Atheism

If there isn't a movement then there's no chance. A disorganised rabble is no match for its opponents.

Funny how most of wande's quotes "just happen" to be extracted from a small number of media corporations.

Just popped in to see the atheists fighting amonst themselves.

<quietly leaving now>

Does anyone think that this is true?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbef07aQtB8&feature=related

Not much of it. The comparisons to developing nations is particularly vacant. These countries have religious problems, but they are not the center of mass of their national struggle. I also didn't get the economic implications that the video made.

They were right about the prisons though. I'm rather confident in that.

A
R
T

Those countries listing no atheists are likely inaccurate.
edit
That staement makes it look like I endorse the article. Truth is, I don't know the impact it would make and don't care to guess.

How about this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gS-X0lfofc&feature=related

I found this interesting! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crSqT4kvCX4&feature=related

Food for thought on social rejection of Atheists.




A
R
T

The last one was sad!

They are both sad.

I'm not trying to "win" anything. I also don't want and don't intend to be the target of your nasty passive-aggressive attacks in which you claim you don't want to fight, having alreadypicked a fight.

In some nations, atheists might be at a disadvantage, but that is not necessarily targeting, because in such nations anyone who does not adhere to the dominant religious creed is at a disadvantage. I cannot believe that anyone in one of industrialized democracies suffers any harm from being an atheist. Anyone here ever been asked their religious affiliation when registering to vote? How about when applying for a job, or a bank loan, or when joining a professional organization? I just see what harm, other than an allegation of social alienation, can reasonably be alleged. As far as social situations, who here has ever been ostracized for being atheist, and how sorry were you to lose that portion of your acquaintance? I've lived in the Bible belt, the subject nevertheless rarely came uyp, and when it did, i suffered nothing for it.

Set I suggest you not move to Utah.

There was never any danger of that . . . i don't want more than one wife, and i sure as hell don't want a 13 year old wife.

above and beyond marital bliss, my utah comment is regarding civil processes denied to non-mormon residents.

Yeah, i understood that . . . nevertheless, i have two objections. Even though Utah fought two wars with the United States to attempt to run things their way--they lost. So anyone who is denied their civil liberties has the resort of the Federal courts, and, if necessary, we could kick their ass again on the battlefield.

The second is that this is no different than the religious states i mentioned earlier. You're not being discrinated against because you are an atheist, but because you are not a Moron . . . uhm, Mormon . . . well, same-same.

I hope Setanta doesn't mean "us" as us on here. I presume he will leave the task, should it become necessary, to others. Whatever--you can count me out. I don't get all violently beligerent when I'm sat in my armchair.

And anyway--whether to have one or a few wives doesn't seem worth bothering that much about unless one is really stuck for an excuse to talk tough. There are definite advantages to having a few wives and one seems a bit risky considering how much our society abhors monopoly due to the use it can be put. Lesbians and homosexuals do group stuff and swapping around and nobody ever complains about that.

The main thing going for having a few wives is that it is sanctioned by evolution. So it's scientific as well as having all the other advantages which I won't list on account of how long it might take me. I know what King Kong would think.

I can see why those who think they might not be able to get a wife if we were allowed to have more than one each but what they are unlikely to realise is that it was the Christian religion which established our monogamy when there was no reason previously to do so, and it's no easy thing to make stick to the extent that other arrangements are rarely ever thought about and, if they are thought about it's automatically.

So that's something most of us can thank the Christian religion for. Or I hope so. But the evolutionary aspect of this whirling pile of space detritus on which we crawl about wasn't taking pity on those men who think they might not be able to get a wife of we were all allowed, in a free market place, to have as many as were willing. Fair play was not a factor. It was because expert scientific study of the available evidence suggested that it worked best in the service of promoting the prosperity of Christendom. The experts had of necessity to be aloof from the practicalities of the choices in order to supply the appropriate level of critical thinking to such a momentous task and one of such ghastly complexity.

Those who favour polygyny, or polyandry, or group espousals, or any combinations of them, freely chosen I mean, may well disagree with the Christian solution to what is, after all is said and done, a very longstanding problem, (pun intended), for scientific, evolutionary reasons. Having interpretated the data in a different way to those standing aloof from it.

There's a proper history lesson for you. All that ephemeral stuff Setanta parades is the scum on the surface. And he has me on Ignore because he's frightened of finding out I'm right.

It is a very interesting subject. And the "proper study of mankind is man", as Alexander Pope told us. He probably nicked it off an old Greek.

