There aren’t many issues for which I sit on the fence, but this is one great big fat one. Do we call ourselves a religion in an effort to gain equality and membership in the movement? If you take the absolute broadest definition of the term “religion” and squint really hard, you can force Atheism to fit (the same goes for baseball fans). Theists love to do that, and from a debating perspective I’d love to take that card away from them. This is certainly not the correct usage of the term, but we’re arguing semantics, and isn’t that irrelevant anyway (semantics change over time)?Is that copping out? Is copping out a bad thing? One side of me says “don’t you DARE group me in with the sheep following invisible men in the sky”, and the other side says “call me anything you like if it gets me equality and fair treatment (easy tax deductions, faith-based money, etc)”.There is no easy answer, in my opinion. At American Atheists we are a “big umbrella” organization, so we gladly welcome Atheists who support the idea of a freethought church, as well as those who are utterly repulsed by the idea. I’m not repulsed, but I find it difficult to decide on which side of the fence to fall.
(thanks Zac)http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=1877The Atheon Temple of Science is an art project conceived by Jonathan Keats. Using a grant from UC Berkeley’s Chancellor’s Community Partnership fund, he created the Atheon in downtown Berkeley office building. Four millennia after Abraham fathered Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and 150,000 years after hominids introduced burial rituals to the Mediterranean, religion has finally been rendered wholly compatible with science. Beginning on September 27, 2008, a two-story downtown Berkeley building dubbed “the Atheon” will provide a spiritual home for rational people in California, and guidance to acolytes worldwide. Establishment of an Atheon has been a high priority in the scientific community for the past several years, rivaling even enthusiasm for the new Large Hadron Collider. “When you listen to people like Nobel-laureate cosmologist Steven Weinberg, or Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins, you hear a lot of talk about how god-based religion is out-of-date,” says conceptual artist Jonathon Keats. “The leading minds believe that science can and should provide a spiritually satisfying replacement. But until recently no one bothered to consider what form that alternative might take.” The temporary facility features stained glass windows showing the cosmic microwave background radiation using NASA’s new WMAP satellite data.
Here’s another version — The Church of Reality, headed up by my friend Marc.http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/welcome_home/
The Church of Reality is not just a religion of science, it is a religion of people. We explore reality from the human perspective. In order to explore reality, we need a strong, healthy society where people can live freely and peacefully, and the human race can evolve toward a better future. The pursuit of reality is something that is a shared process. It’s something we do together as a church, as a community, and as the human race.We are about Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Reality!The Church of Reality provides a religious identity for people who have made a personal commitment to pursue reality the way it really is. When we are asked, “What religion are you?,” we answer that we are Realists; we practice Reality because we believe in Reality. We also provide a sense of community, a social structure, and a moral compass to define right and wrong. We provide a sense of purpose about who we are, why we exist, and how we live our lives, in the context of science and logic.
Atheism is the absence of god-belief. All else is embellishment. At least, that’s my view of the matter.
But then, I’ve never regarded atheism as a conclusion, only a starting point. Atheism doesn’t supply one with an ideology, a moral code, a political agenda or anything else. We are united because we have no belief in gods. That’s all. Atheism, as I view it, has no dogma.
I think the phrases “atheist church” or “atheist religion” are oxymorons.
George,
Bravo!
Jcc,
How could I possibly form an opinion of them? I know very little about them. I don?t know them personally. I have never had a one-on-one conversation with either of them. All I can say is I disagree with their militant attitudes and actions.
Regardless, that’s not the point. Why is ANYONE talking about them? Why are we not focused on real issues? I’m not interested in attempts to discredit individuals (specifically McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden) based on allegations of relationships they may or may not have with others. I want to know what they plan to do as President/VP, how they plan to do it, and why they are going to do it . The rest of this B.S. is distraction and those who engage in it should be ashamed. Anyone who continues to exploit such nonsense needs to get their priorities straight.
alatham:
I don?t see how when one school of thought is practically militant in its denial of God?s existence while the other (I would think) should be basically indifferent towards it. And that attitude of indifference should foster an attitude of near neutrality on the ?strong?s? hot-button issues.
