of "the human spirit", and see that a great deal of folk wisdom is as wrong as the bible is about, say, the age of the earth. Could you support your claim that the bible is the best book for such teaching? Do you mean the whole bible, or just bits and pieces?

Mercutio,

"Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.
Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil
For Thine is the Kingdom, the Power and the Glory
Forever
Amen"

How is that for experimental psychology.
Yeah I mean the whole thing even the parts where they do their sister, I mean really, who hasnt wanted to do their sister? Its still legal in some states.
Oedipus, Nimrod, Alexander... they all did their mommas. The Bible relates history my friend as well as commentary on the human condition as well as instruction on how to handle oneself.
The passage above is Biblically attributed to Christ. Twelve step programs are based on it and twelve step programs are not only the most popular form of consumer psychology but demonstrably the most effective. For some maladies, the twelve steps are accepted by society as the only remedy.

Your friend,
Canadian Malcontent

[Taffer]

"Get over it" ;)

Heh. :)

[RandFan]

Yeah I mean the whole thing even the parts where they do their sister, I mean really, who hasnt wanted to do their sister? Its still legal in some states. What does this have to do with the human spirit? And the parts about slavery and killing apostates?

Twelve step programs are based on it and twelve step programs are not only the most popular form of consumer psychology... Fallacy (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#numerum).

...but demonstrably the most effective. For some maladies, the twelve steps are accepted by society as the only remedy. This should be interesting, ok, demonstrate it. Oh, and BTW, what society accepts is not demonstrable of anything.

[Taffer]

Fallacy (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#numerum).

Indeed. Also argumentum ad verecundium (http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Argument_from_Authority).

[Region Rat]

<snip>
Yeah I mean the whole thing even the parts where they do their sister, I mean really, who hasnt wanted to do their sister? Its still legal in some states.
Oedipus, Nimrod, Alexander... they all did their mommas. The Bible relates history my friend as well as commentary on the human condition as well as instruction on how to handle oneself. <snip again>

Your friend,
Canadian Malcontent

I can't help it.

What verse has the instructions on how to handle oneself? The nuns always told us we would go blind if we did.

[Taffer]

I can't help it.

What verse has the instructions on how to handle oneself? The nuns always told us we would go blind if we did.

:D

I think you'll fit in just fine around here.

[Taffer]

Its still legal in some states.

Ok, and because it's legal means it's ok to do?

[Foster Zygote]

The Bible relates history my friend as well as commentary on the human condition as well as instruction on how to handle oneself.

OK, the rest of that post was pretty weird, but I must say this just sounds like a cop-out for all of the horrible things written in the Bible. The massacre of the Canaanites is presented not only as history (though modern historians have doubts it occurred as claimed in the Bible) but as God's commandment. God commanded his chosen people to take swords and split open every man, woman, child and infant in Canaan. It's quite specific.

Steven

[bruto]

Ginarly, rather than respond to your responses point by point, I will just add that speaking from the perspective of an American, I think your prescription for doing away with religion is the very culture war that people like Canadian Malcontent fear, and in many cases (not aimed at CM in this case) welcome. Many religious leaders believe religion and secular society cannot coexist, and, of course, their prescription is to destroy secular government and education as a matter of self-defense. We see it here in the highest levels of our misgovernment, where the conservative Christians, holding nearly all the power, have still managed to paint themselves as a beleaguered minority, pummeled by the organized godless elite. I don't know whether or not ultimately coexistence will be possible, but I for one would hope that can be, and would prefer not to feed the religious paranoia that seems to be informing so much public policy these days.

I obviously have a more lenient view of religion than you and some others, and am not nearly as convinced as you seem to be that the religious impulse will disappear in the face of rationality and good education. But apart from that, I also believe that if it comes to a true all-or-nothing culture war, it is one that cannot be won. "The worst are full of passionate intensity."

[Mercutio]

I see that Randfan has already mentioned the 12-step mythology, so I'll try to take a look at the best of the best of the best with honors...although I note that even within the Lord's Prayer, you cut out some. Why not showcase the rest? Is there something not quite the essence of the human spirit in "thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven"?

Anyway...
"Give us this day our daily bread.I do not understand how this teaches about the human spirit. Are we inherently lazy, wanting god to provide for us? If so, is that a good thing?

And forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.Ah, yes, Jesus's version of the golden rule, the rule of reciprocity. I hope you don't think that this rule is the property of the bible. It most certainly is not. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity) One could make the case that this rule is in the bible because it had already had a history of success, rather than attributing its success to the genius of the authors of the bible.

Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil Depending on how you parse the grammar there, evil might well be equated with "that which tempts". A wonderful way of managing behavior; such a belief system is a great way to make individuals make their personal needs secondary to those of their society. Hmm...is the bible a representation of the human spirit, or a manual on how to take advantage of it?

For Thine is the Kingdom, the Power and the Glory
Forever
Amen"
Not much room for human spirit there, is there? Why, as long as you were cherrypicking the easiest example, did you leave that in?

How is that for experimental psychology.
Trust me, you do not want an honest answer to that.

[bruto]

With regard to 12 step programs, I might add that at least as good a case can likely be made for Epictetus as for Jesus.

[bruto]

Oh by the way, I don't know whether or not this is a repost, but for those wishing to raise their kids properly, some of our Christian friends have provided a helpful guide. It's actually pretty good advice (skip #10 of course), whether they know it or not.

http://www.joyfulheart.com/evang/heathen.htm

[RandFan]

Oh by the way, I don't know whether or not this is a repost, but for those wishing to raise their kids properly, some of our Christian friends have provided a helpful guide. It's actually pretty good advice (skip #10 of course), whether they know it or not.

http://www.joyfulheart.com/evang/heathen.htm Yes, if you leave out the strawmen and non-sequiturs.

"She will be able to do almost anything without feeling guilty, so she is likely to be healthy psychologically."

Fundies say the darndest things.

[The Atheist]

"Get over it" ;)Who the hell's letting all these bloody, pseudo-intellectual, Kiwi University bums in here? Bad enough that one of you's a Scarfie, but Massey and Otago. My word. Makes me so bloody pleased I was at Waikeria for my tertiary education, bro!

Here's one for you. I applied to draw some religious murals, in chalk!, on the footpath and was denied! Apparently, it's against some ridiculous bylaw #345.22 enacted in 1238 BC and chalk drawings are considered graffiti, and accordingly punsihable by death.

I have got a couple of budding artists and we've been practising at home drawing cute biblical scenes, like all the babies drowning when the great flood happened, but we've been beaten by bureaucrats. See if you can find out what the legal position on it is in those places and let me know, I'll drive anywhere that doesn't have the ridiculous wankers running the councils that Auckland does. Hamilton's a possibility, but Hamilton's, umm, Hamilton. Little town won't cut it. Even better, if you have a couple of artists to spare, they can join in.

[Taffer]

Who the hell's letting all these bloody, pseudo-intellectual, Kiwi University bums in here? Bad enough that one of you's a Scarfie, but Massey and Otago. My word. Makes me so bloody pleased I was at Waikeria for my tertiary education, bro!

Here's one for you. I applied to draw some religious murals, in chalk!, on the footpath and was denied! Apparently, it's against some ridiculous bylaw #345.22 enacted in 1238 BC and chalk drawings are considered graffiti, and accordingly punsihable by death.

I have got a couple of budding artists and we've been practising at home drawing cute biblical scenes, like all the babies drowning when the great flood happened, but we've been beaten by bureaucrats. See if you can find out what the legal position on it is in those places and let me know, I'll drive anywhere that doesn't have the ridiculous wankers running the councils that Auckland does. Hamilton's a possibility, but Hamilton's, umm, Hamilton. Little town won't cut it. Even better, if you have a couple of artists to spare, they can join in.

I don't see why you couldn't do it here. Or, at least, you could definately do it on campus. People write all sorts of bollocks in chalk on campus here.

Dunno about the council, though.

[The Atheist]

I don't see why you couldn't do it here. Or, at least, you could definately do it on campus. People write all sorts of bollocks in chalk on campus here.

Dunno about the council, though.The council's crucial - has to be outside a church, preferably a pentecostal one, done in full, living colour.

[Taffer]

The council's crucial - has to be outside a church, preferably a pentecostal one, done in full, living colour.

I don't know, then. I guess you'd have to ask. :)

[Canadian Malcontent]

I have personally experienced and witnessed the efficacy of the twelve step approach to the spiritual sickness manifest in man as substance abuse. The only institutions or groups that deny twelve steps as the most successful treatment of addiction are those recieving funding for a different approach.
The medical industry, the Justice people, the prison system, the rehab and outreach ( work with street people) are all pretty much unanimous in their support and acclaim of the twelve steps as the path to freedom from the prison of addiction. And thats a fact.
Psychology is applied after when the now sober person faces the task of rebuilding their life and relearning how to be human. At this point consistent and continued adherence to the twelve steps are the core of the prevention of relapse.
When its a life and death question its all about the spirit. When a person is back on their feet sober then the world of man can and must be addressed.