And a quick glance at the physiognomy of western Christian man shows pomp and circumstance, cathedral spires and church steeples sticking up all over the place and singing and dancing and symphonic masses being performed by mass choirs of virgins and matrons and home made jam at the Harvest Festival and bells ringing across the countryside to call decent folk to their praying and singing. It's as set fast as a leopard's spots.

Flood Legends

A gigantic flood may be the most common of all legends—ever. Almost every ancient culture has legends telling of a traumatic flood in which only a few humans survived in a large boat (a). This cannot be said for other types of catastrophes, such as earthquakes, fires, volcanic eruptions, disease, famines, or drought. More than 230 flood legends contain many common elements, suggesting they have a common historical source that left a vivid impression on survivors of that catastrophe.

Classical Chinese, dating to about 2500 B.C., is one of the oldest languages known. Its “words,” called pictographs, are often composed of smaller symbols that themselves have meaning and together tell a story. For example, the classical Chinese word for boat, is composed of the symbols for “vessel,” “eight,” and “mouth” or “person.” Why would the ancient Chinese refer to a boat as “eight-person-vessel”? How many people were on the Ark?

a. “It has long been known that legends of a great flood, in which almost all men perished, are widely diffused over the world...” James George Frazer, Folk-Lore in the Old Testament, Vol. 1, (London: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1919), p. 105.

Byron C. Nelson, The Deluge Story in Stone (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, Inc., 1968), pp. 169–190.

“...there are many descriptions of the remarkable event [the Genesis Flood]. Some of these have come from Greek historians, some from the Babylonian records; others from the cuneiform tablets, and still others from the mythology and traditions of different nations, so that we may say that no event has occurred either in ancient or modern times about which there is better evidence or more numerous records, than this very one which is so beautifully but briefly described in the sacred Scriptures. It is one of the events which seems to be familiar to the most distant nations—in Australia, in India, in China, in Scandinavia, and in the various parts of America. It is true that many look upon the story as it is repeated in these distant regions, as either referring to local floods, or as the result of contact with civilized people, who have brought it from historic countries, and yet the similarity of the story is such as to make even this explanation unsatisfactory.” Stephen D. Peet, “The Story of the Deluge,” American Antiquarian, Vol. 27, No. 4, July–August 1905, p. 203.

C. H. Kang and Ethel R. Nelson, The Discovery of Genesis (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1979). This excellent book shows that the classical Chinese pictographs contain many stories and details found in the early chapters of Genesis. The earliest people of China, 4,000–5,000 years ago, brought with them stories of past events that became imbedded in their language.

The Seemingly Impossible Events of a Worldwide Flood Are Credible, If Examined Closely.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
Edit [Moderator]: Link removed

Try science for a change. There are floods every year. Naturally the old days saw legends built up concerning some of the really bad ones. So what?

Seriously Pahu, if you going to try and use science to prove atheists wrong there are two things you should know:
1) Organised religion has pretty much given up on science, claiming their faiths are 'unknowable'. Wise considering the balls up they make every time they intersect with science.
2) Something about science. That stuff you're posting is laughable to anyone with basic high school science.

Reminds me of sitting down to a trial exam at high school and for some reason that escapes me we had to sit through a religious person saying that the Earth couldn't be 4 billion years old because the amount of meteorites that hit it would mean we would all be buried in thirty feet of meteorite dust. I burst out laughing. Sure that makes sense, if there is no erosion for 4 billion years. No wind, no rain, no rivers, no volcanos, no plate tectonics. Of course there would be no us, and I wouldn't have had to sit the exam.

Which brings me back to a point I am loathe to make on behalf of all atheists, because we are not a homogenous group that signs up to some sort of club with a secret handshake, but - if you could provide undeniable (to me) proof of God's existence, I would no longer be an atheist. My world doesn't revolve around my atheism, my atheism is a byproduct of my education, observation, thinking and feeling, none of those things, or my life, hinge on atheism. If I did bump into God on the street I'd say 'Well bugger me, you do exist! I have a few questions for you.'

Anyone see Sam Harris on Colbert last night? When I first heard about his new book I wanted to like him. Then I heard him on a podcast about the mosque and I disagreed with him. Last night he made the point that the god of Abraham (that encompasses Judaism, Christianity and Islam - in case you didn't know that) was pro-slavery, if he can't even get a fundamental wrong like that right why should we listen to any other thing he says without a cautious and critical eye?