I Don't Believe In Atheists

[recovering conservative]

xyz;1340622 wrote: Accusing people of violence without good reason is a criminal offense.

You may not have heard the last of this.
What kind of idiot are you? Did you read my comment? Or are you just incapable of understanding English?

[gmc]

recovering conservative;1340714 wrote: What kind of idiot are you? Did you read my comment? Or are you just incapable of understanding English?


I wouldn't worry about it, he has made a couple of feeble attempts to get rise out of people on other threads - including my good self. I suspect he is a practising idiot, a worshipper of the great irritating wally in the sky, he may even be a member of the society of idiots working undercover looking for others to indulge in their particular brand of inane banter. It's a lonely sect that tend not to congregate in large numbers for long as it takes only a short while before they all fall out over who is the biggest idiot. Either that or he knows little of church history and doesn't understand english very well.

[koan]

recovering conservative;1340714 wrote: What kind of idiot are you? Did you read my comment? Or are you just incapable of understanding English?


I share your pain. :wah:

Don't worry if the feds get a letter reporting you it won't take them long to toss it as a prank.

[Ahso!]

I think hes a former member of the Bush administration. This is what I believe it may have sounded like in the White House for eight years under Bush.

[recovering conservative]

I wouldn't worry about it, he has made a couple of feeble attempts to get rise out of people on other threads - including my good self. I suspect he is a practising idiot, a worshipper of the great irritating wally in the sky, he may even be a member of the society of idiots working undercover looking for others to indulge in their particular brand of inane banter. It's a lonely sect that tend not to congregate in large numbers for long as it takes only a short while before they all fall out over who is the biggest idiot. Either that or he knows little of church history and doesn't understand english very well.


I share your pain.

Don't worry if the feds get a letter reporting you it won't take them long to toss it as a prank.


I think hes a former member of the Bush administration. This is what I believe it may have sounded like in the White House for eight years under Bush.


Thanks everyone for your support! I was starting to wonder what was going on today on these boards. Previously, I was ignoring xyz's comments, because I suspected him of being an insincere troll. I definitely won't be responding to anything he posts in the future.

[koan]

Reasons to believe that Dawkins is the head of an organized Atheist movement:

His website RDF (Richard Dawkins Foundation) has a Converts Corner with letters attesting to the benefit of their conversion to atheism, a mission statement that clearly states the goal of ridding the world of theism, and he collects donations from his followers.

His mission statement is the statement for both of his charities... so this is what he collects money from followers to do:

Mission Statement for Both Charities

The mission of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science is to support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and human suffering.


Clearly he is organizing a group to engage in religious activity, whether that activity is religious or anti-religious, it is certainly organized, calls for people to band together and donate to his foundation for the sole purpose of spreading a message.

[gmc]

koan;1344184 wrote: Reasons to believe that Dawkins is the head of an organized Atheist movement:

His website RDF (Richard Dawkins Foundation) has a Converts Corner with letters attesting to the benefit of their conversion to atheism, a mission statement that clearly states the goal of ridding the world of theism, and he collects donations from his followers.

His mission statement is the statement for both of his charities... so this is what he collects money from followers to do:



Clearly he is organizing a group to engage in religious activity, whether that activity is religious or anti-religious, it is certainly organized, calls for people to band together and donate to his foundation for the sole purpose of spreading a message.


Good grief I had no idea. If you want to believe in a world wide movement to put an end to religion you go right ahead. Mind you if I was american I might be more worried about this.

From John Doe:

The Ugly - Page 1 - RichardDawkins.net

Dawkins, you and your atheist friends cannot win. America WILL become a Christian Republic even if we have to write a whole new constitution. Millions of us are dedicated to this righteous cause. We will suceed. And then we will invade godless countries like "Great" Britain and kill all of your heathens. First we need to take care of things at home and in the Middle East but we will get around to Europe. You Godless freaks will die but then you will roast in hell for infinite time. Goodbye you loser.


