Sociologist Gregory Paul and Pitzer College sociology professor Phil Zuckerman pose this question in the April 29 Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-do-americans-still-dislike-atheists/2011/02/18/AFqgnwGF_story.html). They point out that while America has gotten over its disrespect for Afro-Americans and Jews and is even becoming more civil to homosexuals, our people still don't like atheists very much. We're considered immoral, wicked and angry; we can't join the Boy Scouts; in the military we are rated as potentially deficient in our psychological evaluations; despite the constitutional ban on religious tests for public office, most Americans are reluctant to vote for a non-believer--much less marry one.

This discrimination is rarely mentioned by the mainstream media. Christian conservatives loudly proclaim that our lack of belief in an invisible, illogical supernatural universe whose denizens capriciously and often cruelly interfere with the behavior of the natural universe is detrimental to society, in effect declaring us second-class citizens.

Yet social research reveals that not only is this knee-jerk antipathy toward atheists unwarranted, but that we could be role models for the rest of you. According to sources that are cited in the article:On basic questions of morality and human decency--issues such as governmental use of torture, the death penalty, punitive hitting of children, racism, sexism, homophobia, antisemitism, environmental degradation or human rights--the irreligious tend to be more ethical than their religious peers, particularly compared with those who describe themselves as very religious. At the societal level, murder rates are far lower in secularized nations such as Japan or Sweden than they are in the much more religious United States, which also has a much greater portion of its population in prison. Even within this country, states with the highest levels of church attendance, such as Louisiana and Mississippi, have significantly higher murder rates than far less religious states such as Vermont and Oregon. As individuals, atheists tend to score high on measures of intelligence, especially verbal ability and scientific literacy. We tend to raise our children to solve problems rationally, to make up their own minds when it comes to existential questions and to obey the golden rule. We are more likely to practice safe sex than the strongly religious are, and are less likely to be nationalistic or ethnocentric. We place greater value on freedom of thought. While we appear to not fare as well as the religious when it comes to certain indicators of mental health or subjective well-being, new scholarship suggests that this correlation is more complex. For example, Denmark, one of the least religious countries in the history of the world, consistently rates as the happiest of nations. Apostates report feeling happier, better and liberated in their post-religious lives. Some studies suggest that suicide rates are higher among the non-religious. But surveys can be misleading because they count the undecided agnostics as non-religious fence-sitters, whereas true atheists tend to do about as well as believers. On numerous respected measures of societal success—rates of poverty, teenage pregnancy, abortion, STDs, obesity, drug use and crime, as well as economics, high levels of secularity are consistently correlated with positive outcomes in First World nations. None of the secular advanced democracies suffers from the combined social ills seen here in Christian America.Despite this bigotry, the number of American non-theists has tripled as a proportion of the general population since the 1960s. Yhe younger generations have less tolerance for the endless disputes of religion than their elders.

American atheists have the same reluctance to be candid with pollsters as gay Americans do, but surveys designed to overcome this have estimated that as many as sixty million Americans, one-fifth of the population, are not believers.

Acording to the last Australian census the biggest group in Australia are jedis: p

You are thinking aren't you . Where do you get this shit ? I wonder ? I think everyone should love at least one Atheist, or minimum have one for a friend . Socialize more and your group can get more notoriety . Its all about marketing Fraggle. You have to be a better marketer than the Jesus Business . That is pretty tough go, for people have a preconceived Idea that Jesus is a super star. It has been the major embed in language it self for 1700 years or so . 2000 if you count from when the little redheaded step son of Joseph started devising his plan to alter perception of a cruel world . Red headed step children will do that . Red Heads are evil if you haven't heard

It's true that ages 35+ tend to dislike atheists, however, the younger generation 20-25, (from my experience) they tend to hate theists. 10s of millions of Americans are now atheists, or at best agnostic. What THEY do in the future will be very interesting.

Related material here, in my thread:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2754055&postcount=585

What this really means is, Americans don't trust people who question God's role in the existence of the American Republic.

God is none other than the Biblical God who led the Hebrews out of enslavement to the Egyptian Pharoah, and by extension the Americans out of enslavement to King George.

I have this on good authority, btw. My source is impeccable.

Yet social research reveals that not only is this knee-jerk antipathy toward atheists unwarranted, but that we could be role models for the rest of you. According to sources that are cited in the article:

What are the sources? And what is the criteria by which they assess the qualities which qualify these atheists as role models?

I am not American but personally speaking I have found that like everyone else atheists too can be hypocritical, lie, lack integrity and demonstrate abuse of power for personal gain or due to vindictiveness.

I was under the impression that Atheism is accepted by the the Americans since there are already many open atheists there. Including the fact that they actually openly bash other religions such as the Roman Catholic Church?

What is the source of an American's rights? The rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence? The rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights?

The argument goes as follows. These rights are "god given." Or, they are natural rights. They are the rights of man (human). As soon as you deny that they are divine rights, you are on a "slippery slope." In many other cultures, they have decided that rights are granted by the King, or the government, or ruling bodies. We in America deny this notion, and we always will. End of argument. Because if you accede to this notion, then the government gets to determine what your rights are, yes?

NO

To Americans, no one, no matter how uneducated, how low of birth, how poor, how destitute, nobody is going to be used and abused in a game of political power for means to justify the ends. All life has value. Every soul has a purpose and intrinsic worth. In an atheistic political world view, this is not necessarily so. Sometimes the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the one. Unfortunately, with our fascist controlled press manipulating the simple minds of the poor masses, the wretched sods have forgotten this principle and WHY we were founded on this principle. More and more they have unwittingly surrendered their freedoms for "security."

I don't see why this is so hard to understand. If you don't like it. . . move to Europe, Russia, or China.

We're considered immoral, wicked and angry; we can't join the Boy Scouts; in the military we are rated as potentially deficient in our psychological evaluations; despite the constitutional ban on religious tests for public office, most Americans are reluctant to vote for a non-believer--much less marry one.

This discrimination is rarely mentioned by the mainstream media. Christian conservatives loudly proclaim that our lack of belief in an invisible, illogical supernatural universe whose denizens capriciously and often cruelly interfere with the behavior of the natural universe is detrimental to society, in effect declaring us second-class citizens.


‘Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

‘Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.

‘Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.

‘Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.

‘Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy.

‘Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

‘Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

‘Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

‘Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Yet social research reveals that not only is this knee-jerk antipathy toward atheists unwarranted, but that we could be role models for the rest of you.

They say one becomes that which one fights against.

Vocal atheists are just as bigoted, proud, obnoxious and violent as the theists they fight against.


Pride goeth before the fall!

Pride goeth before the fall!
Um, pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty manner before a fall.

Uh. Let's not nitpick.

Hmm...I'm just thinking that some of that may be a partial spurious correlation...I'd suspect the biggest influence on crime rates is poverty and the biggest influence on nonbelief would be level of education...

Hmm...so if you're an atheist you're more likely to be smarter, better off and well-educated (Though the ones I know IRL are less-well-off than me, although still very smart, but overall...) and poverty induces stress.

Religious activities are one way of dealing with stress. ( So is crack.:p)

So atheism is just more likely to come with good cofactors-high intelligence, better income, better education, IMO.

I reject the idea that human rights are given by Jehovah.That God's a psychopathic ass. You might as well say human rights are given by Zeus the serial rapist...

At least pick a decent deity like Maat!

I think our rights are our rights because we all agree they should be, not because some random deity made it so.

Nor can you expect to wield supreme executive power because a watery tart threw a sword at you
http://bestuff.com/images/images_of_stuff/210x600/well-but-you-cant-expect-to-wield-supreme-executive-power-just-cause-some-watery-tart-threw-a-sword-at-you-160587.jpg?1221870444

Where do you get this shit?I read the Washington Post every day. I get it on my Kindle.
Its all about marketing Fraggle. You have to be a better marketer than the Jesus Business.We have the same problem as the Jews: We don't evangelize.
God is none other than the Biblical God who led the Hebrews out of enslavement to the Egyptian Pharaoh . . . .Amusingly enough, archeologists are beginning to cast doubt upon that whole fairytale about slavery in Egypt. It appears that the Jews may simply have been that era's Gastarbeiter or braceros. Came to do the work, were paid, and went home when it was done.

Considering that the entire Abrahamic canon is based upon the "exile" in Egypt and the "Covenant" that God made with the Jews (he promised to free them from bondage and in gratitude they promised to found Judaism as an evangelical religion and convert all of humanity to it, and guess who didn't hold up their side of the bargain), the falsification of that key part of the Abrahamists' fairytale will create quite a shock wave.
. . . . and by extension the Americans out of enslavement to King George.Yes, it's often stated that the reason Americans have been so kind to the Jews (until we came along the best deal they'd ever gotten was genuine, legally-enforced second-class citizenship under the Ottomans) is that we see ourselves in them.
What are the sources?I gave you the URL to the original article. The online version is full of hyperlinks, which is the whole point of online journalism.
And what is the criteria by which they assess the qualities which qualify these atheists as role models?You shouldn't have any trouble tracking the links, after all these guys are professional scholars. I wasn't about to do an hour of data entry and create another post that gets me accused of writing "novels" on SciForums, for the benefit of the one or two people who care and can find the source material just as easily as I can.
I am not American but personally speaking I have found that like everyone else atheists too can be hypocritical, lie, lack integrity and demonstrate abuse of power for personal gain or due to vindictiveness.And those characteristics were not factored into the assessment precisely because there is no significant difference between the two populations by those measures. Duh?

You shouldn't have any trouble tracking the links, after all these guys are professional scholars.

Yes I know. Which is why I asked - we've already debated these tests here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=88726) before. Do these scholars also believe in similar scholastic tests which indicate that black people are dumber than white? Because they are similar tests based on similar principles - what I call bad science.

We've had atheists in government since our first elected Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru in 1947. Atheists in India are freely accepted, no one cares what the religious beliefs of people are. Has it made any difference to the caste system, to education, poverty, population, corruption, indices of social welfare, etc? Not that one could ascribe to anyone's religious allegiances.

I think the whole reason Americans don't like atheists is the same as why Americans don't like theists - intolerance. Its got nothing to do with anyone being better or worse than anyone else.

I think the whole reason Americans don't like atheists is the same as why Americans don't like theists

:bugeye::confused: Whaaa?

Would you mind elaborating on that?

:bugeye::confused: Whaaa?

Would you mind elaborating on that?

Its American theists vs American atheists. Do American atheists like the religious anymore than American theists like the areligious?

Correlation is not causation, and if you ask Fraggle why black people are statistically dumb or violent, he will explain how those results are skewed. Similarly for statistics on atheism. Most atheists are young, this is true. I was atheistic when young as was Emptyforceofchi [he was born a Jew then became a Buddhist] - now we are both theists. Voila! People change their minds over a course of time. Sometimes people lie about their beliefs - its unpopular for physicists/biologists to admit to theistic leanings - people get sidelined in scientific academia if they admit to belief in God. GeoffP only came out as a Christian after several years of being an atheist. So making comparisons between two such groups based on alleged correlations is poor science.

Yet social research reveals that not only is this knee-jerk antipathy toward atheists unwarranted, but that we could be role models for the rest of you. ...

American atheists have the same reluctance to be candid with pollsters as gay Americans do, but surveys designed to overcome this have estimated that as many as sixty million Americans, one-fifth of the population, are not believers.

Do you think Obama is a closet atheist? He seems obviously an atheist to me. (Wonder why the Republicans haven't tried to corner him on this yet.)

Do you think Obama is a closet atheist? He seems obviously an atheist to me. (Wonder why the Republicans haven't tried to corner him on this yet.)

I think Obama may be a closet Republican, it is quite clear however that he would never have been a presidential nominee on a republican ticket

Do you think Obama is a closet atheist? He seems obviously an atheist to me. (Wonder why the Republicans haven't tried to corner him on this yet.)

That's absurd. The Republicans do try this line of attack all the time.

Oh.

That's absurd. The Republicans do try this line of attack all the time.

But Muslims are an even more popular hate target, so they've concentrated on tarring him as a secret Muslim.

[QUOTE=valsartan;2754214]I was under the impression that Atheism is accepted by the the Americans since there are already many open atheists there...[QUOTE]

If you want God removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, the 10 Commandments removed from a court house, or a nativity scene removed from the town's xmas exhibit, you are seen as un-American. Believe me, I know.
I've even gotten a hard time about being an atheist from co-workers. I don't talk about my current beliefs. I just now say "I was raised...."

If you want God removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, the 10 Commandments removed from a court house, or a nativity scene removed from the town's xmas exhibit, you are seen as un-American. Believe me, I know.
I've even gotten a hard time about being an atheist from co-workers. I don't talk about my current beliefs. I just now say "I was raised...."

I have to say, no matter which end of the matter is raised, it looks equally bizarre to me

When Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh went to France, he discussed the "turban issue" with Sarkozy


The prime minister he told Sarkozy that the turban was a very essential part of the Sikh way of life because the members of the community are not allowed to cut their hair. The President was told that turban is one way that enables them to keep their hair bridled, he said.

"There are problems in France, when Sikh children go to school they are discouraged from wearing their turbans. And when seeking identity cards they are asked to remove their turbans. These are some inconveniences that Sikhs face," the prime minister told reporters.

Sarkozy at a joint news conference with Singh after the ninth Indo-EU summit in Marseilles in France on Monday said Sikhs are not specially targetted and the turban rules applied to other minority communities as well in France.

Sarkozy at the same time said minority communities must respect rules that need to be followed in France.

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/France_Turban_issue#Sarkozy_has_an_.22open_mind.22 _on_turban_issue:_Manmohan

The thing is I see religious discimination/oppression on both ends of the spectrum. And for what? Some hypothetical notion of how ALL people should be the same?

‘Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

‘Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.

‘Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.

‘Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.

‘Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy.

‘Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

‘Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

‘Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

‘Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
*************
M*W: Preaching.

They say one becomes that which one fights against.

Vocal atheists are just as bigoted, proud, obnoxious and violent as the theists they fight against.

Pride goeth before the fall!
*************
M*W: That goes for religionists too. People of religion boast about their beliefs. Christians especially brag about their own salvation. Been there, done that, was one, knew multitudes of them. You described christians perfectly, "bigoted, proud, obnoxious, and violent...".

*************
M*W: Preaching.


com·fort
   [kuhm-fert] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1.
to soothe, console, or reassure; bring cheer to: They tried to comfort her after her loss.
2.
to make physically comfortable.
3.
Obsolete . to aid; support or encourage.
–noun
4.
relief in affliction; consolation; solace: Her presence was a comfort to him.
5.
a feeling of relief or consolation: Her forgiveness afforded him great comfort.
6.
a person or thing that gives consolation: She was a great comfort to him.