And that reinforces my argument for your cognitive dissonance. When asked, you won?t commit one way or the other on that one proposition, yet your arguments are heavily weighted on the assumption that God does not exist. In my opinion, that?s very slippery intellectual ground to try to stand on?especially when so many other personal philosophical stances are ultimately premised on assumptions as well.
For one thing, I?m certainly not alone in how I?ve interpreted it; and for another, there is very little semantic variation among all the English translations. You seem either uninformed or have forgotten just how much has been invested in Biblical scholarship.
And if I may:
How in the world can you read that into words that simply aren?t there? The Establishment Clause clearly means that the government must remain indifferent to religions in how it functions?it can?t possibly be construed as a requirement for a ?secular? government because people make up the government and people are free to worship what they choose.
DVanWechel:
Um, how ?bout Googling them?you?d be surprised how much information there is about them out there:
http://tinyurl.com/2ot5zp
Well then, given your ignorance of them and lack of curiosity to find out more about them, I guess you?re perfectly justified in not forming an opinion on them?
Congratulations, you obviously have higher standards than Obama does.
Um, because they were highly instrumental in getting Obama into public office in the first place?
If a presidential candidate?s past close association with an unrepentant, anti-American terrorist isn?t a real issue, then I don?t know what is.
Uh, Obama?s relationship with Ayers and Dohrn isn?t up for debate?it irrefutably occurred.
Again, if a presidential candidate is sympathetic with anti-American terrorists, what higher priority could that be? Do you think for a minute the media would give McCain a pass if it were discovered he had past connections with the Klan?
JCC
What do you think about the OJ trial?
Because I’ve never been able to justify spending so much money on something that I knew I would probably change my mind about a few years later. For me, tattoos are kinda like dogs: I like them for other people, just not for me. Who knows though, maybe I’ll change my mind one day and get a giant, greyscale rainbow arching over top of a dead, bloated velacoraptor etched across my back. (Or maybe the kids will get a puppy for xmas this year.)
What, tattoos weren’t already off topic?
I think both Ayers and Dohrn are a couple of failed hippy radicals who have somehow redeemed themselves enough to become ‘distinguished professors.’ I think calling those two ‘terrorists’ is just the same as when folks on the far left call Henry Kissinger a ‘war criminal.’ It serves nothing, even if true, because the fact remains that all three today are nothing more than old, harmless, and interesting specimens in the quest to understand how and why people can have so much certainty in their beliefs that it short circuits any sense of decency.
Of course, none of that is what you’re fishing for. I mean, I might as well ask you what you think of the Alaska Independence Party, or the fact that it’s somehow okay now for republicans to willfully ignore suppenas, or the fact that government regulation of the economy is suddenly cool again, or the ethics of shooting wolves from helicopters just so they won’t eat the moose that people up there like to shoot. Do you really want to get into another tit-for-tat with me?
r4d
… or the fact that John McCain played a central role in the S&L scandal. Oh wait a second! That actually is relevant given the parallels with our current economic disaster.
JCC
Oh BTW I was asking you about the 1995 O.J. trial not something as current and germane to current world affairs as the current one.
JCC
What do you think about economic terrorist Phil Gram, McCain’s economic adviser?
rainbows4dinosaurs:
Interesting? so the permanence aspect is a consideration for you? Ever seen an 70 year old tattoo?
Hey, you brought it up.
Redeemed themselves??how?
Huh? Did Kissinger unapologetically admit to participating in bombing NYPD headquarters, the Pentagon and the Capital?
?Even if true???Do you not read the New York Times? And admitting as late as September, 2001, ?I don?t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn?t do enough,? is HARMLESS???
So saying, ?Revolutionary violence is the only way?We will never live peaceably?? and ?Kill all the rich people?kill your parents? are the thoughts of those merely on a ?quest to understand how and why people can have so much certainty in their beliefs that it short circuits any sense of decency??