Looks like you are going to be saved whether you want to be or not. I always thought margaret attwoods book the handmaids tale a bit far fetched, may it was more prescient than I thought. Stay in Canada Koan you will be safer.

Atheism isn't a religion but clearly some people are feeling threatened by the rise in religious fundamentalism especially in the states. Makes interesting reading, thanks for the suggestion.

[koan]

The Church of the Non-Believers

Great article, written by an agnostic, explaining, imo, the silliness of the New Atheists.

This is the challenge posed by the New Atheists. We are called upon, we lax agnostics, we noncommittal nonbelievers, we vague deists who would be embarrassed to defend antique absurdities like the Virgin Birth or the notion that Mary rose into heaven without dying, or any other blatant myth; we are called out, we fence-sitters, and told to help exorcise this debilitating curse: the curse of faith.

The New Atheists will not let us off the hook simply because we are not doctrinaire believers. They condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God. Religion is not only wrong; it's evil. Now that the battle has been joined, there's no excuse for shirking.

Three writers have sounded this call to arms. They are Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett. A few months ago, I set out to talk with them. I wanted to find out what it would mean to enlist in the war against faith.

[gmc]

koan;1344192 wrote: The Church of the Non-Believers

Great article, written by an agnostic, explaining, imo, the silliness of the New Atheists.


Nor nearly as silly as the fundamentalists

YouTube - Interview to Chris Hedges 1

Don't know how much you know about the rise of fascism in italy and germany but he does make some good points.

[littleCJelkton]

koan;1340708 wrote: Quoi?

are you saying RC has committed a crime?


Yes! I believe I saw RC spit Chewing Gum on the ground that is in clear violation of Yaaarrrgg's Orthodoxy of the One true shoe god.

[littleCJelkton]

Note: I have just heard that an up coming scientist Dr. Shoals denounces the One true shoe god and believes people should be able to be aloud to choose from many options about their personal foot comfort.

[koan]

Oops, Dawkins lost a bit of ground here.

Why I no longer believe religion is a virus of the mind

Susan Blackmore is wavering, wavering... and... she thinks religion is good for us after all. But she still believes in memes too so I'm not sure we should take her all too seriously. She does seem able to laugh at herself though so, bonus points.

[gmc]

koan;1344250 wrote: Oops, Dawkins lost a bit of ground here.

Why I no longer believe religion is a virus of the mind

Susan Blackmore is wavering, wavering... and... she thinks religion is good for us after all. But she still believes in memes too so I'm not sure we should take her all too seriously. She does seem able to laugh at herself though so, bonus points.


This was all in my mind when Michael Blume got up to speak on "The reproductive advantage of religion". With graph after convincing graph he showed that all over the world and in many different ages, religious people have had far more children than nonreligious people.


That probably says a lot about the staus of women and relative economic freedom women have in religious families or societies. Also the relative chances a child has of survibing in modern western societes against the chances in a thiord world country. When allowed to choose or not under social pressure and where the survival rates of childbirth are greater the trend is for women to have fewer children.

[recovering conservative]

littleCJelkton;1344248 wrote: Note: I have just heard that an up coming scientist Dr. Shoals denounces the One true shoe god and believes people should be able to be aloud to choose from many options about their personal foot comfort.


I reject the One True Shoe God, and his angels, which includes Dr. Scholls; who have conjured up feel-good footwear that takes the natural feedback we receive from the ground, only to plague the human race with joint problems that go from the foot to eventually do damage right up the spinal column. Casting off these false foot gods allows us to run and walk naturally. As I mentioned in the thread: http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/fitne ... efoot.html it's best to free ourselves entirely of these false gods, and go barefoot; and where that's not practical, wear a less intrusive minimal footwear god that doesn't interfere as much with our natural senses.

[koan]

Of course, as Dawkins has said, "if you don't agree, you can **** off."