As opposed to. . .


preach (prch)
v. preached, preach·ing, preach·es
v.tr.
1. To proclaim or put forth in a sermon: preached the gospel.
2. To advocate, especially to urge acceptance of or compliance with: preached tolerance and peaceful coexistence.
3. To deliver (a sermon).
v.intr.
1. To deliver a sermon.
2. To give religious or moral instruction, especially in a tedious manner.

Get it straight. Stop being such a religious-phobe that you can't spot wisdom where it lay. I would not cast pearls before swine. Fraggle is a good man, and an extremely intelligent one too. I do not subscribe to any religion. It does not mean however that I will fall prey to an argumentum ad hominem fallacy and reject the wisdom of a spiritual teacher because I reject all religion. I recognize wisdom where ever it can be found. Only the ignorant will reject knowledge based on the source rather than it's content.

I would not cast pearls before swine.

Matthew 7:6, and stop preaching.

Meh, Theists/Atheist's are both "Right" and "Wrong".

A "God" is just a mythical entity with a lot of fable and fantasy obfuscation.
however a "Company" can be classed as a singular entity, it can be tried as an individual and held accountable as an individual.

Now lets imply this, if you take a large "Organisation" of people and call their organisation an "Entity", if the people that make up that entity make autonomy based decisions on behalf of that entity, their actual "Organisation" could be the "God" they seek.

(After all this "Organisation" could fund research, the research is owned by the "Entity" and not the individuals however the fruits of that labour is Shared by all since that entity has no need for selfish greed. The Entity is "Godlike" because it can do things that no single individual would ever be able to do alone.)

In a scientific sense this implies that their is a feasibly that a "God" could exist, however it's "Not the god the theists were initially looking for".

They point out that while America has gotten over its disrespect for Afro-Americans and Jews and is even becoming more civil to homosexuals,

The first premise mentioned in this article is somewhat wrong.
Some White-Americans (I'm not going to call them "Americans" because that suggests they are "standard" and everybody else isn't a part of the American standard) are still relatively hostile and disrespectful towards Black-Americans, Jewish, and homosexuals.
Furthermore, I've never observed any outright hatred towards atheists - more like it just triggers proselytism at the water cooler. I have yet to see or hear of any atheists homes being burned down or anti-atheist hate graffiti (http://www.newschannel5.com/story/12702954/racist-graffiti-greets-family-in-new-home?redirected=true) spray painted on anything.

Am I the only atheist here that is sick and tired of hearing about richard dawkins?...we get it dude. Now go sell books about something else.

Am I the only atheist here that is sick and tired of hearing about richard dawkins?...we get it dude. Now go sell books about something else.

Possibly. For every preacher spouting bullshit, we need a scientist talking reason. If you don't want to listen to him, avoid googling him.

We have the same problem as the Jews: We don't evangelize.

I'm not so sure about this. A lot of the atheists I have met are just as aggressive as proselytizing Christians. I want to make clear the point that not all, but a lot of them are that I have met.

I don't like or dislike atheists any more or less than I like or dislike religious people. What I do dislike is the mentality of someone who has the attitude of "my spiritual beliefs are right and yours are wrong, and I'm gonna tell you why yours are wrong and try to convert you to my method of thinking." I think this is terribly rude and close minded. I've met a number of atheists who have this attitude, and I see the mentality as no different from Christians.

I respect all spiritual beliefs and do not hold a persons spiritual beliefs against them. What I will hold against someone is their behavior, and if someones spiritual beliefs cause them to behave in a certain way, that is a problem.

Having worked in the mental health field, I have seen the amazing healing power of spirituality. Even if the patient adopts atheism. Just having something to believe in works wonders on a persons psyche. One other strange thing I did notice in the field, is that if a person came in who was already a Christian, and particularly a Christian who believes that all others should believe as they do, they were almost always the ones to make the least amount of progress. But a person who just creates and adopts a form of spirituality for themselves makes the most progress.

Stalin was an atheist. Although atheists claim to be scientific and rational, Stalin showed that neither of these criteria really have to be in effect to be an athiest. He was paranoid and aggressively persecuted those his paranoia said were a threat such as religion or anyone talking out. People see the modern atheists being paranoid and aggressive against what they feel is a threat. People see the smoke and mirrors of the atheist rational claim.

As a cross section, these forums show how rational atheists get irrational during the discussions with name calling part of their rational science method.

When I was younger, I became an atheist (previous religion) because it helped to overcome inhibitions and guilts created by religion. This is why criminals tend to prefer atheism over religion. Atheism is a parasite religion which say X if religion says Y. This make its easier to do crime with conscience. The only punishment is in this lifetime, but that is only if you get caught and/or fail to get the best lawyer. There is no afterlife to answer to when you don't get caught.

Atheist smoke and mirrors will attribute crime to religion, if the criminal had any religious training as a child. But the irrational atheists will fail to include conversion to the animal standards of atheism, which makes criminal behavior much easier relative to religion.

Don't get me wrong there is also religious criminal behavior, but such behavior is not about me, but will usually be in honor of God. If the criminal does not include "for God" it is about atheism. This is how you tell the difference. The suicide bombers do crime based on their believe in God. But the serial killer is not about god. It is more about ego-centricity and atheism. If you figure it that way, atheism is responsible for the increase rate of crime by removing the spiritual inhibitions.

There is a saying you can take a person out of religion but you can't take religion out of the person. Atheism is a religion on the inside even if the surface does not appear to fit the criteria. The rational claim and irrational behavior is part of that illusion, with the religious effect part of the compulsion.

Most convicted criminals are religious.
(http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm)

Atheists, being a moderate proportion of the USA population (about 8-16%) are disproportionately less in the prison populations (0.21%)

The genital mutilation community is almost exclusively religious, something no human being would think of doing in most circumstances without religion.

As an example of criminal religious behavior, I don't have to look farther than the headline news:


A man has killed and beheaded a British woman in a supermarket on the Spanish holiday island of Tenerife.

The man attacked the unnamed 60-year-old woman in a Chinese supermarket in the resort town of Los Cristianos, Arona, severing her neck with a knife and then rushing on to the street carrying the head.

Passersby and security guards tried to stop him and he was eventually caught after an Italian man on a motorbike knocked him to the ground by hurling a helmet at him. The man tripped over and fell to the ground, with his pursuers managing to restrain him until police arrived.

The alleged killer is an unemployed Bulgarian apparently well known in the town and occasionally given to loudly proclaiming himself to be God on earth (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/13/woman-beheaded-tenerife-supermarket-spain). The 28-year-old man lives in the town.

Am I the only atheist here that is sick and tired of hearing about richard dawkins?

Yup.

Atheism is a parasite religion


Atheism is a religion
Wrong.

We have the same problem as the Jews: We don't evangelize.

You of all people say that?

You even use your position as a moderator to evangelize your cult of scientism.

Dawkins was a Christian in his youth. Why isn't he called religious now? If a criminal started out being raised in church but left the church to pursue crime, using athesim to appease guilt and inhibition, why isn't he called an atheist?

The impression I get from atheism, is that it uses a criteria is similar to the old fashion racist criteria of the past that was used to differenitate white from black. If I am not mistaken, even 1/32 black was enough to be lumped into black. The atheist criteria may be 1/32 religion and 31/32 atheist will still be religious if bad. If it is positive, atheism will exempt it to claim credit.

Dawkins was a Christian in his youth. Why isn't he called religious now? If a criminal started out being raised in church but left the church to pursue crime, using athesim to appease guilt and inhibition, why isn't he called an atheist?

The impression I get from atheism, is that it uses a criteria is similar to the old fashion racist criteria of the past that was used to differenitate white from black. If I am not mistaken, even 1/32 black was enough to be lumped into black. The atheist criteria may be 1/32 religion and 31/32 atheist will still be religious if bad. If it is positive, atheism will exempt it to claim credit.

Absolutely!

The One Drop Rule is a good reference.

Being religious is self-defined. The largest criminal gang in Mexico is religious.

Mexican Gang Leader Preaches Religious Virtues (http://www.theledger.com/article/20100706/NEWS/7065065)

Additionally, being an atheist does not free you from guilt for doing wrong. But religion can free you from guilt for doing wrong when religion says certain wrong actions are OK.

Absolutely!

The One Drop Rule is a good reference.

Guilt by association, in this case with racists. Shame on both of you.

Americans dislike atheists for, presumably, the same reason that all nations dislike atheists: religion is a major portion of the "glue" used to erect and maintain coherent identity groups at that large of a scale, so anybody who's opting out of that represents a threat to said coherence. This situation will persist until some identity group comes up with a way of doing nation-scale (or larger) political organization without relying on religion (and I'm not holding my breath, on that one).

Silly Americans, Silly Humans.

Am I the only atheist here that is sick and tired of hearing about richard dawkins?I hate that motherfucker. He has somehow gotten himself acknowledged as our spokesman, and he sure doesn't speak for me or most of the people I know. He doesn't understand that supernaturalism is (almost certainly) an instinct, and you can't reason people out of an instinct. "Knowledge" you are born with feels more true than knowledge you acquire later through reasoning and learning. I haven't read his stuff, but the excerpts I've seen make me cringe. His characterizations of the motives of religious people are inflammatory and not even entirely correct. He seems more interested in encouraging the believers to hate us or even fear us, than in finding a peaceful way to coexist.
Although atheists claim to be scientific and rational . . . .Only the ones you encounter here and in other scholarly and academic circles like universities. My mother was neither scientific or rational. She was an atheist simply because her family were atheists. By the time she found out that some people believe in the supernatural, she had the same reaction I did: laughter and cynicism.
Atheist smoke and mirrors will attribute crime to religion, if the criminal had any religious training as a child.I don't know whose smoke and mirrors you're referring to, but certainly not mine. I attribute many if not most of the high-body-count wars to religion, at least Abrahamic religion, because it reinforces our atavistic tribal instinct in an era when tribalism is a threat to civilization. But not crime. Crime is simply our Inner Caveman taking control for a little while, reverting back to the behavior of the Paleolithic Era, when anyone outside your extended family was a hated and feared competitor for scarce resources. That can happen to any modern human who is living in a world that has evolved faster than his psychology has.
But the irrational atheists will fail to include conversion to the animal standards of atheism, which makes criminal behavior much easier relative to religion."Animal standards?" Atheism relies on what makes us human: our ability to feel empathy toward each other without being threatened by eternal damnation.

Are you the one who blamed Stalinism on atheism? You overlooked the fact that communism is an offshoot of Christianity. "To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability," was Karl Marx's elaboration of his favorite quote from the Book of Acts. No self-respecting Jew, Hindu or Confucian would try to build a functioning economy on the principle that what a man takes from it does not have to correlate with what he gives back. That is pure Christian fairytale logic: "Don't worry, God will take care of you."
But the serial killer is not about god. It is more about ego-centricity and atheism. If you figure it that way, atheism is responsible for the increase rate of crime by removing the spiritual inhibitions.At this point I'm going to put on my Moderator hat, invoke the scientific method, peer-review that hypothesis, and ask you to provide the evidence that supports it. Atheists are no more egocentric than anyone else. The ones I know donate to charity, help our brethren, perform community service, and try our best to make civilization better.
Atheism is a religion on the inside even if the surface does not appear to fit the criteria.Now I'll have to put on my Linguistics Moderator hat. The definition of "religion" requires belief in a supernatural universe, and the first five definitions in most dictionaries specifically require belief in one or more gods. This is specifically what we reject.

Your assertion has been peer-reviewed and falsified. Do not repeat it on SciForums, ever again, on any thread, in any subforum, or you will be guilty of trolling.
Americans dislike atheists for, presumably, the same reason that all nations dislike atheists: religion is a major portion of the "glue" used to erect and maintain coherent identity groups at that large of a scale, so anybody who's opting out of that represents a threat to said coherence. This situation will persist until some identity group comes up with a way of doing nation-scale (or larger) political organization without relying on religion (and I'm not holding my breath, on that one).The problem is that this particular glue only works up to a certain size job. Now that the "coherent identity groups" number in the billions, the religious differences between them work to create antipathy rather than harmony. The nation-scale political organizations that actually do rely on religion are proudly and energetically planning to engage in nuclear war.

What more evidence do we need that religion--at least the popular monotheistic variety--is an artifact of the Stone Age that has long outlived its usefulness?

The definition of "religion" requires belief in a supernatural universe,

No it doesn't. While that is a common trait of most religions, it is not required in the definition. For example, the entry at dictionary.com :

"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. "

Note that such is explicit that belief in the supernatural, while typical, is not required.

The reason atheism isn't a religion is that it doesn't amount to any positive set of beliefs about the cause, nature and purpose of the universe, nor does it have any of the rest (devotional or ritual observances, moral code). "Atheism" is simply a catch-all term for people who do not believe in god(s). It says nothing about whether those people are religious or not.

Moreover, "atheism" doesn't require any rejection of the supernatural, as such. Only the belief in deities. You can still go in for ancestor worship, or believe in Leprechauns, or whatever, as long as there are no Gods in the picture. While rejection of the supernatural in general is typical of atheists (just as belief in the supernatural is typical of the religious), there is no hard requirement there.


Your assertion has been peer-reviewed and falsified. Do not repeat it on SciForums, ever again, on any thread, in any subforum, or you will be guilty of trolling.

And does this warning apply to you as well, since you are yourself advancing assertions that have been peer-reviewed and falsified? Since you, indeed, make a habit of doing so with several different assertions, repeatedly and in the face of clear, good-faith correction, can we go so far as to outright label you a troll?

Or is there perhaps some salient distinction between adherence to a position in the face of opposition, and trolling? Every coherent definition of "trolling" that I've encountered had as its primary component something about a desire to elicit certain emotional responses from an audience (and nothing about being "wrong," or rejecting consensus, as such).



The problem is that this particular glue only works up to a certain size job.

Does it? It's not clear to me that a one-world religion, with a single nationality based thereupon, is impossible. It's also not clear to me that the process of handling bigger jobs requires replacing religion, rather than grafting something new on top of it (the same was religion works on top of smaller-scale group loyalties in doing the same trick at a smaller scale).



Now that the "coherent identity groups" number in the billions, the religious differences between them work to create antipathy rather than harmony.

That was always the case - and it's a feature, not a bug. Religion is only supposed to create harmony and solidarity inside the in-group - and thereby empower them to better resist and displace competing groups. Antipathy towards Others is simply the other side of the group-coherence coin. Surely you don't imagine that inter-religious conflict is some new phenomenon that wasn't an issue until the populations got this large? The empowerment of said competition is exactly what led to the proliferation of religion to begin with.



The nation-scale political organizations that actually do rely on religion are proudly and energetically planning to engage in nuclear war.