Are you pretending to be so provincial or do you really live in such a cloistered world?
Uh, actually, that was exactly what I was fishing for. Thanks for your (embarrassing) candor.
What? Like that?s something I?m supposed to avoid or be afraid of?
jcc,
Indeed. But we’re talking about atheism. We’re not talking about abortion, evolution, school prayer, or anything else. The only way your argument makes any sense to me is if we assume that I began as an atheist and used that position as a guide to my positions on all those other topics. But that’s not the way it works for me, I’ve arrived at all those other conclusions independent of my atheism.
So when you look at my behavior with regards to anything other than the question “Does God exist” and then say I’m behaving identically to a Strong Atheist, so what? All those other positions are irrelevant if we’re only talking about atheism. Hitler loved dogs just like I do, does that mean I’m behaving like a Nazi?
So? I consider the existence of a deity unlikely. Why wouldn’t I operate that way?
Given that you believe in a deity, I’m not at all surprised you feel that way.
Regarding how an interpreted morality can be called absolute:
I don’t care how common your interpretation is, it’s still a subjective interpretation. “Absolute morality” is a morality that is, by definition, completely objective. Since your interpretation is subjective, it cannot be objective, ergo your absolute morality is not so absolute.
The religious claim for absolute morality would be much more substantial if the religious idea of morality didn’t keep evolving to keep up with social pressures. Within the space of a generation, I’m sure this isn’t entirely noticeable and it may be true that individuals have a consistent set of morals throughout their lives, but it’s plainly clear that the next generation of religious children will not embrace the exact same set of morals that the current generation has embraced, even if they use the same “absolute” source.
Perhaps we should look at the word “secular”
From answers.com:
1. Worldly rather than spiritual. Something that is indifferent to religion could certainly be called secular by this definition.
2. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body. Again, indifference to religion fits here.
The other 4 definitions aren’t applicable for how we’re using “secular.”
From this, it’s very clear that a government that is indifferent to religion is necessarily secular.
Within a republic, people (ideally) make up the power behind the government. But the government exists without the people, it simply has no power to act without the people’s support.
I have a sneaking suspicion that you don’t actually know what “secular” means.
Not interested. Just as I’m not interested in Googling Sarah Palin’s crazy preacher, Ed Kalnins or McCain’s associates involved in the Savings & Loan scandal. It’s all tiresome distraction, designed specifically to keep the voting public’s eye off the ball. And unlike you, I’m not falling for it.
Please provide a link to Obama’s quotes about how he agrees with Ayers and Dohrn’s actions and attitudes. Or, have you spoken to Obama personally?
So. A bunch of gun-toting, animal-killing, environment-plundering, warmongering, Jesus freaks elected Bush into office. What’s your point?
As if their being repentant would matter. Please.
Pretty low priority for me actually ? but obviously not for you. How about the deaths of some 4000+ American troops, or some 100,000+ Iraqis? Not a high priority for you? How about the economic meltdown we’re in? I guess it’s much more important to spend your time attempting discredit Presidential candidates on the inferred philosophical positions they might hold based on their relationship with a couple of whacko, 60s, has-been hippies?
McCain having ties to the KKK wouldn?t matter and you know it. You?d still vote for him as long as he was ?repentant?, regardless of the crap he?d catch from the press.
That was for Jcc.
alatham:
Really? So, you?re seriously asserting that your derived, atheistic ?non-belief? has virtually no current effect on how you maintain your opinions on those topics? Are you saying that your attitude toward abortion and evolution radically changed after you concluded that you were a weak atheist?
I apologize for sounding incredulous, but that seems extremely unlikely to me?but to be fair, I guess that?s not to say that that couldn?t be a genuine example of Clintonian compartmentalism.
I believe the proper question should be ?why would you operate that way?? If I understand it correctly and weak atheism is essentially another form of pure skepticism, then I would expect one?s behavior to reflect an equal deference to both sides of the argument rather than one exhibiting a preponderance of one.
