baddog1 wrote:Wilso wrote:I'm passionate due to the incredible damage done by religion. But I've expanded on that thought so many times, I've decided not to do so any more.
Like most other issues - it's not "religion" that did the damage - it's people! There are plenty of "bad" atheists, just like there are plenty of "bad" Christians, Jews, etc.!
Well, I'm glad we've cleared that one up.
baddog1 wrote:Wilso wrote:I'm passionate due to the incredible damage done by religion. But I've expanded on that thought so many times, I've decided not to do so any more.
Like most other issues - it's not "religion" that did the damage - it's people! There are plenty of "bad" atheists, just like there are plenty of "bad" Christians, Jews, etc.!
It's religion. It's religion that makes Muslims act the way they do. It's sexual repression, stemming from religion, that causes priests to molest little boys. How many Christians are in prison compared to atheists (relative to the population of both in the US).
baddog1 wrote:Wilso wrote:I'm passionate due to the incredible damage done by religion. But I've expanded on that thought so many times, I've decided not to do so any more.
Like most other issues - it's not "religion" that did the damage - it's people! There are plenty of "bad" atheists, just like there are plenty of "bad" Christians, Jews, etc.!
The damage is done by people who believe without evidence, and even believe that believing without evidence is inherently virtuous. It doesn't matter, in terms of expected damage, whether the stories beling believed are secular or religious. The important point (to me) is that faith, as opposed to skepticism, research, and reason, does a lot of damage. I've never seen people mass-murdered by over-the-top factcheckers.
Thomas wrote:baddog1 wrote:Wilso wrote:I'm passionate due to the incredible damage done by religion. But I've expanded on that thought so many times, I've decided not to do so any more.
Like most other issues - it's not "religion" that did the damage - it's people! There are plenty of "bad" atheists, just like there are plenty of "bad" Christians, Jews, etc.!
The damage is done by people who believe without evidence, and even believe that believing without evidence is inherently virtuous. It doesn't matter, in terms of expected damage, whether the stories beling believed are secular or religious. The important point (to me) is that faith, as opposed to skepticism, research, and reason, does a lot of damage. I've never seen people mass-murdered by over-the-top factcheckers.
Would a communist atheist system such as the Soviet Union or communist China qualify as having a 'skeptical' point of view?
Hmmm. Skepticism, research, and reason, nope, they don't seem like part of a
communist system. The Reds of Russia and the Trekkers of the Mao's Long March were true believers in the same vein as today's Muslim car bombers or the wild eyed Bible beaters of Kansas City or Belfast.
Anytime a group of humans decides that they have obtained some kind of unalterable truth, whether it be that Mohammed wrote a perfect book or Karl Marx, whether Christ saved us all through grace or water-baptism or we have to get there by our own works, whatever that truth is, the rest of mankind always ends up having to deal with it's adherents as they try to get all of us to adjust reality to suit their new view of things.
If the adherents gain real power, there are always awful consequences for those out of power, (See Po Pot, see Stalin, see Mao, or ask the burning witches of Salem, or the Jews of the mid-1400's Spain, or the Royal Family of France in the late eighteen or the Jews of mid-Twentieth Century Poland or Germany, or the Africans of present day Darfur.)
Thus, whenever I hear some pronouncement from that this group or that bunch has it's grip on a set of revelations, I reach to make sure I know where my wallet is and I back away until those revelations are found to be as mushy as all the other inalterable truths of the past.
Joe(Oh yeah, and see George W. Bush too)Nation
Joe Nation wrote:Hmmm. Skepticism, research, and reason, nope, they don't seem like part of a
communist system. The Reds of Russia and the Trekkers of the Mao's Long March were true believers in the same vein as today's Muslim car bombers or the wild eyed Bible beaters of Kansas City or Belfast.
Anytime a group of humans decides that they have obtained some kind of unalterable truth, whether it be that Mohammed wrote a perfect book or Karl Marx, whether Christ saved us all through grace or water-baptism or we have to get there by our own works, whatever that truth is, the rest of mankind always ends up having to deal with it's adherents as they try to get all of us to adjust reality to suit their new view of things.