Exactly. That's a testament to the power of these modes of organization - they can mobilize large populations and resources, with sufficient backing to pursue very high stakes conflicts against other very powerful groups. Less powerful modes of organization don't stand a chance, against that - and so, the more capable modes proliferate.



What more evidence do we need that religion--at least the popular monotheistic variety--is an artifact of the Stone Age that has long outlived its usefulness?

We'd need to see the scale of political organization reverting to that of the Stone Age. Since (organized) religion is still producing ever-more-powerful and competitive political organizations, it seems that its usefulness is not at any sort of end.

Rather, it seems that the Age of Global Enlightenment that you seem to be speaking to, has not yet seen its dawn. It will have to produce some identity politic capable of subsuming religion, ethnicity and nationalism, before it exists in any positive sense.

Here's an accepted definition:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, ....

Bertrand Russell often referred to Marxism as a religion. With out seemingly innate craving for certainty, our impulse for dogmatism has some curious results sometimes. Peer review, and incontrovertible evidence can still take time to dismantle scientific orthodoxies that have built up when people have become comfortable with a certain accepted view, and are very reluctant to change.

Fraggle, I'd like to read some of these Dawkins excerpts that make you cringe. This interview (http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Science-Religion/2005/11/The-Problem-With-God-Interview-With-Richard-Dawkins.aspx?p=1) seems completely unobjectionable to me, and is typical of what I've read of him.

Yup.

lol fair enough.

Matthew 7:6, and stop preaching.

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/66/bvprJDocPjenq20tgF2KGUwvo1_500.jpg
roger that smokey. . . :p

No it doesn't. While that is a common trait of most religions, it is not required in the definition. For example, the entry at dictionary.com :

"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. "

Note that such is explicit that belief in the supernatural, while typical, is not required.

So, please expand on the word 'superhuman'. I think that is the crux of the matter, and establishes Fraggle's claim that the SUPERnatural is always invoked as part of religion.

Re Dawkins:
I hate that motherfucker. - - - - I haven't read his stuff, The common condition, expressed or exhibited.

And another clue as to why Americans hate atheists.

But in general, religion does focus community and organize sacrifice for the common good. If someone thinks that deity is central to that organization for the common good, the notion that atheism is a personal betrayal of community is easy to imagine coming 'round.

I hate that motherfucker. He has somehow gotten himself acknowledged as our spokesman, and he sure doesn't speak for me or most of the people I know. He doesn't understand that supernaturalism is (almost certainly) an instinct, and you can't reason people out of an instinct. "Knowledge" you are born with feels more true than knowledge you acquire later through reasoning and learning. I haven't read his stuff, but the excerpts I've seen make me cringe. His characterizations of the motives of religious people are inflammatory and not even entirely correct. He seems more interested in encouraging the believers to hate us or even fear us, than in finding a peaceful way to coexist.

Well, it seems then the solution to making religious people more sympathetic to atheists in America is elementary. What you need is for an Atheist to die for your "perceived sins", and now you have a perfect candidate. This is a way to remodel the whole image of Atheism in America, and do away with it's greatest curse in one fell swoop.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_En5vG2QGHL8/Sd_HY8hGGtI/AAAAAAAAAZE/i1NZiCJAXag/s400/Richard+Dawkins+on+the+cross.bmp
If you can somehow conspire to act as Judas and deliver Dawkins into the hands of that wacko that burned the Koran and caused all that trouble in the middle east, Pastor Terry Jones and all his followers, your crusade to change the hearts and minds of Americans about atheists will truley take off. And really, WWDD? (What Would Dawkins Do?) Isn't this the best most rational, logical thing to do to tug at the emotional heart strings at those fruity symbolic loving spiritualists? Having your leader perish for your cause? :p
http://openparachute.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/bizarro_atheists.jpg?w=238&h=283

Well, it seems then the solution to making religious people more sympathetic to atheists in America is elementary. What you need is for an Atheist to die for your "perceived sins", and now you have a perfect candidate.

Nah, as a non-group, we need a non-stamp collector to not do that.

Nah, as a non-group, we need a non-stamp collector to not do that.
You can believe yourself to be a "non-group" all you want. However, Fox News, the OP, Politicians, the institutions, etc. and the religious groups of America all beg to differ.

This hatred is a throwback to the 1950s which were not that long ago. Atheism and communism were deemed inseparable, which is why they put god in the pledge and on the money.

You can believe yourself to be a "non-group" all you want. However, Fox News, the OP, Politicians, the institutions, etc. and the religious groups of America all beg to differ.

Being an atheist, I think my opinion counts more than a bunch of hacks and religious loonies take on the situation.

This hatred is a throwback to the 1950s which were not that long ago. Atheism and communism were deemed inseparable, which is why they put god in the pledge and on the money.

.. and generally raped the constitution.

The easiest answer is that Americans dislike atheists because Americans are religious. Religion makes people hate atheists.

You can believe yourself to be a "non-group" all you want. However, Fox News, the OP, Politicians, the institutions, etc. and the religious groups of America all beg to differ.
They can beg all they want, I'm not signing anything.

Well now, see here. Take a group of Atheists together and if i make it know i have a belief, say any belief, or even if i make one up for myself and i beleive it. May be true, may not be true. For all they know it can surely be true, they have not checked, have no proof it is not true. How would the Atheist group react towards this person? I think we all know the answer to that.


:blbl::p

Well now, see here. Take a group of Atheists together and if i make it know i have a belief, say any belief, or even if i make one up for myself and i beleive it. May be true, may not be true. For all they know it can surely be true, they have not checked, have no proof it is not true. How would the Atheist group react towards this person? I think we all know the answer to that.
Really? We all know?
:rolleyes:

Really? We all know?
:rolleyes:

oh, yeah. we all know. in a small group it is more dependent on the personalities of the individuals, primarily the obvious one. In a much larger group does not seem like the person would be accepted.

oh, yeah. we all know.
Assumption.


in a small group it is more dependent on the personalities of the individuals, primarily the obvious one. In a much larger group does not seem like the person would be accepted.
Moving the goal posts?

@ the OP's question:

Frustration that the burden of proof is on the religious to prove their belief system and atheists have no burden of proof.:D

The easiest answer is that Americans dislike atheists because Americans are religious. Religion makes people hate atheists.

Quoted for truth.

Why do Americans still dislike atheists?
They're lining them up as the next target after the War on Terror is over? :shrug:

They're lining them up as the next target after the War on Terror is over? :shrug:

More likely to come to our homes and slap us on both cheeks or in my case since I am an agnostic, one face cheek and an ass slap!

The atheist claim to be rational and scientific, yet neither are necessary conditions to become an atheist. There are many irrational atheists, since the only requirements are "say no to god" and learn some basic talking points, most of which need to be critical and/or parasitic of religion. Beyond that one has more freedom for irrationality compared to religion. Atheists can get away with more.

The misrepresentation of atheism being rational makes some people think this is an evil religion, especially since it has no positive message but relies heaviely on negativity for recruitment. One can take a person out of religion, but you can't always take religion out of a person. Many irrational atheist have simply made atheism their new religion.

When atheism finally develops a postive message, and does not have to always be a parasite onto religion, to help recruit its irrational minions, it will start to get more acceptance.

Let us try to discuss this subject, without any atheist parasite talking points, to see how close atheism is to upgrading.

There are many irrational atheists, since the only requirements are "say no to god" and learn some basic talking points, most of which need to be critical and/or parasitic of religion.
Wrong again.


The misrepresentation of atheism being rational makes some people think this is an evil religion
Oops. "Religion"?


One can take a person out of religion, but you can't always take religion out of a person. Many irrational atheist have simply made atheism their new religion.

When atheism finally develops a postive message, and does not have to always be a parasite onto religion, to help recruit its irrational minions, it will start to get more acceptance.

Let us try to discuss this subject, without any atheist parasite talking points, to see how close atheism is to upgrading.
Blah blah blah. Again.

The misrepresentation of atheism being rational makes some people think this is an evil religion, especially since it has no positive message but relies heaviely on negativity for recruitment. One can take a person out of religion, but you can't always take religion out of a person. Many irrational atheist have simply made atheism their new religion.

I'm somewhat amused by the implied definition/characterization of "religion" in there. Apparently it's just some set of emotionally-held pretexts for being irrational and ganging up on others. That people are willing to eviscerate their view of "religion" in order to make it into a term for tarring atheists, is something of a facepalm spectacle.

Also, I like the implication that all atheists are necessarily "converts" from some religion, and therefor presumably weirdos/rejects who didn't fit in with a "good" religion. Not "like" in that I agree with the characterization, but "like" in that I enjoy the underlying chauvinism being made so apparent, apparently unwittingly.

No one is born a christian.

No one is born a christian.

Not according to Christians... lol

The atheist claim to be rational and scientific, yet neither are necessary conditions to become an atheist. There are many irrational atheists, since the only requirements are "say no to god" and learn some basic talking points, most of which need to be critical and/or parasitic of religion. Beyond that one has more freedom for irrationality compared to religion. Atheists can get away with more.

The misrepresentation of atheism being rational makes some people think this is an evil religion, especially since it has no positive message but relies heaviely on negativity for recruitment. One can take a person out of religion, but you can't always take religion out of a person. Many irrational atheist have simply made atheism their new religion.

When atheism finally develops a postive message, and does not have to always be a parasite onto religion, to help recruit its irrational minions, it will start to get more acceptance.

Let us try to discuss this subject, without any atheist parasite talking points, to see how close atheism is to upgrading.

You continue to make a total ass of yourself. Yes, you don't need to be rational to be an atheist, since technically atheism is defined by only one philosophical position. However, in reality, if you want to be rational, most religions are not your friend. Faith is the opposite of being rational. In reality, modern atheists tend to accept secular humanism, which is a far more ethical position than accepting the word of some bronze age militant chauvinists.

In one paragraph, you curse atheism for being a religion, then you condemn them for not being dogmatic enough to match religion in it's moral codes. You can't have it both ways. If it lacks a defined dogma, it's not a religion!

Wrong again.


Oops. "Religion"?


Blah blah blah. Again.



You must be a perfect creature , everyone is wrong but you

You must be a perfect creature , everyone is wrong but you
And you must be unable to read. His contention that "atheism is a religion" has been shown to be incorrect a number of times here, let alone elsewhere in the real world. And that has been pointed out to him. Yet he persist in repeating it while failing to justify his repetition.

And you must be unable to read. His contention that "atheism is a religion" has been shown to be incorrect a number of times here, let alone elsewhere in the real world. And that has been pointed out to him. Yet he persist in repeating it while failing to justify his repetition.

Just a defense mechanism to swipe at atheism. Same with the "science is a religion" stuff. It is only religions that are religions, these all having to do with a god.

The atheist claim to be rational and scientific, yet neither are necessary conditions to become an atheist.

That is true (and the same can be said about any philosophical or theological position), but in my experience there is a strong correlation between atheism and rational materialism. Rational materialism is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to be an atheist, but is being black is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to playing in the NBA—yet the correlation is definitely there.

The reason for the correlation seems self evident. People who lean towards an analytical view of the world tend to be disproportionately dissatisfied with answers to questions that must be taken "on faith". People who are less analytically inclined have less of a problem with taking things on faith. Once an individual has determined that "faith" is not a compelling reason for him or her to believe in a thing, you start casting about looking for other belief systems than the one you were raised with. Once you determine that all theistic religions lean strongly on faith at some level, it becomes very easy to identify oneself as an agnostic. Once there, though, you have to acknowledge that being agnostic, and saying that you do not know whether there is or is not a God, is very much akin to saying that you do not know whether there is or is not a Flying Spaghetti Monster....with the only difference being that "God" and various other deities have a lot more believers (none of whom have objective evidence of His or their existence). So the last step into atheism is pretty straight forward (unless one is happy to admit there there could be a Flying Spaghetti Monster and to remain "agnostic" on his existence too).

Rational materialism is an easy add on for these people, because it is a philosophical position that pervades science and does not require that one believe in any particular set of unprovable propositions. It does allow one to believe in many unproven and unprovable things, but all that it otherwise requires is that one discard objectively disproven hypotheses (like the Biblical Flood story, on the notion that world is balanced on the back of the World Turtle).

And you must be unable to read. His contention that "atheism is a religion" has been shown to be incorrect a number of times here, let alone elsewhere in the real world. And that has been pointed out to him. Yet he persist in repeating it while failing to justify his repetition.

This "truth", is always proven by the atheists, which is a conflict of interest. I don't think that can be that rational. We need an unbiased third party to decide. Polititian tend to tell you what you expect to hear.

If you look at the history of science, science constantly evolves and changes as new data and theory appears. For example, the discovery of DNA altered the earlier versions of evolution, which had failed to include this. Because change is normal in science, dogmatic insistence of truth, using the current state of the art, is an illusion based on science history data.

Unless you are objective to the changing trends in science history, dogmatic insistence make atheism a religion. This is enforced by using a prestige effect as though the word science carries magical attributes that make the temporary appear steady state. I come up with new ideas all the time, since I know permanent is a religious illusion.

Empirical black box science uses the same special effects that are tradtionally called an oracle. With an oracle, one is on the dark (black box) trying to predict the future. It does not use reason and logic, exclusively, but looks at signs from the oracle. Would atheist renouce all oracles in favor of logic? That is more pagan than mainstream religion.

We need a third party to arbitrate.

This "truth", is always proven by the atheists, which is a conflict of interest.
You think? Evidence please.
Extra: the way the church (or religion generally) had a monopoly of "the truth" for centuries? And if you disagreed you could end up burnt at the stake.


We need an unbiased third party to decide. Polititian tend to tell you what you expect to hear.
Third party? What politicians?


Because change is normal in science, dogmatic insistence of truth, using the current state of the art, is an illusion based on science history data.
And who has used a "dogmatic insistence" on current state of the art? Strawman.


Unless you are objective to the changing trends in science history, dogmatic insistence make atheism a religion.
Still wrong. What "dogmatic insistence"?


This is enforced by using a prestige effect as though the word science carries magical attributes that make the temporary appear steady state.
Are you conflating science and "atheism" here? As if they are inseparable?


I come up with new ideas all the time, since I know permanent is a religious illusion.
Irrelevant. And specious.


Empirical black box science uses the same special effects that are tradtionally called an oracle. With an oracle, one is on the dark (black box) trying to predict the future. It does not use reason and logic, exclusively, but looks at signs from the oracle.
One word: bullshit. What "black box science"? Examples please.


We need a third party to arbitrate.
And you need to get a brain.

The topic is why do Americans dislike atheists? Atheist can't learn when they remain in irrational denial.

The topic is why do Americans dislike atheists? Atheist can't learn IF they remain in irrational denial.