[Taffer]

I have personally experienced and witnessed the efficacy of the twelve step approach to the spiritual sickness manifest in man as substance abuse.

There are scientific, medical, reasons behind substance abuse. What does it have to do with "the spiritual sickness"? What does that even mean?

And when did we say that the 12-step program doesn't work?

[Godmode]

Telling children that their parents beliefs are wrong is some of the worst child abuse.

You're kidding right? The WORST kind? Worse then sexual abuse, or physical abuse, or telling a kid they're going to hell for something as natural as masturbation?

[Ginarley]

The council's crucial - has to be outside a church, preferably a pentecostal one, done in full, living colour.

Council members never work on Sundays so just do it anyway outside a church on a Sunday morning - they wont respond until Monday and you'll have achieved your goal lol.

Since I happen to be working in the Planning department here at massey I'll scout around and see what I can figure out in terms of bylaws etc for Auckland.

In a way though we should be pleased they turned down a "religious" query!

[Ginarley]

Ginarly, rather than respond to your responses point by point, I will just add that speaking from the perspective of an American, I think your prescription for doing away with religion is the very culture war that people like Canadian Malcontent fear, and in many cases (not aimed at CM in this case) welcome. Many religious leaders believe religion and secular society cannot coexist, and, of course, their prescription is to destroy secular government and education as a matter of self-defense. We see it here in the highest levels of our misgovernment, where the conservative Christians, holding nearly all the power, have still managed to paint themselves as a beleaguered minority, pummeled by the organized godless elite. I don't know whether or not ultimately coexistence will be possible, but I for one would hope that can be, and would prefer not to feed the religious paranoia that seems to be informing so much public policy these days.

I obviously have a more lenient view of religion than you and some others, and am not nearly as convinced as you seem to be that the religious impulse will disappear in the face of rationality and good education. But apart from that, I also believe that if it comes to a true all-or-nothing culture war, it is one that cannot be won. "The worst are full of passionate intensity."

I think it will be a simple war though, if it ever gets to that. Rational people will stand there and let the world do their talking for them, while religions will implode all by themselves. It is the very lack of challenge that perpetuates it.

I can't see a full on cultural war developing however, I just see religion entering a downwards cycle as gradually people wake up, and over time it will die a natural death - i.e. the religious meme will eventually find itself in an environment it is not well suited and natural selection will do the rest :). The challenge for atheists is not to attack religion directly (well, maybe when its fun do so... lol) but to promote the environment where religion will die a natural death.

[The Atheist]

Council members never work on Sundays so just do it anyway outside a church on a Sunday morning - they wont respond until Monday and you'll have achieved your goal lol.

Since I happen to be working in the Planning department here at massey I'll scout around and see what I can figure out in terms of bylaws etc for Auckland.

In a way though we should be pleased they turned down a "religious" query!They didn't know about the religious aspect then, but I'm applying for a permit on that basis - I'll keep you posted.

[bruto]

I think it will be a simple war though, if it ever gets to that. Rational people will stand there and let the world do their talking for them, while religions will implode all by themselves. It is the very lack of challenge that perpetuates it.

I can't see a full on cultural war developing however, I just see religion entering a downwards cycle as gradually people wake up, and over time it will die a natural death - i.e. the religious meme will eventually find itself in an environment it is not well suited and natural selection will do the rest :). The challenge for atheists is not to attack religion directly (well, maybe when its fun do so... lol) but to promote the environment where religion will die a natural death.
I' m sorry to say that I sort of agree with your first sentence. I think it will be a simple war too. The rational people will trust the world to do their talking, and the fanatics will ignore the world as they always have and slaughter their opponents in the name of goodness. I wish I could agree with your optimism, but I'm not convinced that people are smart enough or good enough, and I'm not seeing, at least from my little vantage point here in Darkest Vermont, a tendency for people to wake up and religion to wither away. I agree with your last sentence though, and hope that over time, if the fundies and nutjobs are not able to promote a real cultural war to short circuit the process, there will be a chance for that natural selection to take place.