If the adherents gain real power, there are always awful consequences for those out of power, (See Po Pot, see Stalin, see Mao, or ask the burning witches of Salem, or the Jews of the mid-1400's Spain, or the Royal Family of France in the late eighteen or the Jews of mid-Twentieth Century Poland or Germany, or the Africans of present day Darfur.)
Thus, whenever I hear some pronouncement from that this group or that bunch has it's grip on a set of revelations, I reach to make sure I know where my wallet is and I back away until those revelations are found to be as mushy as all the other inalterable truths of the past.
Joe(Oh yeah, and see George W. Bush too)Nation
I see. It's only if people believe nothing that we're safe.
I've read quite a few of your posts.
Are you saying that your posts did not accurately represent what you believe; but that in fact, all of what you wrote you certainly DO NOT believe (including that which is just quoted above)?
And if it is a fact that you do not believe what you wrote, then do you STILL not believe it is a fact (just to keep us all safe)?
real(believe it or not)life
Damn, rl, you are fond of straw. Why must you persistently resort to the dishonest practice of misconstruing that which others have said in such manner as to falsely imply some validation or other for some indefensible component of the absurdity which is forwarded by your posts? One is called to wonder whether you're just baiting folks, or are you in fact incapable of reasoned, substantive dialogue?
timberlandko wrote:Damn, rl, you are fond of straw. Why must you persistently resort to the dishonest practice of misconstruing that which others have said in such manner as to falsely imply some validation or other for some indefensible component of the absurdity which is forwarded by your posts? One is called to wonder whether you're just baiting folks, or are you in fact incapable of reasoned, substantive dialogue?
Rarely have so many words been sent so far to say so little.
If you're afraid that he'll try to defend his absurdity, why don't you just say so?
Methane production from added substrate per se was approximately twofold greater from delignified straw than that from untreated straw when fermented with cattle manure.
real life wrote:timberlandko wrote:Damn, rl, you are fond of straw. Why must you persistently resort to the dishonest practice of misconstruing that which others have said in such manner as to falsely imply some validation or other for some indefensible component of the absurdity which is forwarded by your posts? One is called to wonder whether you're just baiting folks, or are you in fact incapable of reasoned, substantive dialogue?
Rarely have so many words been sent so far to say so little.
If you're afraid that he'll try to defend his absurdity, why don't you just say so?
His post was not absurd. Your post was.
Now THERE'S a substantive reply. Nice job, McTag. How long did it take for you to think that one up?
Do you care to defend Joe's contention that the atheists of the Soviet Union and communist China do not belong to the category of 'skeptics' that he seems to feel are the epitome of reason?
Why would an atheist not be a 'skeptic'?
Is it just because the Soviets and Chinese have taken atheism to it's logical conclusion in building their societies, and you're uncomfortable with the results?
real life wrote:Now THERE'S a substantive reply. Nice job, McTag. How long did it take for you to think that one up?
Do you care to defend Joe's contention that the atheists of the Soviet Union and communist China do not belong to the category of 'skeptics' that he seems to feel are the epitome of reason?
Why would an atheist not be a 'skeptic'?
Is it just because the Soviets and Chinese have taken atheism to it's logical conclusion in building their societies, and you're uncomfortable with the results?
You said Joe Nations's post was absurd. It was not.
Your following post, however, was.
My contribution to this debate is that you look up in a good dictionary the definitions of atheist, agnostic and skeptic.
real life wrote:Is it just because the Soviets and Chinese have taken atheism to it's logical conclusion in building their societies, and you're uncomfortable with the results?
In what way are those societies the "logical conclusion" of atheism? Is it because regulating the beliefs of an entire population is inherent in the definition of atheism? Or because the cessation of private ownership is encoded in atheism? Or some other reason?
It's because he hasn't got any valid arguments. This is just the latest trash he's fallen onto to prop up his worthless ideology. Maybe he doesn't have the time at the moment to go through fundamentalist books and then post the ideas as his own.
He also likes to ignore the actions of good christians such as George W Bush who among other things has passed laws making it legal for the US to have secret prisons, to use torture, to imprison people without charge or trial etc etc . I guess we can surmise that the logical conclusion of a christian society is complete removal of personal rights.