Corrected.
But, then again, under those circumstances, no one can.
Take a look at theists, for example.

wellwisher, no atheist, not even Richard Dawkins (praise be unto him) states that there is absolutely, 100% no possibility of a god ever existing. This is not our position. Our position is that there is no evidence for god and quite a lot of evidence that religion in general is man-made. This is how scientific truth is established, by a preponderance of evidence or the lack of it.

I was under the impression that Atheism is accepted by the the Americans since there are already many open atheists there...

If you want God removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, the 10 Commandments removed from a court house, or a nativity scene removed from the town's xmas exhibit, you are seen as un-American. Believe me, I know.
I've even gotten a hard time about being an atheist from co-workers. I don't talk about my current beliefs. I just now say "I was raised...."


Maybe there are American atheists who actually feel some nostalgia for the above. They don't mind it in the same way non-royalists in the UK don't mind / even would not like to see an end to the monarchy.

America becoming openly atheist means an endless amount of clerical work and re-theorising to clean up all religious references in the law, not to mention a violent war with Christians.

It's simply easier for everyone - religious and atheist alike - if America remained a Christian country. I mean why risk a bloody war when there (seemingly) is enough freedom in America to educate and raise your kids as atheists if you wanted.

Of course everyday life would be easier if there didn't have to be a need to be a closeted atheist - but if the price of that is war - and everyone knows how violent Christians are - I'd say (if I were American) not in my lifetime, no thanks.

It can't remain a "Christian country" because it never was one.

Americans hold the right to publicly dislike anything and everything at every moment. Then change their minds about it. It's what makes this country beautiful. Founded and sustained by hypocrites.

America might not be a Christian country--after all, Italy got there first--but it most certainly is a country whose people were lead out of slavery to the evil King, by the prophet Washington (pbuh).

It's why he got his likeness carved into a mountain, so the people can worship in the high places. That way they won't feel like they've been forcibly denied access to their pagan roots and fashion a golden calf to worship. OMG, wait a sec, here . . .

Corrected.
But, then again, under those circumstances, no one can.
Take a look at theists, for example.

:bravo:

Jolly good, Jolly good. Quite right, quite right.

Seriously though. It seems to me, wellwisher, you have just proved Fraggles point, and, well, it's embarrassing, isn't it?

There are SO many, I mean, really, quite a few people on this board that are VERY religious. And yet, here you are, just about the only one of them, willing to sit here and argue the point. If no religious person sits here and argues the point, it's moot, it doesn't stand and proves itself false now, does it? At least among Americans in this forum. So I guess the Opening Post, or the opening premise should have been, Why do most Americans still dislike atheists?

But with your contempt and bile, you just prove him right, don't you? How embarrassing. :o YOU are the only truly religious person on the board. Most people on the board that aren't atheists are more spiritual than religious. And I guess that's the lesson here. Spiritual and philosophical people don't hate Atheists. They understand the integrity of the individual to choose their own ethics, morality, beliefs, and destiny. Freedom of choice is a core tenet of the liberated soul.

I seriously doubt you would ever see a Buddhist give an Atheist any flak for their beliefs. Likewise, I doubt you would you see any thing but love from a Unitarian Univarsalist, or a member of Opus Dei for that matter. Nope, probably not. Only people that aren't spiritual aware, and have no respect for the values and ethics embraced in the OP are going to continue to bitterly argue and debate the OP.

Yes, it's true. MANY Americans still dislike atheists. Those that strictly follow the teachings of their spiritual leader, and those that have their ancient religious tombs interpreted in a unenlightened repressed back-word way blindly following a spiritual leader find the liberated free thinking ways of those who are not under the yoke of a patriarchal paternalistic organized hierarchy threatening to them, their families, their communities, and their children. This breeds fear. Fear breeds hatred. Hatred stems from ignorance.

They're lining them up as the next target after the War on Terror is over? :shrug:
Actually, I have it on good authority that there will be a false flag attack by extra-terrestrials. :runaway: If we can fight a war on an illusory network of terrorists, we can fight just as good a long drawn out war against E.T. :eek:

And the great thing? This will work to unite the planet together! One world government, money, army, (one world religion) etc.

Actually, I have it on good authority that there will be a false flag attack by extra-terrestrials.
Doesn't bother me: I've got my Anti-ET Underpants.

Doesn't bother me: I've got my Anti-ET Underpants.
Reading Comprehension problems? Or do you just not know what false flag means? When the UFO's are spotted, they will be from TPTB silly. NO E.T.'s will be around. lol Of course, that's not what the media will report, nor what will be discussed on the forums here.

Count on me to tell you it is all a conspiracy and that the government is behind it all though, ok? And of course, to keep your Anti-ET shorts in the draw, b/c the best possible folks to help us out of the mess will probably be the REAL ET's. :p

Doesn't bother me: I've got my Anti-ET Underpants.

Watch out, ET is a bastard! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtNkaWJid9I)

Reading Comprehension problems?
Nope.


Or do you just not know what false flag means?
I do.


When the UFO's are spotted, they will be from TPTB silly.
TPTB? The Powers That Be, presumably, governments and the like.
You think they have "UFOs"? What sort?


NO E.T.'s will be around.
I know. I said I've GOT my Anti-ET Underpants. I didn't say I'd wear them. :rolleyes:

Doesn't bother me: I've got my Anti-ET Underpants.

Are those made of tinfoil? do they crinkle when you walk?

Are those made of tinfoil? do they crinkle when you walk?

No, fuckin' titanium, those probes are tough stuff. And they don't crinkle, more of a straight legged, cowboy style mosey walk is required and is quite comfortable.

Well here in the US it starts off with things like the OP's post, which effectively says, "Look how much better we are than you, how can you not like us!" LOL

It ends with the response that many atheists give when presented with the topic. Instead of just saying something to the effect of "I don't care I'm an atheist" which I would be fine with, the response is more like "THEIR IS NO GOD AND YOU ARE STUPID IF YOU BELIEVE OTHERWISE" which nobody is ok with.

Don't get me wrong, the knee jerk reaction of many believers to an atheist is "YOUR GOING TO HELL" which is never a nice thing to say to someone even if they don't believe in it. It comes from both sides really.

Personally I believe, but I don't feel the need to correct people or rub their noses in it.

To each his own.

(Also I speak for my entire country so you can take my word!)
:blbl:

Because many of them believe that atheists are influenced by their ultimate enemy...Satan. :eek:

ha ha ha...i laugh evertime i see that smilie.

They dislike atheist because the majority of them profess to be christians of some variation.

That's absurd. The Republicans do try this line of attack all the time.

I wonder what it is that they think they are attacking.. :shrug:

Observations stemming from this and other forums, makes me think the question for this topic is an atheist projection, since it is the atheists displaying the most dislike. The religious try to help, while the atheists spit venum.

If you go to a church service, atheism is not a fixation nor is it a central rally point for religion. With atheism, an anti-religion sentiment is a fixation and the central rally point. Atheism gets much of its recruitment mileage from this. Religion does not get anywhere near that mileage. People do not seek God tbecause they are promised this is a way to excape the atheists. It is more of a spiritual attraction than an atheist repulsion. But atheism recruitment banks on inducing religion repulsion to gain members since what else can they offer that is new?

The dislike starts at the atheist side, sort of like a bully calling the other child names. If the child reacts to the name calling and does not just take the verbal beating, the bully feels he is the victim in all this. Thus the projected question of being persecuted.

A loose analogy might be the poor resentful of the rich due to liberal programming. The rich do not dwell on the poor in the same proportion as thepoor are taught to dwell on the rich. They are too busy making money. The poor, on the other hand, will continue to see the rich as a central threat, even though the rich are not focused on them like that.

Observations stemming from this and other forums, makes me think the question for this topic is an atheist projection, since it is the atheists displaying the most dislike. The religious try to help, while the atheists spit venum.What??? What planet do you live on? Certainly not this one! The fucking Christians have been hostile and intolerant of non-Christians since they seized control of the Roman Empire seventeen hundred years ago! Under Emperor Constantine they began the persecution of the Jews, which was virtually the defining trait of European Christendom right up until the 1940s, during my own lifetime, when they thought they finally had enough power to simply exterminate them.

And the Jews believe in the same god as the Christians and even believe in about two-thirds of the same Bible. People who did not come from that Abrahamic tradition were treated even worse. "Heathens," which is their word for the rest of the human race, including people who don't believe in their god as well as people who don't believe in any god at all, were regarded as nothing more than dog shit on God's lawn. Practitioners of the traditional polytheistic Egyptian religion were made second-class citizens in their own country. The Aztecs, stewards of a civilization more than a thousand years old, complete with Bronze Age technology and a written language, were made slaves and their libraries were burned down because they were full of "heathen" teachings. The Incas, stewards of an even younger civilization, were treated the same way, and their art objects, the treasures of their culture, were melted down and shipped to Europe as bullion because they depicted "heathen" images.

So don't give me your lying bullshit about how "helpful" Christians are to others. Their only definition of the word "help" is to turn us into ignorant, superstitious fools like themselves, with or without our consent and cooperation. Christians have always been evil pigs to outsiders, and most of the time they have even made war upon each other over minute differences in their interpretation of the Bible. They started the cycle of hatred and what goes around comes around.

The only reason they're pretending to "help" us now is that they see their majority status slipping away as humanity evolves away from its Stone Age fairytales, and they need to get the rest of us to like them so we don't start treating them the way they've been treating us for nearly two thousand miserable years.
The dislike starts at the atheist side, sort of like a bully calling the other child names.Like most Christians you affect a naive ignorance about the history of your own community. You guys started it. Now you're finding out what it's like to be on the other side.

Excuse me, I have to go meet with my Jewish, Egyptian, Aztec, Inca, Cherokee, African, Australian and Hawaiian buddies. We're putting the finishing touches on the plans for the New Crusades, the New Inquisition and the New Holocaust. We'll be knocking on your door in a few years. Paybacks are hell.

People do not seek God tbecause they are promised this is a way to excape the atheists.
No, they seek gods, primarily because they are promised a way to escape death.

The dislike starts at the atheist side, sort of like a bully calling the other child names.
Or maybe we're just tired of being told that we are evil and going to burn in hell. :bugeye:

Yes gmilam. That's exactly it. The damn theists can't seem to get along with those who believe other than their way.

...
The dislike starts at the atheist side, sort of like a bully calling the other child names. If the child reacts to the name calling and does not just take the verbal beating, the bully feels he is the victim in all this. Thus the projected question of being persecuted.

....


What a bunch of krap. I don't feel victimized at all, but I'm damn tired of theists spouting lies and claiming they are right without any shred of evidence to support their fantasy beliefs.

What a bunch of krap. I don't feel victimized at all, but I'm damn tired of theists spouting lies and claiming they are right without any shred of evidence to support their fantasy beliefs.But is that the reason you dislike them, or merely a reason to not respect them?

Lots of people are fools, but I don't usually hate them. I often feel sorry for them, although some of them make so much money that I envy them instead.

I suggest that the reason we dislike Christians, specifically, is their evangelism. I, in fact, don't have a problem with the ones who aren't always in my face trying to convert me. I can say without a trace of irony that some of my best friends really are Christians.

I don't go around bad-mouthing them categorically in daily life, the way I do on this one website which is supposed to be an oasis of science and reason, so supernaturalism has no place here.

I also don't hold members of other religions in the same regard, for the same reason. Jews absolutely do not evangelize, and in fact they don't make it easy to convert to their religion even if you sincerely want to. In their own mythology this is the reason that God continues to punish them: they promised they would spread his religion to the entire human race, in gratitude for his letting them out of bondage in Egypt. They didn't hold up their end of the bargain. In any case Judaism is a religion of laws rather than doctrine, and I haven't met very many who place much importance on literal belief in the Torah.

Hindus don't seem to evangelize at all, and in my experience if you really corner one he'll readily admit that Hinduism is nothing but a collection of really useful metaphors. There are probably many more devout, literal believers in the old country.

I guess Rastafarians evangelize, but it's hard to get mad at somebody who offers you a spliff with the lecture.

The people I've met who considered themselves Muslims were very secular and almost never talked about it, so I can't say much about that community. But in the abstract, evangelism seems to be as important a doctrine to them as it is to the Christians.

What a bunch of krap. I don't feel victimized at all, but I'm damn tired of theists spouting lies and claiming they are right without any shred of evidence to support their fantasy beliefs.

A bit silly considering Atheists are doing the same exact thing. The way i look at it is how can i be an Atheist when i dont know? The whole Atheist thing is and always was a mistake on the part of those not believing in any of the set belief systems. All they did was set up a system of absolutes, on one side you have this and on the other side you have that. Somewhat comical if you ask me.

A bit silly considering Atheists are doing the same exact thing.
Wrong.


The whole Atheist thing is and always was a mistake on the part of those not believing in any of the set belief systems.
Why?


All they did was set up a system of absolutes, on one side you have this and on the other side you have that. Somewhat comical if you ask me.
The only thing here that's comical is your posts: what "set of absolutes"?

A bit silly considering Atheists are doing the same exact thing. The way i look at it is how can i be an Atheist when i dont know? The whole Atheist thing is and always was a mistake on the part of those not believing in any of the set belief systems. All they did was set up a system of absolutes, on one side you have this and on the other side you have that. Somewhat comical if you ask me.

You are completely wrong.

The one that makes the positive claim is responsible for providing evidence. The default situation is nothing exists without proof.

You are completely wrong.....

...nothing exists without proof.

Which is of course completely wrong.

The way i look at it is how can i be an Atheist when i dont know?You don't know what? (Besides how to punctuate a sentence?) You know that there is no respectable evidence for the existence of supernatural phenomena. You know that religion exists only because it has been passed down by word of mouth since the Stone Age, when people could be more easily forgiven for not understanding how nature works. You know that the leaders of all the major world religions have been steadily conceding more and more of their beliefs to be merely metaphors rather than historical facts. You know that with every passing century more and more of the fundamental underpinnings of Abrahamic mythology have been proven false, from the six-day creation to the exile in Egypt.

So what exactly is it that you feel that you "don't know"?
The whole Atheist thing is and always was a mistake on the part of those not believing in any of the set belief systems. All they did was set up a system of absolutes, on one side you have this and on the other side you have that.Huh? What is the "system of absolutes" that atheists "believe" in? My whole family are atheists and I was never told of any system of absolutes. I was simply sent to school at age six and told to learn how to learn, and to not believe something simply because somebody tells me to.
The one that makes the positive claim is responsible for providing evidence.You're right about that. Otherwise science would grind to a halt as we dissipated our energy and other resources in disproving every crackpot hypothesis that is offered without evidence. We can prove a positive statement "true beyond a reasonable doubt" (since there are no absolute truths in science, only mathematics), or we can prove it to be absolutely false. But no one is ever required to prove a negative assertion.
The default situation is nothing exists without proof.But you didn't get that one quite right. The correct statement is that no hypothesis can be proven true without evidence, and that without evidence not only has it not been proven true, but it has not even earned the right to be treated with respect.