[The Atheist]

I' m sorry to say that I sort of agree with your first sentence. I think it will be a simple war too. The rational people will trust the world to do their talking, and the fanatics will ignore the world as they always have and slaughter their opponents in the name of goodness. I wish I could agree with your optimism, but I'm not convinced that people are smart enough or good enough, and I'm not seeing, at least from my little vantage point here in Darkest Vermont, a tendency for people to wake up and religion to wither away. I agree with your last sentence though, and hope that over time, if the fundies and nutjobs are not able to promote a real cultural war to short circuit the process, there will be a chance for that natural selection to take place.Ok, you're the equivalent of Livingstone in the heart of the African jungle, but things are changing. Census figures show christianity waning everywhere, and while the latest data out of USA shows a steep decline - it's too early to call it a trend, but I do think that's what it will show, over time. Christianity's in a spiral towards defeat. The only bad news on the horizon is that Islam isn't.

[Canadian Malcontent]

Godmode, thank you , point well taken. You are right.

Your friend'
Canadian Malcontent

[Taffer]

...or telling a kid they're going to hell for something as natural as masturbation?

I'm going to hell? :D

[zizzybaluba]

I have personally experienced and witnessed the efficacy of the twelve step approach to the spiritual sickness manifest in man as substance abuse. The only institutions or groups that deny twelve steps as the most successful treatment of addiction are those recieving funding for a different approach.
The medical industry, the Justice people, the prison system, the rehab and outreach ( work with street people) are all pretty much unanimous in their support and acclaim of the twelve steps as the path to freedom from the prison of addiction. And thats a fact.
Psychology is applied after when the now sober person faces the task of rebuilding their life and relearning how to be human. At this point consistent and continued adherence to the twelve steps are the core of the prevention of relapse.
When its a life and death question its all about the spirit. When a person is back on their feet sober then the world of man can and must be addressed.


What's your point? There are plenty of atheists in twelve step programs. The "higher power" doesn't have to be supernatural.

[Bododio]

...but things are changing. Census figures show christianity waning everywhere, and while the latest data out of USA shows a steep decline - it's too early to call it a trend, but I do think that's what it will show, over time. Christianity's in a spiral towards defeat. The only bad news on the horizon is that Islam isn't.

But does this mean that belief in invisible beings is also waning among the declining xians?

[Bododio]

Actually I am very much arguing for the destruction of religion and not just undermining but the removal of faith and not just from schools but from all society. Religion of all forms is unnecessary mental baggage in a time where our society needs intelligence not faith. There is absolutely no need for it, and at best its harmless, and at worst its destructive. So yes - at least one person on this forum is definitely arguing for the destruction of religion and for good reason.



I agree - further the destruction of religion needs to come not from an external source (ie atheists don't go in and ruin a religion) but from internally - people need to open their eyes and start thinking so they can see for themselves what a waste of brain space it is.



I almost agree - science is not a side of the battle and any sane person would rely on science to back up their opinions in some form. And that includes religious arguments and in a sense theology is a form of science - one based in remarkably dodgy assumptions but science nonetheless. Unfortunately religion is forced to suppress science when it starts making the things they teach look silly (because they are).

Religious freedom is a valid concept but the very premise of most religions denies religious freedom. If true religious freedom existed there would be no religion because people would be allowed to think for themselves. Instead most religions enforce a strict "thou shalt worship no other" rule which effectively eliminates religious freedom. Science lets you believe whatever you believe and gives you the tools to test that belief. Only an irrational person would maintain belief if those tools indicated their belief was wrong. And that is what faith is all about.

I quite agree with The Atheist. This is great stuff http://emoticons4u.com/cool/049.gif

[The Atheist]

But does this mean that belief in invisible beings is also waning among the declining xians?It seems to be the case, you can't fly in the face of progress forever, which is what christians, and fundies in particular, need.

[RandFan]

I'm going to hell? :D Me too and someday I'm going to grow hair on my palms. I'm 45. When does the hair start to grow?

[Foster Zygote]

Me too and someday I'm going to grow hair on my palms. I'm 45. When does the hair start to grow?

On your 46th birthday.

[RandFan]

On your 46th birthday.Damn, it's getting harder to read small text also. Oh well, 35 years of bliss make it worth it.

[Foster Zygote]

Damn, it's getting harder to read small text also. Oh well, 35 years of bliss make it worth it.

Of course, what the church types fail to mention is that the hair only gets a chance to grow on your palms if you stop.

[RandFan]

Of course, what the church types fail to mention is that the hair only gets a chance to grow on your palms if you stop.:D So, I'll just go blind.

[Dorian Gray]

A True Skeptic would know the answer to that.
Only the true atheists go to heaven.

[joobz]

Only the true atheists go to heaven.
Actually, only true atheists go into nothingness.
the pseudoatheists are doomed to spend eternity in heaven with theists.
BWA HA HA HA AH!!!:D