Isn?t the more widespread something is accepted (in this case, the Bible among those who believe), the closer it comes to being objectively true for everyone affected by it? In this case, is that not what an ?objective? interpretation would be?
Oh, absolutely.
Theft, perjury, premeditated murder, rape, pedophilia, etc. are completely and absolutely objective in the moral affect they have on each and every one of us.
Unambiguous directives like: ?do not steal,? ?do not commit murder,? and ?do not bear false witness,? cannot be subjectively interpreted ? but more importantly, human beings cannot be relied upon to consistently acknowledge and abide by such absolutes?and that lends enormous credence to them being of supernatural origin.
There is a fundamental difference between mores?the transient, ?conventions that embody the fundamental values of a group? (from Webster?s Online Dictionary) and morals ? such as murder, theft, rape, etc. that remain objective and absolute for all, throughout time.
As I indicated earlier, I?m not arguing that functionally the government shouldn?t be indifferent to religion. I?m arguing that nowhere in the Constitution is religion expressly prohibited from being practiced by those employed by, or elected to the government.
Considering the fact that our government was derived by the people, that assertion is non-sequitur. Without the people there would be no government and for such a government to be fully ?necessarily secular? would (in my opinion) also prohibit those implementing it from holding any religious beliefs and behaviors while doing so?which is exactly what the left is attempting to accomplish.
Oh, I know what secular means, and I also know what the Constitution does and does not say.
Yes, that is a consideration.
Not as a new topic of conversation. You asked if that was me… If it had been, were you planning on talking shit about my tattoos?
Good fracking question – I have no idea. Maybe they’re really nice in person or something. I did say ‘apparently’ – the whole thing perplexes me.
Um… no. The gripe is that he was behind the bombing and invasion of Cambodia, which many believe led to the brutal Cambodian civil war. Then again, he was also instrumental in easing tensions with the Soviets, so he couldn’t have been all bad.
Ha! I seriously doubt you first read that in the NYT. (And that was before 9/11, just to keep things straight.) What about this quote:
“I was ‘embarrassed by the arrogance, the solipsism, the absolute certainty that we and we alone knew the way. The rigidity and the narcissism.’ “(See, I can wiki too!)
The point is that somehow he has earned a significant amount of respect in his community. He was even an advisor to Mayor Daily. Could he have pulled that off if all he were about was bombing people? I mean, I still think he’s a loon, and I hate hippies anyway, but the fact that he’s at least achieved some amount of redemption is undeniable. You still believe in redemption, right?
Um… no, that is not at all what I meant. In fact, I have no idea how you got that so mixed up. You must be so blinded by your skewed mental image of me that it got you reading ahead to that hallucinatory fish you think you’ve so triumphantly caught.
Here’s a simplified version of what I said:
Ayers behavior in the seventies is an example of what can happen when you take your own bullshit way too seriously. Beware.
You know, I might be provincial. I might even be an elitist. And if that bothers you, then good. Portland is the best, period.
That wasn’t meant as any kind of threat. I’m just perplexed at the fact that you actually want to start one of these stupid threads. I for one am pretty sick of it. The pattern is too familiar, the payoff non-existent.
DVanWechel:
Ok, then don?t take umbrage to those who are.
Not falling for it, or turning a blind eye to it?
I don?t have any direct quotes of Obama?s, but I do have a timeline of their association (as substantiated by the venerable New York Times):
1995: Ayers & Dohrn host a ?meet-and-greet? for Obama in their home to introduce him to their neighbors during his first run for the Illinois Senate.
1997: Obama makes a joint appearance with Ayers (orchestrated by Michelle Obama) on a University of Chicago panel to discuss, ?Should a Child Ever Be Called a ?Super Predator???
1999: Ayers joins the Woods Fund of Chicago, a nonprofit organization, where he serves as a director alongside fellow board member, Barack Obama.