Once evidence is provided we are then obliged to treat it with respect (commensurate with the quality of the evidence), but it still has to be tested and proven true beyond a reasonable doubt, or proven absolutely false.

You don't know what? (Besides how to punctuate a sentence?) You know that there is no respectable evidence for the existence of supernatural phenomena.


I know how to punctuate sentences.

There is plenty of evidence for supernatural phenomena, the problem is that once an explanation is found it is no longer considered Supernatural. It would be wise for you to learn this distinction.


You know that religion exists only because it has been passed down by word of mouth since the Stone Age, when people could be more easily forgiven for not understanding how nature works.

We are talking about two different things here. Organised religion and the fact that Atheists make a claim with no proof is very different.


You know that the leaders of all the major world religions have been steadily conceding more and more of their beliefs to be merely metaphors rather than historical facts. You know that with every passing century more and more of the fundamental underpinnings of Abrahamic mythology have been proven false, from the six-day creation to the exile in Egypt.

We are talking about two different things here. Organised religion and the fact that Atheists make a claim with no proof is very different.

Which is of course completely wrong.

I laugh in your direction. :D

I laugh in your direction. :D

That is fine. At least now you know something can exist without proving its existence to you. Because that is not a requirement.

That is fine. At least now you know something can exist without proving its existence to you. Because that is not a requirement.

Don't bother trying to tell me what I know, because you are the one without a clue.

If you want to continue this offshoot of the discussion please provide proof that supernatural beings (e.g. gods) exist. Otherwise they don't.

Don't bother trying to tell me what I know, because you are the one without a clue.

If you want to continue this offshoot of the discussion please provide proof that supernatural beings (e.g. gods) exist. Otherwise they don't.

Well i dont know how to break this to you but did it ever occur to you that the vast\overwhelming majority (say around 90% or higher) of theists dont give a fuck what your belief is?

And isnt that really the topic?

And isnt that really the topic?

No, you can't even get that right. :D

Well i dont know how to break this to you but did it ever occur to you that the vast\overwhelming majority (say around 90% or higher) of theists dont give a fuck what your belief is?

And they are all wrong. As I said. Show me the money (i,.e. evidence).

No, you can't even get that right. :D

I never met anyone who disliked a person because they were Atheist. If you are gonna be a pain in the balls about it...but then they dislike you not because you are an Atheist.

I know how to punctuate sentences.Then why don't you? It is really rude to force everyone who reads this thread to slow down and read your post one letter at a time because you're too lazy to hit the shift key to capitalize the pronoun "I" and to move your pinky one key to the right to put the apostrophe in "don't."
. . . . the fact that Atheists make a claim with no proof . . . . .What "claim"? And shall I assume you mean "evidence" rather than "proof" because your choice of words is as lazy as your typing and the sentence makes more sense that way? Or are you simply violating the scientific method by demanding that we prove a negative?
Organised religion and the fact that Atheists make a claim with no proof is very different.Atheism is not a religion and atheists are not members of a religion. Neither word is capitalized.

Then why don't you? It is really rude to force everyone who reads this thread to slow down and read your post one letter at a time because you're too lazy to hit the shift key to capitalize the pronoun "I" and to move your pinky one key to the right to put the apostrophe in "don't."What "claim"? And shall I assume you mean "evidence" rather than "proof" because your choice of words is as lazy as your typing and the sentence makes more sense that way? Or are you simply violating the scientific method by demanding that we prove a negative?Atheism is not a religion and atheists are not members of a religion. Neither word is capitalized.

Thats because you are an old man and everything bothers you.

Thats because you are an old man and everything bothers you.No. It's been well documented that when people read they take in an entire word at once. If the first letter and the last letter are in the right place, and all the correct intermediate letters are there, even if they're mixed up, they will often not even notice the jumble. But if a letter (or a punctuation mark such as an apostrophe) is missing, or if a letter that is supposed to be capitalized is in lower case, they have to stop and read the word one letter at a time, the way a beginner reads a language like Russian or Arabic that doesn't use the Roman alphabet.

You are forcing everyone who reads your post to slow down and waste their time, so that one rude, lazy person can save a couple of keystrokes. It's just like cutting in front of someone in line at the supermarket: you're stealing someone else's time because you believe you are more important than they are.

I dont think my writing is so difficult to read, given that i have a disability and get the letters in the worng place. Sometimes i fix it but even still i can read it. What am i supposed to do?

I would like to see an atheist country . I would like to see how such society woulds live , would they progress ,would they survive or would they eventually become extinct, would freedom of expression exist . ete. ete. sts.:p

I would like to see an atheist country . I would like to see how such society woulds live , would they progress ,would they survive or would they eventually become extinct, would freedom of expression exist . ete. ete. sts.:p

And is what is your best guess (i.e. opinion) about those things?

You are forcing everyone who reads your post to slow down and waste their time, so that one rude, lazy person can save a couple of keystrokes. It's just like cutting in front of someone in line at the supermarket: you're stealing someone else's time because you believe you are more important than they are.

Lol..its not like some rude lazy person complained about it cause he didn't want to slow down and take the effort to read it...:eek::bugeye:;)

Lol..its not like some rude lazy person complained about it cause he didn't want to slow down and take the effort to read it.As a moderator it's part of my job to make this an efficient and convenient experience for the members. Why should all the people on this thread have to stop and pick their way through the rubble of a garbled sentence because one person doesn't have enough respect for them to learn his way around a keyboard?

And is what is your best guess (i.e. opinion) about those things?

He didnt answer so i will take a crack at it. I dont think that true atheism is possible since no living person has experienced death then how can they say what comes after? That said, if they assumed the poition of 'atheist' for whatever reason, would it be fundamentalist atheism, coerced atheism or volunteer atheism? Big difference if you ask me and how do you get everyone on the same page? I mysefl am Agnostic, how would you get me to become full blown atheist?

You can bribe me and offer incentives though.

And is what is your best guess (i.e. opinion) about those things?



Well, I rather hear your opinion

Well, I rather hear your opinion

You're the one that brought it up. Just baiting I guess. :shrug:

He didnt answer so i will take a crack at it. I dont think that true atheism is possible since no living person has experienced death then how can they say what comes after? That said, if they assumed the poition of 'atheist' for whatever reason, would it be fundamentalist atheism, coerced atheism or volunteer atheism? Big difference if you ask me and how do you get everyone on the same page? I mysefl am Agnostic, how would you get me to become full blown atheist?

That's about the stupidest answer I could imagine. Death has nothing ... let me repeat NOTHING to do with atheism.

The fact is there is NOTHING after death. Any rational person knows that.

As a moderator it's part of my job to make this an efficient and convenient experience for the members. Why should all the people on this thread have to stop and pick their way through the rubble of a garbled sentence because one person doesn't have enough respect for them to learn his way around a keyboard?

i do not actually know which post you are referring to..but
i often miss type or forget to put the proper punctuations in.(hey! i use spell check way more than i used to..)

its not a point to stress about..
AND
all the people
did you ask everyone if it is a problem?
AND
whatever happened to Clueluss? (i haven't seen his posts much)
or the color crayon guy..
IOW, no matter how bad it is, it could be worse..

i do not actually know which post you are referring to..but
i often miss type or forget to put the proper punctuations in.(hey! i use spell check way more than i used to..)

its not a point to stress about..
AND
all the people
did you ask everyone if it is a problem?
AND
whatever happened to Clueluss? (i haven't seen his posts much)
or the color crayon guy..
IOW, no matter how bad it is, it could be worse..

Yes clueless here and on other forums as well. If we're gonna enforce grammar, spelling and punctuation, then let it rain on all.

:D

You can bribe me and offer incentives though.

Catholic Church style ?

The fact is there is NOTHING after death. Any rational person knows that.

:jawdrop:



starts running in circles holding his head !

:jawdrop:



starts running in circles holding his head !

Don't do that, just be sure to do good while you are here and leave something of worth behind for others.

:D

Don't do that, just be sure to do good while you are here and leave something of worth behind for others.

:D

Good advice. Kind of makes me wonder why so many worry about how much crap they have and how much money they make, especially those who are religious.

Just think how pissed off your average 10 year old would be to get to heaven and find out there are no X-Box, guitar hero and gameboys.

To me heaven is right here right now, make the most of it and enjoy.

He didnt answer so i will take a crack at it. I dont think that true atheism is possible since no living person has experienced death then how can they say what comes after?Theism and the oxymoron of "life after death" are merely (major) elements of the philosophy of supernaturalism: the belief that an invisible, illogical supernatural universe exists, in which powerful creatures live, who whimsically and often angrily interfere with the behavior of the natural universe.

The fundamental premise of science is that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its present and past behavior. Science is recursive and this premise has been subjected to the scientific method, and tested aggressively for half a millennium. It has never come close to being falsified.

To embrace supernaturalism is to deny science, by accepting as proven a set of hypotheses for which there is no supporting evidence, a flagrant violation of the scientific method.

While it is true that no living person has experienced death, the assertions of the supernaturalists include many instances of dead people communicating with the living. No respectable evidence for these assertions has ever been presented. The typical "evidence" is a splotch on a tortilla (of the billions that are manufactured every year) said to be the image of a Biblical figure. Since there are no portraits of those people against which to compare the tortilla, the claim is absurd. Another widely used type of evidence involves a "medium" who claims to be able to hear the dead and passes the communication on to their survivors, who of course cannot hear them directly. This is nothing more than a carnival trick. People have even claimed to hear their religion's god speaking to them, and the fact that no one else ever hears these conversations is explained away as God's supernatural ability to speak so that only one person hears him. It isn't even necessary to accuse the object of this communication of lying, since people experience hallucinations every day.

In aggregate, the supernaturalists insist that they have evidence for their assertions, including the assertion of life after death, yet this evidence never stands up to the most elementary testing.

This is why it would be just as unreasonable to accept the premise of an afterlife as any other supernatural premise: 1) There is no evidence for the existence of a supernatural universe, and 2) Since we first developed the scientific method, all evidence that has been tested has consistently supported the premise that the natural universe is not subject to supernatural forces.

This is the evidence you require, and it supports the assertion that there is no supernatural universe, which includes gods, miracles and life after death.
That said, if they assumed the position of 'atheist' for whatever reason, would it be fundamentalist atheism, coerced atheism or volunteer atheism?I don't know, and I'm not sure I even understand your labels. I was an atheist as a child because religion was never mentioned or explained by my family, who were all atheists. I never heard of gods and supernatural forces. When I first heard about them I thought it was a big joke, and that's basically how I feel about it today. I'm an atheist because not to be an atheist would be irrational or simply stupid.
I myself am Agnostic, how would you get me to become full blown atheist?Why should I try? Why should I care? Atheism is not a religion. Atheists are not evangelists. Well most of us anyway.

The majority of the people on this planet are supernaturalists, yet they manage to be decent people and do a good job of keeping things running. Obviously belief in a supernatural universe is not a major impediment to taking care of their business, so I'm not going to go around trying to convince them to be atheists.

At the societal level of course I do see much harm caused by supernaturalism, especially the Abrahamic religions. They reinforce our atavistic tribal instinct and motivate us to kill each other for not believing in exactly the same supernatural universe. But going around and trying to convert one supernaturalist at a time to atheism doesn't seem like it would be very helpful.
If we're gonna enforce grammar, spelling and punctuation, then let it rain on all.I don't "enforce" writing standards. I just explain them and, when necessary, explain the reasons behind them. As the Linguistics Moderator it's part of my job. Whether you follow the standards is up to you.

There has been considerable research into the way the brain works while reading, and we know that misspelling and other errors in orthography interrupt the pace of reading. It's an apt comparison to point out that reading something in your native language that is full of typographical flaws is somewhat like reading something in an unfamiliar alphabet.

A busty young lady was walking down the sidewalk toward me wearing a bright t-shirt with "Jerusalem" written in Hebrew. I know the Hebrew alphabet and even though I don't know the language I know the name "Jerusalem" when I see it. It took me quite a while to puzzle that out. The lady was about to frown at me for staring at her chest until I looked up and she could tell what I had been doing from the expression on my face, so she smiled good-naturedly.

Reading an English sentence with spelling errors, or even simply bad punctuation, is a similar experience, although obviously considerably less difficult. You have to slow down and read every letter one at a time.

Most university graduates can read at least 100 words per minute, which allows us to do quite a bit of reading both on the job and in our free time. We cannot read John's writing at anywhere near that speed. So it robs us of time we could be using to read something else. Sure it's only a few seconds per post, but if everyone wrote that way it would really add up.

While it is true that no living person has experienced death,

um..one more time..Beyond and Back (http://www.biography.com/isurvived-beyond-and-back/)
testimonies of ppl who have died then came back to life..

um..one more time..Beyond and Back (http://www.biography.com/isurvived-beyond-and-back/)
testimonies of ppl who have died then came back to life..

Wrong. If they did not die, they didn't die, the experiences they report are nothing more than what happens to our bodies (and minds) in extreme near-death (not death) circumstances.

Wrong. If they did not die, they didn't die, the experiences they report are nothing more than what happens to our bodies (and minds) in extreme near-death (not death) circumstances.

you didn't even watch it did you?
some of those ppl were clinically dead.

you didn't even watch it did you?
some of those ppl were clinically dead.

Didn't need to. What I said is true.

And besides this offshoot has virtually nothing to do with the topic.

Theism and the oxymoron of "life after death" are merely (major) elements of the philosophy of supernaturalism: the belief that an invisible, illogical supernatural universe exists, in which powerful creatures live, who whimsically and often angrily interfere with the behavior of the natural universe.

The fundamental premise of science is that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its present and past behavior. Science is recursive and this premise has been subjected to the scientific method, and tested aggressively for half a millennium. It has never come close to being falsified.

To embrace supernaturalism is to deny science, by accepting as proven a set of hypotheses for which there is no supporting evidence, a flagrant violation of the scientific method.

While it is true that no living person has experienced death, the assertions of the supernaturalists include many instances of dead people communicating with the living. No respectable evidence for these assertions has ever been presented. The typical "evidence" is a splotch on a tortilla (of the billions that are manufactured every year) said to be the image of a Biblical figure. Since there are no portraits of those people against which to compare the tortilla, the claim is absurd. Another widely used type of evidence involves a "medium" who claims to be able to hear the dead and passes the communication on to their survivors, who of course cannot hear them directly. This is nothing more than a carnival trick. People have even claimed to hear their religion's god speaking to them, and the fact that no one else ever hears these conversations is explained away as God's supernatural ability to speak so that only one person hears him. It isn't even necessary to accuse the object of this communication of lying, since people experience hallucinations every day.

