Atheism

Quote:

And unfortunately...red herring is being served up in heaping batches.

Would it be too much to ask you to specify what that means Frank? I do so hope that a red herring is not simply an argument you don't agree with.

Quote:

Thank you, Neo. I hope RL and I can get this behind us.

It's all cool with me Frank and please do consider our conversation behind us, that was about how some theists and atheists consider themselves as anti religionists.

Okay...but I already mentioned to you that I now use non-theist as an accomodation to atheists. I am trying to find some common ground!

Quote:

Okay...but I already mentioned to you that I now use non-theist as an accomodation to atheists. I am trying to find some common ground!

Yes frank I have taken notice to you evolving and I am sure it wont be long before you get your horns.

No horns yet...but the cloven hooves are a bitch on the putting greens.

It's evidence gained through observation of actual atheists in a combat environment. I'll grant that they aren't actually in foxholes in that photo, but the foxhole bit is euphemistic in the first place.

But all that's a red herring, anyway. There is a photo of self-proclaimed atheists in a war zone. You deny the evidence.

Just like creationists deny fossil evidence.

It doesn't fit your preferred version of reality, so you simply deny it away.

If you can deny empirical evidence, there's no way words will change your mind.

Fossil evidence is empirical. Soldiers holding signs proclaiming themselves to be atheists in foxholes isn't.

Once again, assertions are not empirical evidence.

Quote:

A psychological evaluation might be more revealing, though.

I've been trying for years Blue to bring some psychological observations into these matters. They won't go near it.

The possibility that there might be some psycho-somatic healing benefits in beliefs and the ceremonials designed to reinforce them for millions of people is not something most atheists are prepared to consider.

I am an atheist who has been prepared to consider the possibility, and even a small possibility, and it might well be more than that, outweighs any personal conveniences of my own in the sexual morality field.

Fossil evidence is empirical. Soldiers holding signs proclaiming themselves to be atheists in foxholes isn't.

Anyway, to the atheists I'd say: No need to refute it. Properly handled, all one has to do is to laugh at it.

My question to you is should we find value in a photo that has a pope and a million followers in it as having any credibility to being a Christian gathering?

Should we use such a photo to help determine reality?

Sure, assertions being used to refute assertions.

Is that all that it amounts to?

I wouldn't call me during that ride a theist. I'd call me previously programmed.

I spent a lot of years writing JMJ on top of many of my school papers,

I was strongly taught religion as a child, and, while I am not sorry about it, even at all, up until I got to high school, the nuns at my high school were basically nuts, which I didn't figure out until some time later.

I spent a lot of years writing JMJ on top of many of my school papers, and similar acknowledgements at many turns of the day, or if not day, week.

I changed as I grew up into adulthood. It is arguable if waving byebye to religion and its mores is growing up, but it was part of mine. When I first left, for a few years, or a few more than a few, if I was afraid (the guy with the porsche driving stupidly around mountain curves, and I do mean stupidly, he hit the cliff, what a kumquat) I'd find myself mouthing old words, not meaning them, but from long practice.

I wouldn't call me during that ride a theist. I'd call me previously programmed.

Quote:

Sure, assertions being used to refute assertions.

Quote:

Is that all that it amounts to?

That was my take on it, what was yours?