2002: Woods Fund makes a grant to Northwestern Univ. law school?s Children & Family Justice Center, where Dohrn is employed.
4/02: Obama and Ayers appear together as panelists to discuss, ?Intellectuals in Times of Crisis;? Dohrn is a panelist at the same conference.
2003: Obama, Ayers and Dohrn attend a party for Rashid Khalidi, reported PLO operative and Arafat apologist.
Ever heard the phrase: if you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas?
Actually, that would at least be a step in the right direction.
Not surprising. Clearly nothing?s changed for liberals; Carville said it best in ?92 that ?character has no political traction.? May God help you all.
100,000 Iraqis??that?s a good one?got any hard data to substantiate that??or is that Saddam?s reign-of-terror death toll?
Meltdown? Please explain how an economy in ?meltdown? can also grow at the same time.
Inferred positions? Obama is irrefutably the most liberal member of the Senate. And one doesn?t spend twenty years attending a church ?pastored? by a racist, America-hating radical and not be affected by or obtain some affinity for that rhetoric?otherwise he would?ve left years ago.
JCC
McCain hung out with the North Vietnamese for five years. He must be one of them.
Makes more sense than your Ayers nonsense
Jcc,
This from ABC news.
How far off was I again?
Given how you seem to want to dismiss Iraqi deaths, you would know about turning a blind eye.
Figures. I ask for proof, I get a timeline. Ridiculous.
I’m not a liberal. But I guess you’re more concerned with labels than the truth. By the way, wasn’t your Jesus a liberal?
You have got to be kidding. I’m not even going to bother.
What’s that have to do with your wanting to paint him as an anti-American extremist?
Unfortunately, I haven’t been graced with the ability to know what people would or wouldn’t do ? apparently you have.
What:
Ah-HA! McStain is the Manchurian Candidate!
Phreakshow & Jebediah Chastises Christhaters have apparently turned a blind eye to history. The track record shows that the USA always does better when Democrats are in the house.
We always do worse when the pig lickers are in power.
KA,
Just did a quick search.
You’re right.
http://www.eriposte.com/economy/other/demovsrep.htm
Eh… Whatever. Republicans… Democrats… Libertarians… Soc_ialists… it doesn’t matter too much anymore as far as economics is concerned. The $700 billion dollar verdict is in: The Free Market God is dead, and with it the once mighty American Empire.
It’s over. Done.
In the begin there was Reagan, an idiot actor, …
How about privatizing SS now?
Where’s Atomic and Mx when we need them?
Tarma made this statement to which I would like to reply:
“I am an atheist, not a humanist. “Our” policy CANNOT be that “god” is watching from afar, because we do not believe in supernatural beings. Am I missing something here?”
Yes, Tarma, you are missing something here. Lets make an analogy with geometry. We all know what a square is. All sides the same length, all corners the same angles. But, did you know that a square is also a rhombus, a square is also a parallelagram, and whether you proudly want to label yourself as an atheist, the fact of the matter is, by definition, you are a humanist whether you like it or not.
And if you want to label yourself a pure scientist, ask yourself if you really have the right to dismiss the agnostic thinkers until science recreates the “accident” of the origin of life in a sterile laboratory situation. And are you really becoming a religion in and of yourselves by touting unproven theories as fact before they are proven. Be careful, radical assumption is what brought us to this point in human history. Avoid being part of it.
NeoWolfe
NeoWolf,
Which, as point in fact, scientists just announced two weeks ago, they are very close to accomplishing.
Neowolfe,
It has been over 4 decades since I took a math class, but I will go out on a limb here: a square (four right angles) is not a parallelogram, and a square is not a rhombus. Math experts, please correct me if I’m wrong.
And yes, I do proudly label myself an atheist – and that does not also mean that I am “a humanist, whether I like it or not.” An atheist may also be a humanist, and vice versa, but the terms are definitely not interchangeable, as you seem to think they are.
As I said earlier, label yourself anything you want. You “seem” to me to be agnostic, from what I get in reading your numerous recent posts, but I’m not going to arbitrarily assign you that label. Please afford me the same courtesy.