In aggregate, the supernaturalists insist that they have evidence for their assertions, including the assertion of life after death, yet this evidence never stands up to the most elementary testing.

This is why it would be just as unreasonable to accept the premise of an afterlife as any other supernatural premise: 1) There is no evidence for the existence of a supernatural universe, and 2) Since we first developed the scientific method, all evidence that has been tested has consistently supported the premise that the natural universe is not subject to supernatural forces.

This is the evidence you require, and it supports the assertion that there is no supernatural universe, which includes gods, miracles and life after death.I don't know, and I'm not sure I even understand your labels. I was an atheist as a child because religion was never mentioned or explained by my family, who were all atheists. I never heard of gods and supernatural forces. When I first heard about them I thought it was a big joke, and that's basically how I feel about it today. I'm an atheist because not to be an atheist would be irrational or simply stupid.Why should I try? Why should I care? Atheism is not a religion. Atheists are not evangelists. Well most of us anyway.

The majority of the people on this planet are supernaturalists, yet they manage to be decent people and do a good job of keeping things running. Obviously belief in a supernatural universe is not a major impediment to taking care of their business, so I'm not going to go around trying to convince them to be atheists.

At the societal level of course I do see much harm caused by supernaturalism, especially the Abrahamic religions. They reinforce our atavistic tribal instinct and motivate us to kill each other for not believing in exactly the same supernatural universe. But going around and trying to convert one supernaturalist at a time to atheism doesn't seem like it would be very helpful.I don't "enforce" writing standards. I just explain them and, when necessary, explain the reasons behind them. As the Linguistics Moderator it's part of my job. Whether you follow the standards is up to you.

There has been considerable research into the way the brain works while reading, and we know that misspelling and other errors in orthography interrupt the pace of reading. It's an apt comparison to point out that reading something in your native language that is full of typographical flaws is somewhat like reading something in an unfamiliar alphabet.

A busty young lady was walking down the sidewalk toward me wearing a bright t-shirt with "Jerusalem" written in Hebrew. I know the Hebrew alphabet and even though I don't know the language I know the name "Jerusalem" when I see it. It took me quite a while to puzzle that out. The lady was about to frown at me for staring at her chest until I looked up and she could tell what I had been doing from the expression on my face, so she smiled good-naturedly.

Reading an English sentence with spelling errors, or even simply bad punctuation, is a similar experience, although obviously considerably less difficult. You have to slow down and read every letter one at a time.

Most university graduates can read at least 100 words per minute, which allows us to do quite a bit of reading both on the job and in our free time. We cannot read John's writing at anywhere near that speed. So it robs us of time we could be using to read something else. Sure it's only a few seconds per post, but if everyone wrote that way it would really add up.

What does all this BS have to do with the opening post ?

What does all this BS have to do with the opening post ?

You dislike an objective atheist standpoint. I should let you do the math. For no other reason aside from the fact they can.

You dislike an objective atheist standpoint. I should let you do the math. For no other reason aside from the fact they can.

What is the atheist standpoint ?
What math. do you want me to do ?
Can you explain you third sentence .

Didn't need to. What I said is true.
only in your definition of what death is..

And besides this offshoot has virtually nothing to do with the topic.
it was in response to:

Originally Posted by Fraggle Rocker
While it is true that no living person has experienced death,
i just submitted evidence that says that statement is not true.
whether you accept that evidence is your responsibility.
I can believe it.

Death is well defined. I have no personal definition that is different. And you are the one who delineated a specific definition of death, which clearly is wrong if a person comes back to life.

Sorry Squirrel you are simply wrong on this one.

Death is well defined. I have no personal definition that is different. And you are the one who delineated a specific definition of death, which clearly is wrong if a person comes back to life.

Sorry Squirrel you are simply wrong on this one.

so you are saying death is more than your heart stopping and being brain dead?

Fraggle Rocker,




...Sociologist Gregory Paul and Pitzer College sociology professor Phil Zuckerman pose this question in the April 29 Washington Post. They point out that while America has gotten over its disrespect for Afro-Americans and Jews and is even becoming more civil to homosexuals, our people still don't like atheists very much. We're considered immoral, wicked and angry; we can't join the Boy Scouts; in the military we are rated as potentially deficient in our psychological evaluations; despite the constitutional ban on religious tests for public office, most Americans are reluctant to vote for a non-believer--much less marry one....


Doesn't this answer your question?

I suspect it is because you are desparate to get rid of God out of the minds of everybody. You're transforming the world into hell on earth, and you don't even know it.
How many dangergous people does it take to transform a city or even country of millions into a no-go area.
I think it has to be something along those lines.

jan.

Jan, I actually you think you are on to something there. The whole point of gods and religion is to alleviate fears (and explain the unknown) through (self-)deception. To take that away induces fear.

Jan, I actually you think you are on to something there. The whole point of gods and religion is to alleviate fears (and explain the unknown) through (self-)deception. To take that away induces fear.

Just to let you know.
My response was purely a response to the OP.
It's not my opinion.


jan.

I suspect it is because you are desparate to get rid of God out of the minds of everybody.Don't make the mistake of thinking that people like Dawkins are typical atheists. One of the reasons I despise him is that he has happily accepted the position as our spokesman, causing the public to quite reasonably assume that he does indeed speak for us. While I agree with much (but by no means all) of what he says, I don't agree with his attitude of confronting religionists and attempting to show them the error of their ways.

I do that here on SciForums, among a self-selected population who have volunteered to be exposed to the scientific method and thereby to learn why irrational faith in the supernatural is antiscientific. But I don't go around talking this way to the general public. I can say with no exaggeration that some of my best friends are Christians. I'm happy with the way they lead their lives and they feel the same way about me, so we have no reason to argue about philosophy.

I understand that supernaturalism is a collection of archetypes and therefore almost certainly an instinct. I understand that asking people to question their instincts and learn to override them is never easy and rarely successful, especially for someone who has not made a career of it. Dawkins clearly does not understand this, even though he seems to have made a career of it. He thinks that shoving logic in people's faces will make them logical. Instead he makes a fool of himself and, because everyone assumes that he is our chosen spokesman, he makes fools of all of us.
You're transforming the world into hell on earth, and you don't even know it.Excuse me? Please provide the evidence that supports that assertion. Jung pointed out that the wars among the Christian nations have been the bloodiest in human history, although I would include the depredations of pagan Genghis Khan in that list. Christendom alone has wrought immeasurable evil on this planet, from the persecutions of Jews and followers of traditional Egyptian polytheistic religion when Emperor Constantine made Christianity Rome's official religion, to the institutionalization of violent antisemitism as almost the defining trait of European Christianity right up until its crowning achievement, the Holocaust. Along the way Christian armies obliterated two entire civilizations, even destroying their records (Aztec libraries, Inca art objects) in an attempt to erase them from history, terrorized an entire continent with the Inquisition, and fought cruelly among themselves over arcane doctrinal disagreements in the hundred years of non-stop warfare we euphemistically refer to as "the Enlightenment."

In modern times, the three primary Abrahamist communities (Jews, Christians and Muslims) appear determined to engulf the entire planet in a Nuclear Holy War.

Meanwhile the "peaceful" Buddhists and Hindus spent a couple of decades murdering each other in Sri Lanka, the Muslims are killing each other over doctrinal disputes when they're not busy trying to annihilate the Christians and Jews, the Christians on the Emerald Isle have only recently stopped killing each other over doctrinal disputes, and the Jews are paying the world back for the Holocaust by turning Palestine into one big concentration camp.

And please don't give me the old bullshit about how we are responsible for communism. The communist slogan, "To each according to his need, from each according to his ability," is a reworking of Marx's favorite passage in the Book of Acts. Communism is an offshoot of Christianity; no other philosophy would suggest with a straight face that an economy can prosper if what a man takes from it does not have to correlate with what he puts back in.

If there is a Hell on Earth, it was brought to you by the religionists, especially the Children of Abraham.

And please don't give me the old bullshit about how we are responsible for communism. The communist slogan, "To each according to his need, from each according to his ability," is a reworking of Marx's favorite passage in the Book of Acts. Communism is an offshoot of Christianity; no other philosophy would suggest with a straight face that an economy can prosper if what a man takes from it does not have to correlate with what he puts back in.

you get too hung up on labels. capitalism can work by taking more than giving back. labels really mean nothing. in essence, there are plenty of christians who have values that are not based on fairness or equal contribution. after all, god shows favoritism as well as gives immense blessings to some while not others. capitalism is also not based on equal contribution. humans have a sly way of working things and if you flip or look under the table, it will be enligtenening how much the same the motives really are with a different ruse.

Capitalism can work by taking more than giving back.I agree that there have been and still are capitalist economies from which more is taken out than put in. But those are dysfunctional economies that either will collapse before long like the European communist economies, or will be repaired. Repair might involve merging some of the principles of the legacy culture, like Chinese communism borrowing just enough Confucianism to work. Or it could be a revolution.
capitalism is also not based on equal contribution.Not at the individual level, but in aggregate. Capitalist economies--like any economies--only survive so long as total production slightly exceeds total consumption.

Doesn't this answer your question?

I suspect it is because you are desparate to get rid of God out of the minds of everybody. You're transforming the world into hell on earth, and you don't even know it.
How many dangergous people does it take to transform a city or even country of millions into a no-go area.
I think it has to be something along those lines.

jan.

We aren't desperate yet here in the USA. However, in many places in the world, the victims of religion might be. It's their almost literal hell by being burned to death for witchcraft or stoned to death for loving the wrong person that religion is responsible for. Even here in the states, theists are attempting to teach bullshit to our children as fact, trying to take away the liberty to control your own body, and entertaining wild apocalyptic fantasies that cause people not to care about such things as the environment or global warming. If these idiots dislike atheists, I really don't care.

What is the atheist standpoint ?
What math. do you want me to do ?
Can you explain you third sentence .

I want you to make some kind of point so I can make fun of you for it. So far you have just spilled foul words for no apparent reason other than to cope with your already terrible life, by spilling it onto others.

I'm agnostic and I don't like evangelical atheism. Or indeed evangelical anything. No one knows for sure so don't ram it down peoples throats.

I know "not knowing" isn't the truth. Still people who set their premises to agnostic are, more often than not, open minded.

It should be blatantly honest by most peoples opinions nobody knows the absolute truth. I find no sound reasoning in holding no truth to be an original truth when the only truth is what we appear to know of ourselves as a whole. Is it Ok for us to branch out unknowingly. Yes, but if all we find is nothing maybe we have stretched ourselves too far. We all have times where we curse God, Damn Fate, Objectify something obscure. And we all suffer the false premises that leads all light to an early end. Where these questions start and why they are irreconcilable. Maybe they just need more holy water to caste the demons out of them.

A minds freedom of immagination often leads to its destruction.

The world will never be anything more than what we make it out to become.

The world will never be anything more than what we make it out to become.

so true..

Why do Americans still dislike Atheists?

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/wp-content/uploads/richard-dawkins.jpg
Enough said

Why do Americans still dislike Atheists?

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/wp-content/uploads/richard-dawkins.jpg
Enough said

And why pray tell do you claim that image is 'enough said?'

And why pray tell do you claim that image is 'enough said?'

Still going with the premise that americans dislike atheists means your are kind of dim anyway...so...does it really matter at this point?

lmfao...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b5aW08ivHU

Still going with the premise that americans dislike atheists means your are kind of dim anyway...so...does it really matter at this point?

lmfao...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b5aW08ivHU

Well, speak of dim. Keep posting. Maybe some day you'll have something actually worthwhile to add.

Why do Americans still dislike Atheists?

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/wp-content/uploads/richard-dawkins.jpg
Enough said

It's funny that you imagine that Americans know who Richard Dawkins is, or have heard anything that he has to say, or form their associations with the concept of "atheism" from British intellectuals in the first place.

speak of dim. Keep posting.

:zzz:

next?

As I said above.

It's funny that you imagine that Americans know who Richard Dawkins is, or have heard anything that he has to say, or form their associations with the concept of "atheism" from British intellectuals in the first place.

As much as anyone with an internet connection or maybe a t.v.

As I said above.

i am just saying that your personality matches your avatar.

http://sciforums.com/avatars/avatar68557_2.gif

I'm agnostic and I don't like evangelical atheism. Or indeed evangelical anything. No one knows for sure so don't ram it down peoples throats.

That is precisely what we are fighting.

That is precisely what we are fighting.

Obviously that wont work then.

I'm agnostic and I don't like evangelical atheism. Or indeed evangelical anything. No one knows for sure so don't ram it down peoples throats.To say, "No one knows for sure," is to mimic the intellectual dishonesty of the religionists.

It's like saying, "You don't know for sure that there's not an alligator hiding under your bed, so I'm not going to take my shoes off." But no, actually it's not even that reasonable a statement. There is a zoo in Washington, they have an alligator exhibit, the entire staff could have gone on strike and left all the enclosures unlocked in protest, an alligator could have crawled 25 miles north without being spotted by the police or squashed by a truck, my housemate could have left the front door open, he could have come down the stairs and hidden under the bed, and along the way he could have captured and eaten a deer so my dogs are still alive and I didn't immediately wonder why they didn't run to the door to greet me when we arrived.

The chances of this happening are infinitesimal, but it is possible. It doesn't violate any of the laws of nature that we have spent half a millennium carefully discovering.

To say, "You don't know for sure that there is no god," does not fall into that same category. The existence of an invisible, illogical supernatural universe, from which creatures capriciously wield forces that interfere with the behavior of the natural universe, violates the fundamental premise of science, which is that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its present and past behavior. This premise has been tested and peer-reviewed aggressively and exhaustively for half a millennium, and has never come close to being falsified. All of our meticulously accumulated empirical evidence about the behavior of the universe supports this premise. To gainsay it is to reject science.

So to say, "You don't know there is no god so there could be one," is as disingenuous as saying, "You don't know there is no Santa Claus, La Llorona, or Fraggle Rock, so there could be one."

To postulate the existence of something for which there is absolutely no evidence, and then fabricate an entire gallery of supernatural creatures and a history of supernatural events around it, and then proselytize a code of behavior designed to please one of those imaginary creatures, is a sophomoric exercise. A great way to waste time and energy that could be spent learning how the natural universe actually works and making a positive contribution to civilization.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhhd-ux9g1JPb9KpNfOS_9WYLzER4973aRDKBm-h1HuWx6KJSdJQ
More than enough said, thank you very much

Fuck Kremmen, ya big Pommy Poonce.
Why would ya think that Americans (especially Americans who are obsessed with atheists) would have a clue who Dawkins is?