[recovering conservative]

gmc;1344251 wrote: That probably says a lot about the staus of women and relative economic freedom women have in religious families or societies. Also the relative chances a child has of survibing in modern western societes against the chances in a thiord world country. When allowed to choose or not under social pressure and where the survival rates of childbirth are greater the trend is for women to have fewer children.


I wouldn't sweat that one too much about religious families having more children than non-religious families, since most atheists/agnostics come from religious families. Many have similar backgrounds as myself, where being steeped in exclusivist fundamentalist religion, made us more motivated to explore and investigate the claims of our churches....and wind up rejecting them all. If I grew up in an average nominally religious family, I would probably not have been so motivated to spend so much time exploring religion, science and philosophy, looking for answers.

The only way the zealots can maintain their iron grip on their children's minds, is to keep them shielded from other opposing views. That's why they want home-schooling (unregulated private schooling), and are now building more and more of these "Christian" colleges that are designed specifically to keep home-schooled children from facing contrary evidence and people with different opinions. Many fundamentalists have railed for years against universities -- and there's a good reason for it -- that's where a lot of fundamentalist children go in, and come out as atheists or decide they want to explore other religions.

I dont believe that all religion is harmful (I posted that story about Susan Blackmore previously btw), as long as religion and religious beliefs are open to be challenged. If the children of fundamentalists go to public schools, and later go on to real universities, the odds are that the kids who are prone to be religious, will find their way back to religion, and the ones who are skeptics will stay away.

[gmc]

posted by recovering conservative

The only way the zealots can maintain their iron grip on their children's minds, is to keep them shielded from other opposing views. That's why they want home-schooling (unregulated private schooling), and are now building more and more of these "Christian" colleges that are designed specifically to keep home-schooled children from facing contrary evidence and people with different opinions. Many fundamentalists have railed for years against universities -- and there's a good reason for it -- that's where a lot of fundamentalist children go in, and come out as atheists or decide they want to explore other religions.


It's more a US problem I think. school attendance is compulsory in the UK but we now are having more faith based schools allowed in england thanks to tony blair. They're incredibly divisive but if you ban them then you have a problem of being discriminatory, although I think in the UK most people would like to see the back of them. I don't see what's discriminatory about keeping religion out if the classroom, teach science and if someone prefers to believe myths at least they can do so from a more knowledgeable standpoint. It's bad enough catholic /protestant but muslim now as well allows parents to keep a grip on their children that's not necessarily to their good. I think it's reasonable we should try and stop religious bigotry but the main cause of it we do nothing about. If they financed themselves it would be so bad but these are state schools we are talking about.

I dont believe that all religion is harmful (I posted that story about Susan Blackmore previously btw), as long as religion and religious beliefs are open to be challenged. If the children of fundamentalists go to public schools, and later go on to real universities, the odds are that the kids who are prone to be religious, will find their way back to religion, and the ones who are skeptics will stay away.


Neither do I but the best way to combat religious bigotry is education, the one thing bigots try and control the most.

posted by recovering conservative

I wouldn't sweat that one too much about religious families having more children than non-religious families, since most atheists/agnostics come from religious families. Many have similar backgrounds as myself, where being steeped in exclusivist fundamentalist religion, made us more motivated to explore and investigate the claims of our churches....and wind up rejecting them all. If I grew up in an average nominally religious family, I would probably not have been so motivated to spend so much time exploring religion, science and philosophy, looking for answers.


Good point actually. I always remember getting in to trouble in sunday school - we were reading the story of job and when asked what we thought it meant I said it meant god was a rotten swine for treating one of his followers like that, the minister got wheeled in to deal with the cheeky wee boy that was arguing with the sunday school teacher. He thought it was quite funny actually and was the one that got me interested in bible history because he sat down and talked about it to no avail, but I've been a sceptic ever since and never joined any church.