Tarma
Yes a square is a parallelogram. What Neo is trying to point out is that some sets are subsets of other sets. Why? I don’t know. But he then goes on to simply assume that the set of all atheists is a subset of the set of all humanists. Why he would make this assumption is, to put it nicely, baffling.
What,
Thanks for the math refresher. As I said, it’s been a very long time
Yes, I did get what he was trying to convey about atheists and humanists – I just thoroughly reject it.
Neowolfe’s earlier statement about free thinkers:
Utter nonsense, in my mind. I would consider myself a free thinker, but it does not follow that I am a humanist, and it certainly does not mean that I believe that a ‘god’ (whatever that is) either interferes, doesn’t interfere, watches, or doesn’t watch. It’s make believe. It’s all in his head.
jcc,
Mu. Have you been beating your wife for long? See: the Loaded Question fallacy.
“Derived non-belief” is a nonsense statement. You are not as dumb as you’re making yourself out to be here. I know you are capable of understanding this concept, you’ve done it before. Why the sudden backtrack?
Well, maybe, but my understanding of my atheism didn’t have anything to do with how those attitudes have changed over time. You should take statements like that with a grain of salt though, I don’t have a complete understanding of how my mind works. Normally I try to avoid talking in absolutes like that, but I slipped up in my previous quote, I should have qualified it somewhat.
It is my non-scientific belief that my atheism has nothing to do with my other feelings. Since you’re the reigning psychologist here, maybe you can dissuade me from that thought.
Virgin birth seems quite a bit more incredulous, no? Also, I don’t know what Clintonian compartmentalism is.
I just answered that question. Because I consider the existence of a deity unlikely.
Then you don’t understand correctly. I do not consider the probability of the existence of a deity to be 50%, just as I don’t give 50% odds to the existence of the Loch Ness Monster.
If I had to put a number to it (though you should know I don’t want to), I’d give a generic deity a 5-10% chance of existing.
No, that’s still subjective, even if it’s a unanimous opinion. Think about your statement in the context of the debunked belief that the world is flat. Strength in numbers is not a path to objectivity.
I don’t agree that they’re absolutely objective, but I do agree those are all immoral acts.
Let’s take this one step further, the punishments that we as society inflict upon those who break laws also fall under the umbrella of morality. If the underlying morality hasn’t changed, we would expect that the punishments would remain the same as well. So why have the punishments of primarily Christian societies changed so much over the years? It’s because the subjective “agreed-upon” interpretation of the Bible has changed, sometimes drastically.
As soon as that interpretation changes, you give up any claims of absolute objectivity. That is, in fact, one of the dangers of speaking in absolutes.
I’ve already addressed this above, but I want to point out that the credence of a supernatural origin only comes about if you ignore the natural explanation for how morality has helped us develop as a species. Since you go out of your way to ignore evolution, I can see how you’d make that mistake.
Of course, why would government agents be denied the rights that the rest of the population is expressly granted?
So if I derive a new design for a guitar, is that design made up of me?
I have no idea why you have that opinion.
Hahahaha. By electing a Christian president the left is trying to remove all religious government officials? No wonder you think the let is inept (not that I don’t agree with you there, I’m a centrist).
You’ve already admitted that the government should act indifferently towards religion. That’s just another way of saying “secular.”
I haven’t. I’ve seen 70 year olds with tattoos, but not 70 yr old tats. My oldest tat will be 70 years old when I’m 121 years old, so I don’t think I’ll live to see it. Now that I’m back from the beach and not sun-worshipping for a while, I’m thinking of getting some new ink, when I have the money for it.
BTW, I made a big evolve fish on the beach while I was playing in the sand one day. It was about 8′ long and 1/2′ tall, with the word “evolve” in all caps inside and the feet on it.