We all know the seppoes are the most insular, unwordly arm of the supposedly educated world.
Now ya go and prove my own ignorance by posting up a piccy of some random dude who I just can't place.

I suspect it's a young Ghandi when he wore specs (and was atheist) or Fred Phelps (before he was evangeliscised).

Am I close?

It's Nietsche.
Wrong spelling I think.
There's another z or a k or one of those other European letters in it somewhere.

Nietsche was not the first atheist.
But he was the first Atheist who understood the implications of being an atheist if you are powerful.

Those implications being.
You can do as you wish.
You can lie, kill, betray, steal, and disobey every rule set down in the tablets of each and every religion.
If God is dead, you can be God yourself, and with no consequences.

A dangerous creed, indeed.

In comparison, Dawkins is a country curate.
A Christian in all but faith.
Same as most of us in varying degrees.

It's Nietsche. Wrong spelling I think. There's another z or a k or one of those other European letters in it somewhere.It is, in fact, Nietzsche. And K is a perfectly wholesome English letter. When the Roman monks transcribed Anglo-Saxon or "Old English" they used C for that sound, but later English scholars replaced it with K or CK, giving English its distinct un-Roman appearance.
Those implications being. You can do as you wish. You can lie, kill, betray, steal, and disobey every rule set down in the tablets of each and every religion. If God is dead, you can be God yourself, and with no consequences. A dangerous creed, indeed.Dangerous but also distinctly at odds with our millions-of-years-old instinct as a social species. We are born with the instinct to depend on and care for our pack-mates. We have spent the last twelve thousand years enlarging our definition of "pack" to include an ever-larger circle of ever-less-well-acquainted people, yet we all still know that the only reason civilization works is that we do our best to live in harmony and cooperation with all of them.

A person who believes that it is okay for him to lie, kill and steal is uncivilized, regardless of his religious or irreligious philosophy.

If this is typical of Nietzsche's writing (making it one of the reasons I never bother to read philosophy books because I get tired of spending money on books and then tearing them up in anger), then he was a sopohomoric blowhard. He may have presented this as a valid code to live by, but apparently he himself did not practice it.

We all respect the higher power of civilization, that wonderful superorganism that we created and which continues to grow and prosper (although not monotonically), of which we are the cells. There are people (modern-day Nietzsches?) who insist that they would rather live in the Paleolithic Era, sleeping on the ground, chasing mastodons, running from sabretooths, letting their elders starve during famines, and never hearing professionally composed and performed music. But if they were transported a couple of centuries back to a time when they could have found a tribe of nomadic hunter-gatherers and joined them, very few of them would give up their beds, roofs, HDTV, internet, doughnuts and health insurance and actually do it.

so you are saying death is more than your heart stopping and being brain dead?

My answer would be 'yes'. I'd define 'death' in the biological sense as cell death, as the permanent disruption and cessation of cell biochemistry and ultimatly the lysis and disintegration of the cell.

On an organismic level, death would consist of cell death on such a scale that further continuation of physiological functions becomes impossible.

The idea of heart stoppage or brain death being an indicator of death is a legal criterion, not a biological one. The law needs to have some criterion to distinguish between a living individual and a dead one, since living people have a legal status that's very different from that of corpses.

In ancient times, breathing was often taken to be the criterion. But we all know that it's often possible to revive people who have stopped breathing. So in the 19'th century, physicians promoted a new standard that employed heart stoppage as the indicator of an individual's death. Of course today it's basically routine for surgeons to stop and re-start hearts in order to perform repairs.

That motivated the widespread adoption of irreversable brain-death, defined in this case as brain inactivity as measured by EEGs, as the legal criterion of death in the 20'th century.

Note the word 'irreversable'. Simply rendering somebody unconscious, even if their heart is stopped, doesn't qualify as death. And the fact that NDE cases revive to tell their tales of what death is supposedly like indicates that none of their situations was ever irreversable. So none of their situations ever satisfied the legal criterion of death.

The problem with brain death defined as irreversible brain inactivity is that it's very hard to define and measure, since many severely brain-injured individuals might show little cortical activity, but still some residual activity deeper in their brain stems. So there's an active debate among physicians, lawyers and courts about what level of brain inactivity qualifies. And there are the underlying problems of determining what level of brain damage is truly irreversable and what level of brain activity corresponds to the presence or absence of a conscious 'self'.

A person who believes that it is okay for him to lie, kill and steal is uncivilized, regardless of his religious or irreligious philosophy.

I resent that. Lies are easy to justify at a certain level of intelligence. Killing is an action that only happens in civilization to call it uncivilized is just untrue no matter how much we wish it to be.

If you can justify your actions as moral, I see no reason to let something unjust skip past a recommended punnishment.

Besides as a society we have to find some way to justify war. Most aren't deep enought to feel the blood of the dying spilling through their own veins.

I love all you atheists,

Why do Americans still dislike Atheists?

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/wp-content/uploads/richard-dawkins.jpg
Enough said


O really dislike this phony Lyme, he is a appointed christian and found himself a way to make money of the suckers atheists by publishing what they want to hear.

So to say, "You don't know there is no god so there could be one," is as disingenuous as saying, "You don't know there is no Santa Claus, La Llorona, or Fraggle Rock, so there could be one."

To postulate the existence of something for which there is absolutely no evidence, and then fabricate an entire gallery of supernatural creatures and a history of supernatural events around it,





Why scientist hunt for Higgs particle are they really know that it exist, are we sure about dark matter or dark energy ? Why going in spends billions in hunting that does not affect man kind . Wouldn't bettere to spend the money for health an food growing for mankind ?
If theist are and chose to be ignorant in physical matter, you are ignorant in their subject which makes them happy ., What is important in life is to be happy and make someone happy.

To say, "No one knows for sure," is to mimic the intellectual dishonesty of the religionists.

It's like saying, "You don't know for sure that there's not an alligator hiding under your bed, so I'm not going to take my shoes off." But no, actually it's not even that reasonable a statement. There is a zoo in Washington, they have an alligator exhibit, the entire staff could have gone on strike and left all the enclosures unlocked in protest, an alligator could have crawled 25 miles north without being spotted by the police or squashed by a truck, my housemate could have left the front door open, he could have come down the stairs and hidden under the bed, and along the way he could have captured and eaten a deer so my dogs are still alive and I didn't immediately wonder why they didn't run to the door to greet me when we arrived.

The chances of this happening are infinitesimal, but it is possible. It doesn't violate any of the laws of nature that we have spent half a millennium carefully discovering.

To say, "You don't know for sure that there is no god," does not fall into that same category. The existence of an invisible, illogical supernatural universe, from which creatures capriciously wield forces that interfere with the behavior of the natural universe, violates the fundamental premise of science, which is that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its present and past behavior. This premise has been tested and peer-reviewed aggressively and exhaustively for half a millennium, and has never come close to being falsified. All of our meticulously accumulated empirical evidence about the behavior of the universe supports this premise. To gainsay it is to reject science.

So to say, "You don't know there is no god so there could be one," is as disingenuous as saying, "You don't know there is no Santa Claus, La Llorona, or Fraggle Rock, so there could be one."

To postulate the existence of something for which there is absolutely no evidence, and then fabricate an entire gallery of supernatural creatures and a history of supernatural events around it, and then proselytize a code of behavior designed to please one of those imaginary creatures, is a sophomoric exercise. A great way to waste time and energy that could be spent learning how the natural universe actually works and making a positive contribution to civilization.

Another top ten classic by Fraggle. Thanks.

Some of these are so great that I reference them on other forum sites.

Why scientist hunt for Higgs particle are they really know that it exist, are we sure about dark matter or dark energy ? Why going in spends billions in hunting that does not affect man kind .
A deeper understanding of reality does affect mankind.

A deeper understanding of reality does affect mankind.

If that is the case then most of the things humanity are struggling to find are in reality unable for them to grasp. Why learn or use something that is more expensive than it is useless, unless it provides some sort of benefit to mankind as a whole.

Man has never been able to solve his individual problems, what makes any of us think we could solve the world's with a machine.

It's funny that you imagine that Americans know who Richard Dawkins is,

so that is who that is..

(making it one of the reasons I never bother to read philosophy books because I get tired of spending money on books and then tearing them up in anger),
anger? (frustration,fear,sadness,guilt,or loss?) inadequate understanding or disagree with content?


He may have presented this as a valid code to live by, but apparently he himself did not practice it.
history is filled with ppl like that..
i personally do not think it is an excuse to dismiss the message, there can be other, more qualified excuses if its a harmful message..

then it brings up the question of ; if some one asks you for advice, do you tell them what is best or what you do?
iow, have you ever gave advice that you didn't follow?

If that is the case then most of the things humanity are struggling to find are in reality unable for them to grasp. Why learn or use something that is more expensive than it is useless, unless it provides some sort of benefit to mankind as a whole.

Man has never been able to solve his individual problems, what makes any of us think we could solve the world's with a machine.
How can you determine what use future knowledge will be?

O really dislike this phony Lyme, he is a appointed christian and found himself a way to make money of the suckers atheists by publishing what they want to hear.

That's a load of horseshit, I seriously don't get the objection to Dawkins, he is the most mild mannered critic of religion around. There is just no nice way to say that religion sucks ass I guess.

That's a load of horseshit, I seriously don't get the objection to Dawkins, he is the most mild mannered critic of religion around. There is just no nice way to say that religion sucks ass I guess.

quoted for truth.

My answer would be 'yes'. I'd define 'death' in the biological sense as cell death, as the permanent disruption and cessation of cell biochemistry and ultimatly the lysis and disintegration of the cell.




So none of their situations ever satisfied the legal criterion of death.
The idea of heart stoppage or brain death being an indicator of death is a legal criterion, not a biological one.

?
but i think i do get your point..i'm not sure i agree with it in this context, legal vs biological death, but as you say the laws change as exceptions are found, same with biological death, some day they may find a way to revive a persons cells.:shrug:..then the definition will change again..

How can you determine what use future knowledge will be?

We all determine what future knowledge will be by what questions we ask each other. Till mores and maxims are made to suit societies outlook on life. Till all the deepest question have all the deepest answers. Then we are supposed to live finally. Unlike what we have been doing lately. Distracted by material possessions and fascinated by objects we will never approach. Future knowledge will always turn to previous wisdom for what they can not explain.

It's funny that you imagine that Americans know who Richard Dawkins is...

Wasn't he the host of Family Feud back in the day?

That's a load of horseshit, I seriously don't get the objection to Dawkins, he is the most mild mannered critic of religion around. There is just no nice way to say that religion sucks ass I guess.



Religion gives a piece of mind for some people and they don't have to take any pills ( medication ). Would you rather see million more people take anti depressant , let them be , let not every body be so smart as you, otherwise would be harder to get alone.

I would be depressed if I thought I was under the control of some transcendent totalitarian ruler you could never get away from, even in death- someone who watches you all the time, and plays games with your life (such as with Job). You can't even draw a picture of the bastard.

An atheist has no-one to blame but themselves for their mistakes. A theist can throw the blame unto God just as quickly as an atheist can blaspheme.

Is there a correlation between religion and drug use? I highly doubt your naturalistic tendencies to steer away from aspects concerning God causes depression.

Theists have no one but themselves to blame for their myth-takes.

Why scientist hunt for Higgs particle are they really know that it exist, are we sure about dark matter or dark energy?We do not know for sure that those things exist. But there is overwhelming evidence that something like them exist. The present and past behavior of the natural universe indicate that something with the approximate characteristics of the Higgs boson must exist, and that something with the approximate characteristics of dark matter must exist. If it is not those exact things that we have hypothesized, by looking for them we will come closer to finding the exact things that are responsible for the phenomena we observe.

In contrast, there is absolutely no evidence of any kind suggesting that an invisible, illogical supernatural universe exists, from which conscious, angry creatures capriciously unleash powerful forces to perturb the behavior of the natural universe. On the contrary, all of the evidence we have collected, since science as we know it arose, supports the premise that the natural universe is a closed system, whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its past and present behavior.

We have not solved all of the mysteries of the natural universe, but the ones we have solved never required throwing up our hands and saying, "Oh crap, there simply must be supernatural forces at work because there's no other way to explain these phenomena." The Higgs boson and dark matter may turn out to be incorrect hypotheses, but if they are falsified they will not send us running to a shaman, witch doctor or "priest" for the correct ones.
Why going in spends billions in hunting that does not affect mankind . Wouldn't better to spend the money for health an food growing for mankind?Because we never know what's going to help mankind. The Theory of Relativity gave us nuclear power plants. As much as we regret the parallel development of nuclear weapons (which have killed far fewer people than the current Holy War among the Christians, Jews and Muslims), nuclear power appears to be our only short-term hope for reducing greenhouse gases and slowing global warming. Our only long-term hope is a ring of gigantic solar energy collectors in high orbit, beaming energy down as microwaves to receiving stations. This too is the product of science.

You never know where science will take you until you get there. Cosmology may yet unveil something like wormholes that will allow us to found colonies on other planets, greatly reducing the probability that the Holy War among the deluded believers in "God" will destroy civilization.
If theist are and chose to be ignorant in physical matter, you are ignorant in their subject which makes them happy. What is important in life is to be happy and make someone happy.Certainly. But religionists--especially the Children of Abraham--have a nasty habit of rising up in unison every two or three generations in a paroxysm of violence, killing everyone who disagrees with their particular concept of God. This doesn't make anybody happy.
If that is the case then most of the things humanity are struggling to find are in reality unable for them to grasp. Why learn or use something that is more expensive than it is useless, unless it provides some sort of benefit to mankind as a whole.Asked and answered. We never know the benefit of a discovery until it's been made. On the balance, the unexpected discoveries of science have been a boon to civilization. As a musician and a music lover I personally would not want to live in a world that did not have the 24/7 availability of professionally composed and performed music that we have today.
Man has never been able to solve his individual problems, what makes any of us think we could solve the world's with a machine.That's a rather cynical view of humanity--not to mention historically incorrect. We have been solving problems with technology since the first ancestral species of humans learned how to use rocks as tools. The twin technologies of farming and animal husbandry--the Agricultural Revolution--made life immensely more secure by creating the first food surplus this planet had ever seen, ensuring that there would never again be a famine. At least not until colonialism left the world with dysfunctional nations ruled by despots.

Would you like to explain your objection to the technology of metallurgy, the wheel, or writing?
then it brings up the question of ; if some one asks you for advice, do you tell them what is best or what you do?Generally both. I suppose if you have children you have to edit what you say, but I don't have any.
iow, have you ever gave advice that you didn't follow?I have told people what I would like to do but have not found the time or strength to do it. When possible I explain why I failed. Perhaps they will have better luck than I did.