When you read the bible and read about the history of it and how it was compiled I can't for the life of me understand anyone that thinks it's the unchanged word of god with him guiding each translator. It's interesting in it's own right but some people seem to forget the jews weren't the only people on the planet.

[koan]

According to gallup polls, one third of American Christians believe the bible is literally true. That means two thirds do not. That one third may also believe that a woman with a lot of children lived in a shoe once, because the story was intriguingly well told to them as children. Nevertheless, about two thirds do not believe in an inerrant bible though they may believe the shoe story.

We don't know which of the Christian groups is breeding faster but the percentages haven't changed for some time.

[koan]

I'd place the percentage of dim witted people much higher than one third of the population, so Christians aren't doing all that bad.

[littleCJelkton]

recovering conservative;1344256 wrote: I reject the One True Shoe God, and his angels, which includes Dr. Scholls; who have conjured up feel-good footwear that takes the natural feedback we receive from the ground, only to plague the human race with joint problems that go from the foot to eventually do damage right up the spinal column. Casting off these false foot gods allows us to run and walk naturally. As I mentioned in the thread: http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/fitne ... efoot.html it's best to free ourselves entirely of these false gods, and go barefoot; and where that's not practical, wear a less intrusive minimal footwear god that doesn't interfere as much with our natural senses.


I agree we should all be Hobbits.

[gmc]

koan;1344267 wrote: According to gallup polls, one third of American Christians believe the bible is literally true. That means two thirds do not. That one third may also believe that a woman with a lot of children lived in a shoe once, because the story was intriguingly well told to them as children. Nevertheless, about two thirds do not believe in an inerrant bible though they may believe the shoe story.

We don't know which of the Christian groups is breeding faster but the percentages haven't changed for some time.


So why is the teaching of evolution in schools such a contentious issue in the states?

http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/posts ... _snookiism

[koan]

I'm not American but I suspect it has to do with certain number of people having lots of money and political power. I was taught evolution and, so far as I know, all Canadian public schools teach evolution.

[Ahso!]

gmc;1344294 wrote: So why is the teaching of evolution in schools such a contentious issue in the states?

When ignorance becomes a movement: The rise of Snookiism - By David Rothkopf | David RothkopfBecause for some crazy reason, quite a number of influential religious individuals and organizations decided evolution is an attack on their god and religion, so they created political ways to hold the educational system in this country hostage. When I was in school, we were taught science and not evolution per se, in fact I don't really recall hearing the word, though I admit I didn't really pay attention all that much. Though as I look back on what I do recall, the science we were taught was a testament to evolution.

[koan]

I finally finished God Delusion by Dawkins. He almost convinced me that wearing a burka is cool.

I find his arguments very circular. Good examples of "begs the question" and a lot of evidence that he lacks real creative imagination. He seems to need to place things in a black or white mentality to deal with thought process.

[recovering conservative]

littleCJelkton;1344280 wrote: I agree we should all be Hobbits.


We were! Before modern shoes with big heels were invented; and then after high tech running shoes were invented 30 years ago, everyone starts getting injuries, and having to quit running in their 40's.

Actually, that's why I thought of a different analogy from your shoe god example. The studies I read about why thickly padded running shoes add to our biomechanical problems, all point to the fact that our feet have lots of nerve endings that require feedback from the surfaces we're walking or running on. The shoes act like a blindfold -- ruining our capacity to get the necessary feedback to run or walk properly. So, all of the "shoe gods" create an illusion of softness by cushioning the impact, and distributing force more slowly. But that force from hitting the ground heel first, still radiates up the body and damages the joints. If that "false god" wasn't blinding our senses to what's really happening, we would react properly to the information the real world is trying to get through to us.

[gmc]

koan;1344378 wrote: I finally finished God Delusion by Dawkins. He almost convinced me that wearing a burka is cool.

I find his arguments very circular. Good examples of "begs the question" and a lot of evidence that he lacks real creative imagination. He seems to need to place things in a black or white mentality to deal with thought process.