On topic-I like the idea of meeting places for atheists and freethinkers, but they should definitely not be churches or called churches. Atheism is not a religion and should not be mistaken for one. Fellowship and good works can come out of these atheist meeting places, but folks shouldn’t expect to find the crutch they find in church.
DVanWechel:
Uh, by several thousand? and of course, it all depends on who?s word you take for it. Of course ABC News is going to grossly over inflate what it reports (i.e. 100K being a ?conservative? estimate?and the absurd higher-end estimate of ~900K). Here?s a far more reasonable estimate (and it even comes from an anti-Iraq war site): http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
I?ve never dismissed Iraqi civilian deaths. I?ve only expressed my skepticism to the politically motivated over-estimated numbers.
The timeline is proof of their relationship. There?re no quotes other than demonstrable prevarications like: ?[Ayers] is not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.?
Oh?… and you despise Bush why??it surely couldn?t be because he?s ?conservative,? could it?
Only when the shoe fits.
If by ?liberal? you mean pro-abortion; anti-school choice; pro bigger, bloated, more intrusive, less-accoun-table, more centralized government; pro higher taxes; pro government (and ergo low-quality) health-care; and pro yielding personal responsibilities to the government; then no, He clearly isn?t a liberal.
Ok, but I will. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis/Nation Economic Accounts, as of August 28, 2008, the US GDP grew by 3.3% in the second quarter, 2008. That data is only 3 weeks old. Sure the latest Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac news will have some adverse effect, but fundamentally, the US economy, according to this, is sound.
Because Obama?s past, close associations with Ayers, Dohrn and Wright?not to mention his and his wife?s own words?strongly indicate how sympathetic his views are with these America-hating radicals.
Would you have remained associated with someone like Wright for 20 years?
Jcc,
Why, of course, would ABC news grossly inflate news? The article I pulled this information from, by the way, was about how ABC specifically was undercounting Iraqi deaths. And since you appear incapable of understanding what you read, neither of the estimates were subject to ABC over inflating them. They were independent statistics by independent groups. They simply were reporting the numbers, not inflating them as that would be easily checked into. Did you even read it?
Proof of their relationship isn’t what I asked for. So why post a timeline? I didn?t question they were associated with each other.
I didn’t realize if one is “conservative” one must support Bush. I don’t support Bush for the following reasons:
1) Fiscally irresponsible. (which should be a problem for us conservatives)
2) Has restricted American’s civil liberties. (which should be a problem for us conservatives)
3) Believes in mingling faith and government. (ditto)
4) Has been shown to have knowingly misrepresented facts in order to enter an unjustified war. (ditto)
5) Appoints unqualified cronies to positions of power within his administration. (again, ditto)
6) Believes in bailing out big corporations with tax dollars. (ditto, again)
7) Approved torture. (maybe not a conservative issue, but certainly a moral one)
9) Is responsible for creating the largest government in U.S history. (ditto)
10) I could go on, and on, and on.
For some reason, I thought many of these issues were the tenants of conservatism – maybe not anymore I guess.
He never mentioned abortion, so how could you possibly know his position on it?
Since when is the public school system shutting down private schools? And, when exactly did Jesus talk about this?
Actually, I don?t know that Jesus had a position on government (other than he/God were the ultimate authority), so I’m not sure how you came to that conclusion either. Are you attempting to describe the Bush administration, because the shoe certainly fits here.
Again, no mention of his position on any of those things…are you putting words in your God’s proverbial mouth again? Maybe you believe your God is a reflection of you, not the other way around because that sounds more like you talking, not your Jesus.
Your post demonstrates an absurdly limited understanding of the situation and only validates the reason why I refrained from discussing it with you. Far be it from me to remove the rosy color from your glasses.
How, again, does knowing what I, myself might do equate to knowing what others would do? You still have explained this to me. Sounds more like you judging than knowing.
You still have explained this to me = You still haven’t…
Tarma,
Lets continue a point that you missed. A rhombus is a closed plane figure with all four sides of equal lenght and opposit angless of equal measure. A square meets the criteria.