.......As much as we regret the parallel development of nuclear weapons (which have killed far fewer people than the current Holy War among the Christians, Jews and Muslims),......

Do you really believe that current wars are religious wars?

They are wars over resources.

And scientists are helping them to kill a lot more people than they would do otherwise.

Very good post though.
I may come back to some of your other arguments.

I find it more probable that we are missing something large from our naturalistic observations than dark matter or the higgs boson. Two things we could never touch or learn how to control.

I find it more probable that we are missing something large from our naturalistic observations than dark matter or the higgs boson. Two things we could never touch or learn how to control.
And we won't know for sure unless we do some research... Duh!

I find it more probable that we are missing something large from our naturalistic observations than dark matter or the higgs boson. Two things we could never touch or learn how to control.
Ooh! Been using your infallible crystal ball again?
Or maybe just making stuff up...

This thread is just immature. Is it some kind of comedy?

That's a load of horseshit, I seriously don't get the objection to Dawkins

My biggest objection to Dawkins is that he poses as some kind of authority on "religion", has written several rather sophomoric books on it and teaches something related at Oxford, when in reality he's a complete layman who's largely ignorant of the deeper subtleties of the subject. I don't believe that he's ever sat through a university religion class or done very much serious and extended study of it.

Dawkins is an excellent world-class evolutionary biologist. Or at least he was, until he was diverted onto spending so much of his time on his antipathy towards religion. He seems to have gotten caught up in battling the anti-evolution creationists and that experience has distorted his whole perception of things.


he is the most mild mannered critic of religion around. There is just no nice way to say that religion sucks ass I guess.

Of course not. Announcing that "religion sucks ass" is just an expression of atheist prejudice, reminiscent of the the fundamentalists' own conviction that everyone outside their religion are all doomed and evil sinners

Please don't represent religion as if it were a field where only an expert can know about it's intricacies. Every school child in Britain learns about the official religion in detail. There is nothing special about a priest that gives them a better understanding about religion than a biologist. Religion has distorted people's understanding of biology, so if he can't address that first, everything else he does in the name of popularization of science is useless.

Atheists are by definition prejudiced against religious claims, because those claims are unjustified by evidence. I don't care how calling something false is reminiscent of someone else calling something false, that is irrelevant. It's typically the last ditch effort to discredit an atheist when people call them fundamentalist. The problem is never fundamentalism but the nature of the fundamentals.

Ooh! Been using your infallible crystal ball again?
Or maybe just making stuff up...

My infallible crystal ball has more raw unttapped naturalistic talent than you will ever see if you keep this up.

My infallible crystal ball has more raw unttapped naturalistic talent than you will ever see if you keep this up.
Keep what up?
Questioning your suppositions?
Querying your pronunciations?

Do you have any evidence (at all) that your comment is correct?

Which comment. They all look pretty good to me. Knowledge of something we already understand to exist in reality does not further knowledge. It does not further society with no apparent use. Yet If you could find something known to be tangible. Known to be unique. Known to have many if not all uses yet still vastly misunderstood and unknown to society as a whole.

You know what my Crystal Ball is friend. Yet you make no harsh statements towards my ideology. No criticism sharp enough to drive a dagger into my words or wisdom. Is that because it is physically impossible? Has your ego finally overrun your snippy mouth to the point in which truth is impossible to see. You have to dodge and retreat constantly hiding your anger behind sarcasm. Bringing up the past on some other topic. Your nothing more than a troll.

Which comment.
The one I queried. :rolleyes:

dark matter or the higgs boson. Two things we could never touch or learn how to control.


They all look pretty good to me. Knowledge of something we already understand to exist in reality does not further knowledge. It does not further society with no apparent use.
Wrong.


You know what my Crystal Ball is friend.
Yup, rubbish.


Yet you make no harsh statements towards my ideology. No criticism sharp enough to drive a dagger into my words or wisdom. Is that because it is physically impossible?
Nope, it's because your delusion is too profound.


Has your ego finally overrun your snippy mouth to the point in which truth is impossible to see. You have to dodge and retreat constantly hiding your anger behind sarcasm. Bringing up the past on some other topic. Your nothing more than a troll.
Still wrong; I'm querying a statement you made in this thread.
Anger? :shrug:
Where have I dodged?

Then what's with the crystal ball? An allusion to a previously mentioned object :rolleyes: on a different thread?

"crystal ball" is often used as generic term for unfounded beliefs, made up statements, etc.

Then what's with the crystal ball?
Because you appear to be making predictions about the future.


An allusion to a previously mentioned object :rolleyes: on a different thread?
Um, no. You made a statement claiming we could "never" do a particular thing. I wondered how you know this. It's that simple.

Nope, it's because your delusion is too profound.



Nothing "profound" will ever come from the machines that "detect" subatomic particles. You might dislike that notion, but my "crystal ball" spills only the truth.

Nothing "profound" will ever come from the machines that "detect" subatomic particles. You might dislike that notion, but my "crystal ball" spills only the truth.


What? There you go again, speculating. :D

Because you appear to be making predictions about the future......
Um, no. You made a statement claiming we could "never" do a particular thing. I wondered how you know this. It's that simple.Appearances are deceiving. Right now you can't touch dark matter or the higgs... that is truth in the present not future.

What? There you go again, speculating. :D

Difference in definition. If finding something you hoped would be there is "profound".... well obviously our definitions differ. Or you have Alzheimer's.

Difference in definition. If finding something you hoped would be there is "profound".... well obviously our definitions differ. Or you have Alzheimer's.

As I said, you don't have a clue, you are just speculating and stirring the pot.

Appearances are deceiving. Right now you can't touch dark matter or the higgs... that is truth in the present not future.
Yet you claimed: Two things we could never touch or learn how to control.

Maybe you just have difficulties with English...

Do you really believe that current wars are religious wars?They're not like the Holy Wars of the 16th century, when all the Christians in Europe were trying to kill each other over arcana that the rest of us can't even understand. Today's holy wars have multiple causes, but the sides are aligned by religion and religion is one of the major causes.
They are wars over resources. And scientists are helping them to kill a lot more people than they would do otherwise.But at least the work of the scientists also provides benefits to mankind. Sometimes I think the only thing religion--especially the Abrahamic varieties--does for mankind is to reinforce his Stone Age tribal instinct and encourage him to notice the differences between him and his brothers rather than the many things they have in common.
My biggest objection to Dawkins is that he poses as some kind of authority on "religion", has written several rather sophomoric books on it and teaches something related at Oxford, when in reality he's a complete layman who's largely ignorant of the deeper subtleties of the subject. I don't believe that he's ever sat through a university religion class or done very much serious and extended study of it.One of my main objections is that he is not much of an authority on religious people. I'm sorry I can't dredge up the details after two or three years, but he once made a categorical statement about the way Christians "have always" treated other people that was complete bullshit and incredibly insulting. It's no wonder Christians hate him.
Atheists are by definition prejudiced against religious claims, because those claims are unjustified by evidence.You're getting too accustomed to hanging around with atheists who are scientists or scientist wannabees here on SciForums. Not all atheists have scientific training, and not all understand the scientific method, much less go around enforcing it.

Yet you claimed: Two things we could never touch or learn how to control.

Maybe you just have difficulties with English...

Have you composed a strawman? Thanks for reinstating my point of nothing profound coming from theses machines that detect subatomic particles.

Have you composed a strawman?
Ah, so you do have problems with English.


Thanks for reinstating my point of nothing profound coming from theses machines that detect subatomic particles.
False.

So your standpoint on the issue is no matter how big, small, quick, shortly lived, or monstrous the particle or whatever dark matter is we will strive for thousands of years to detect them all. Not a well thought out plan.

So your standpoint on the issue is no matter how big, small, quick, shortly lived, or monstrous the particle or whatever dark matter is we will strive for thousands of years to detect them all.
Nope.
You're still having problems with English aren't you?

You have problems revealing your position. A more deeply seeded problem than your "true English" bias over my fluent American.

You have problems revealing your position.
My position isn't in question. It's your statement that we will never be able to see/ touch/ make use of dark matter or the Higgs that's under contention.

How do you "know"?

I never said you wouldn't see...

I know because I know one thing that can not lie. Nature itself would not lie to us if it were all in the same place. All the natural pure Elements placed side by side confined yet connected to the universe in a way no human could understand.

My position isn't in question.

“Whoever knows he is deep, strives for clarity; whoever would like to appear deep to the crowd, strives for obscurity. For the crowd considers anything deep if only it cannot see to the bottom: the crowd is so timid and afraid of going into the water.”-Nietzsche

I know because I know one thing that can not lie.
Balls. You don't know.


Nature itself would not lie to us if it were all in the same place. All the natural pure Elements placed side by side confined yet connected to the universe in a way no human could understand.
Arrant nonsense.


“Whoever knows he is deep, strives for clarity; whoever would like to appear deep to the crowd, strives for obscurity. For the crowd considers anything deep if only it cannot see to the bottom: the crowd is so timid and afraid of going into the water.”-Nietzsche
Ooh, and a meaningless quote too.

"Sharpest criticism- One criticizes a person, a book, most sharply when one pictures their ideal."-Nietzsche

Till I hear some actual sharp criticism I'm inclined to believe you have not the slightest clue of what I speak.

In a nutshell, what is it that you are trying to say?

In a nutshell, what is it that you are trying to say?
Hard to tell. He seems to be striving for obscurity.

There is a better way to veiw our natural world than searching for the intangible to solve our misunderstandings in nature. We should view it through the eyes of nature itself not these machines. Assimilate all the elements of the periodic table into a singular object and allow them to detect the higgs and reveal dark matter. If you want the truth ask nature. I won't pretend to know all that will be revealed but to say I have an idea would not be a stretch.

The problem will always be finding someone with a high enough intellect to objectively understand my standpoint. So far only a couple grasp the idea to an extent worthy of any merrit. None are among us.

Now that was truly hilarious!

Thank you for the laugh!

your welcome.

your welcome.

That would be, "You're welcome."


:D

Semantics.

I call it sharp criticism.

That's what you wanted, right?

I was kind of hoping for something more sharp and more critical, but if that is the best you got I guess it will do. Only mistake so far is in spelling:)

And assuming individuals on a science forum were as objective as they were intelligent. So far I have not found either.

Semantics.
No, spelling.

Boy! That's a deep understanding of my ideology... I wish there were more people as deep as you in the world. The first part of the 100 year old quote should be to picture the ideal. Till I see that happens I'm under the assumption that each individual is ignorant of my deepest thoughts. True?

And assuming individuals on a science forum were as objective as they were intelligent. So far I have not found either.
Well so far you're fitting right in.
Or do you seriously call this:

Assimilate all the elements of the periodic table into a singular object and allow them to detect the higgs and reveal dark matter.
objective or intelligent?

I'm going to call that serious, objective, and intelligent till the moment someone pictures the ideal in their own words and provides some sort of criticism toward other than general arm waving and sarcastic remarks.

Sarcasm sometimes looses its objectivity to ego or ignorance. If that is the only true skill you posses I suggest you find another way of communicating your semantics.

I'm going to call that serious, objective, and intelligent
Unfortunately it's none of those.


till the moment someone pictures the ideal in their own words and provides some sort of criticism toward other than general arm waving and sarcastic remarks.
You have been asked this before: what possible reason do you have for thinking (apologies for my misuse of the word there) that this could have any meaning whatsoever in reality?


Sarcasm sometimes looses its objectivity to ego or ignorance. If that is the only true skill you posses I suggest you find another way of communicating your semantics.
And maybe you should come up with "ideas" that at least bear some resemblance to science and reality. As opposed to spouting specious unsubstantiated crap that makes you come across as a woo woo.

Unfortunately it's none of those. Make it and prove it to me. It can be made. That we both know.



You have been asked this before: what possible reason do you have for thinking (apologies for my misuse of the word there) that this could have any meaning whatsoever in reality? What specifically signifies that it does not? If you don't picture the ideal, you can't criticize properly. How do you not understand this simple 100 year old analogy. The only possibility I can think of is that I have somehow ran a string of sentences that is infallible. It goes completely over your head and you reject a true reality at this particular crossroads in your epistemology.



And maybe you should come up with "ideas" that at least bear some resemblance to science and reality. As opposed to spouting specious unsubstantiated crap that makes you come across as a woo woo.

Alright prove the object would not detect the Higgs boson. All those little chemical reactions in one place and you say it does not refer to reality. Right:rolleyes: Fail.

I'm going to call that serious, objective, and intelligent till the moment someone pictures the ideal in their own words and provides some sort of criticism toward other than general arm waving and sarcastic remarks.

Sarcasm sometimes looses its objectivity to ego or ignorance. If that is the only true skill you posses I suggest you find another way of communicating your semantics.

And why should anyone treat your pipe-dreams any different than anyone elses. It's up to the one that makes the claim to supply the proof. Go for it buddy.

But it should probably be in a different thread than this. Or are you claiming this has something to do with disliking atheists?

Make it and prove it to me. It can be made.
Wrong: you made the claim - substantiate it.


That we both know.
Also wrong.


What specifically signifies that it does not? If you don't picture the ideal, you can't criticize properly. How do you not understand this simple 100 year old analogy. The only possibility I can think of is that I have somehow ran a string of sentences that is infallible. It goes completely over your head and you reject a true reality at this particular crossroads in your epistemology.
Er no. You have posted this specious (and unscientific) idea. What makes you think it has ANY scientific substance?


Alright prove the object would not detect the Higgs boson.
What exactly do you mean by "Assimilate all the elements of the periodic table into a singular object"? Some sort of weird machine with unnecessary components?


All those little chemical reactions in one place and you say it does not refer to reality. Right:rolleyes: Fail.
Still wrong - take a look at how the thing would fir together and/ or work (or rather not work).

Wrong: you made the claim - substantiate it.Your yet to falsify it. Therefore infallible. The proof is in the pudding once you get your head out your arse and help society actually move foreword by



Also wrong.Oh, So only I have heard on nanotechnology. Great I'm leading a paradigm shift with a box full of morons.



Er no. You have posted this specious (and unscientific) idea. What makes you think it has ANY scientific substance? Specious how? Unscientific how?



What exactly do you mean by "Assimilate all the elements of the periodic table into a singular object"? Some sort of weird machine with unnecessary components?

HOLY S**T FINALLY SOMETHING. The nanotech snippet should help your mind a bit. just put together in that type of environment. It's not really a machine the closest thing to it would be an optical computer. Well the hard drive at the least.



Still wrong - take a look at how the thing would fir together and/ or work (or rather not work).
Well eventually the heaviest elements will settle to the bottom, but kinetic energy will keep the insides turning until the protons decay.