When I looked at it I decided it wasn't telling me anything about religion I hadn't already worked out. he wants to be able to explain why people are religious and proposed a theory as to what might be an explanation. We know chemical imbalances can affect our sanity and thought processes but so does our environment. Religious faith can make people insane so do other things. If you hear voices in some circumstances you are hallucinating in others you are hearing god. You come up with an rational explanation if you can.

He is not a high priest explaining things to his flock you don't have to agree with him or even take what he says seriously if you don't want to. Make up your own mind.

I always suspect that one of the reasons the religious have so much trouble with freethinkers is that they can't conceive being able to decide for yourself about these kind of things and being content with that and certain in your own mind and not needing faith and all that goes with it. It freaks them out - a bit like as if they were in a secure castle and the outside world was a terrifying dangerous place. Every now and then they sally out to try and get the peasants to join them convinced they should for their own safety and unable to understanding the peasants just want to be free and aren't interested in taking the castle from them. Course you don't have to take that notion seriously either.

Hedges might have a point about some of the more outspoken pundits - you could also say the same about political extremists - but they represent themselves and to think they speak for everybody is a silly notion imo. You can waste an awful lot of time trying to decide who is right and which one you should agree with. Do your own thing.

[recovering conservative]

gmc;1344266 wrote: posted by recovering conservative

It's more a US problem I think. school attendance is compulsory in the UK but we now are having more faith based schools allowed in england thanks to tony blair. They're incredibly divisive but if you ban them then you have a problem of being discriminatory, although I think in the UK most people would like to see the back of them.
In Canada, homeschooling is allowed, but it is much more tightly regulated than in the U.S.. Parents must have a high school diploma or equivalent; they are only permitted to teach their own children, and children they have legal guardianship of; and whatever religious indoctrination they choose, it also must meet the provincial standards for curriculum for what the child's grade level would be. In the U.S., homeschooling associations have become fronts for what are in reality unlicensed private schools. Most states allow the parents to pick and choose from the state curriculums -- so if the parents don't want to teach their children about evolution, they can avoid the subject entirely. And, only ten states set education requirements for parents who want to homeschool. They could be grade 8 dropouts and still be allowed to homeschool their children!

I would say Canada is already bending too far to appease religious minorities that want their own schools; but Americans have totally lost their minds with the way they've allowed their public education systems to crumble and be replaced by a bunch of homeschooling associations. Besides the things that kids study in school, the most important thing they learn is to deal with people that are different than they are -- and that's what's really toxic about private schooling -- instead of a melting pot, they will end up with a balkanized nation of warring ethnic and religious groups.

I don't see what's discriminatory about keeping religion out if the classroom, teach science and if someone prefers to believe myths at least they can do so from a more knowledgeable standpoint. It's bad enough catholic /protestant but muslim now as well allows parents to keep a grip on their children that's not necessarily to their good. I think it's reasonable we should try and stop religious bigotry but the main cause of it we do nothing about. If they financed themselves it would be so bad but these are state schools we are talking about.


Some form of religion classes might be an opportunity for children to learn a little about other religions. I think that would be better than just pretending there's no such thing as religion.

Neither do I but the best way to combat religious bigotry is education, the one thing bigots try and control the most.
And that's why fundamentalists don't like public education. The only sure way to be certain that all of the children believe it and teach their children the same religion, is if they have complete control of their education.

[recovering conservative]

gmc;1344401 wrote:

He is not a high priest explaining things to his flock you don't have to agree with him or even take what he says seriously if you don't want to. Make up your own mind.
Yeah, everything that's needed to be said, has already been said about Richard Dawkins. If any theists are really serious about objectively scrutinizing their belief in a creator, they can find lots of resources on the web to put their hopes to the test. It's totally disingenuous to pretend that this sort of issue all rides on what Dawkins has to say about it!