Aw, don't be so hard on RealLife (was there ever a more ironic screen name?). For folks like RL, as my grandmother would have said, it's either whole hog or starve to death and that's a fragile way of living.
Imagine that for whatever reason you have taken to some idea, big or small, that JOHN C. SULLIVAN's Elixir of Life is a cure-all, that wearing a red string on your wrist makes you holy, that the only way to salvation is ___________________ (fill in the blank).
You've got an inalterable, unmovable, rocksolid chunk of truth and, now comes the hard part, you try to hold on to it as reality intrudes.
Those rock-solid chunks of truth, Allah is the only God, Christ is the Way, Nextel is the best cellphone provider, the Jews are G-d's Chosen, the Blue Orb seen in mediation is the Eye of God, four prunes a day will make you regular, The Book -_________________- is the Word of God set out for mankind (fill in the blank), all of them are slippery things and, despite their thickish appearance, are delicately held together by flights of fancy and fantasy. One crack in the exterior, one loose thread and your inalterable truth could end up in the big bin of myths.
That's hard to take. One is constantly on edge, on guard against anything that might disturb the Truth, which is kind of odd, one would think that true believers would be the most relaxed folks in the world, having the truth and all, but they are not relaxed. Their truth brings them, not confidence, but anxiety.
Joe( I'd be anxious too if I had to swallow the whole hog or have nothing.)Nation
The True Believers' Full-Dress Hog:
real life wrote:Thomas wrote:baddog1 wrote:Wilso wrote:I'm passionate due to the incredible damage done by religion. But I've expanded on that thought so many times, I've decided not to do so any more.
Like most other issues - it's not "religion" that did the damage - it's people! There are plenty of "bad" atheists, just like there are plenty of "bad" Christians, Jews, etc.!
The damage is done by people who believe without evidence, and even believe that believing without evidence is inherently virtuous. It doesn't matter, in terms of expected damage, whether the stories beling believed are secular or religious. The important point (to me) is that faith, as opposed to skepticism, research, and reason, does a lot of damage. I've never seen people mass-murdered by over-the-top factcheckers.
Would a communist atheist system such as the Soviet Union or communist China qualify as having a 'skeptical' point of view?
The member "real life" loves to trot this one out. His question assumes that those who are communists are axiomatically atheists, and that therefore any enormities committed in the name of marxism or communism can be laid at the door of atheists. Muslim extremists who murder in the name of religion do so because of their adherence to a belief set. Christian extremists who commit murder in the name of religion do so because of their adherence to a belief set.
Communists who murder do so in the name of communism, which is their religious belief set--they don't murder because they are proselytizing atheists who are murdering unbelievers. Atheism is the lack of a belief.
You continually, willfully conflate the religious adherence to communism with atheism. It is a false position on your part, and a dogmatic one intended to "prove" that the "unbeliever" is just as bad as the believer. You are not addressing what it is that makes a communist a religious person--which is the belief in communism with the same fervor as the religious adherent holds his or her beliefs.
Atheism and communism, as implemented by the Soviet Union, communist China and most other communist regimes, are inseparable companions.
It is undeniable that atheism has been and is a core belief and the official policy of nearly every nation that has been long ruled by a communist regime.
The standard dictionary definition of atheism is not simply 'a lack of belief'.
That is a 'special' definition that some members like to use, but most folks using the word use a standard definition, such as:
from
http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/atheist
Quote:atheist
One entry found for atheist.
Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity[/u]
- athe·is·tic /"A-thE-'is-tik/ or athe·is·ti·cal /"A-thE-'is-ti-k&l/ adjective
- athe·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb
from
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist
Quote:One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.[/u]
(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
from
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=atheist
Quote:WordNet Search - 2.1 - WordNet home page - Glossary - Help
Word to search for:
Display Options: (Select option to change) Hide Example Sentences Hide Glosses Show Frequency Counts Show Database Locations Show Lexical File Info Show Lexical File Numbers Show Sense Keys Show Sense Numbers
Key: "S:" = Show Synset (semantic) relations, "W:" = Show Word (lexical) relations
Noun
S: (n) atheist (someone who denies the existence of god) [/u]