A parrellelagram has opposit sides of the same leghth, and diagonal corners of the same measure. A square still qualifies.
A rectangle has ninty degree corners, and opposit sides have the same lenghth. A square still qualifies.
Humanists believe that no supernatural force will intervene in the affairs of men, and whether you consider yourself a humanist or not, you are one. You have made me impatient and my typing fingers tired. You are arrogant and need to think about possibilities that exist between supernature and your closed minded idea of reality.
NeoWolfe
Let me restate, you just pissed me off. I came here for inteligent conversation, not prattle. Can we strive to take it up a notch.
Jesusfuckingchrist!
He wrote this TODAY!
If it weren’t so tragic, I’d laugh.
NeoWolf,
Ok, I’ll start…
First, just for my sake, please define the word “exist” and how it is we determine something exists. Then reconcile that with how we can determine the possibilities of something supernatural “existing”.
Neowolfe,
Atheism is merely the absence of belief in god(s). Nothing more. I am an atheist. Humanism is a wide-ranging set of ethical philosophies, some of which can even include religion. While it is true that most humanists are atheists or agnostics, it is possible to be both a humanist and a theist, just as it is possible to be an atheist without being a humanist.
You know nothing whatsoever of my philosophical views, and yet you declare that I am a humanist, whether I like it or not. No, dearie, I am not – no matter how hard you stamp your feet and how long you hold your breath – your saying that I am a humanist does not make it so. And I am the one who is arrogant?
That pleases me no end.
Supernature? Make believe?
If you want to waste your time thinking about make believe, knock your socks off. I don’t “need” to do so, thank you very much.
Don’t look now, but your religious brainwashing is showing.
Neo
Ridicule should be reserved for those that obstinately hold to indefensible assertions (eg. Phreeky, JCC etc). But Tarma? LOL
It’s my guess that you are young (somewhere between 15 and 25 years) and are still struggling to free your mind from your former religious shackles. There are those here that can help you. For what it’s worth I think you should take it down a notch or ten.
What,
I asked him a few weeks ago if he was a teenager. His said ,no. Perhaps it’s just a sheltered life.
What, thanks.
No, I’m guessing he’s probably more my age – well seasoned
Nobody joins a church because they think it out and decide that their opinion about the nature of reality is most logical or best fits the available data.
They join churches to have a social life, to enjoy the benefits, to get childcare, obtain assistance, to gain a sense of belonging and identity, to meet potential mates, and to have fun. Face it, what other “community” exists in the suburbs, where most people don’t know their next door neighbors? Nobody cares about logic when the benefits are right there to be had.
Atheists on the other hand come across as grumbling antisocial loners rambling about fallacies and mocking stupid “sheeple.”
Suffice it to say that “supernature” is an oxymorn.
Tarma,
After missing the point twice, you made this statement:
While it is true that most humanists are atheists or agnostics, it is possible to be both a humanist and a theist, just as it is possible to be an atheist without being a humanist.
Wrong. Dead wrong!! While a square is also a rhombus, a rectangle and a parrallelagram by definition, a rectangle or rhombus or parrallelagram is not necessarily a square. True, not all humanists are atheists, but (and you can stomp your feet or throw a tantrum, or do what you do) every atheist IS A HUMANIST BY DEFINITION!!!!! Go consult your dictionary next time before you make embarrassing gaffes.
NeoWolfe
NeoWolfe
Maybe we have different definitions of the words “atheist” and “humanist”. So why don’t you give us yours and we will see if what you are saying is valid. And then we will give you ours and do the same. Sound fair?
What,
You dare to question Neo’s authority?
You must be some kind of psychopathic atheist!
What,
You can invent any definition you want. You can invent any reality that you want, and to you, it will be the truth. Congratulations if you find one that makes you forget your inadiquacies.
But if you even want to pretend to be a free thinker, you have to answer the questions put to you, and back them up with fact. At least pretend to understand the analogy I made. Then after failing to do that, you need to use alot of personal slurs like you just did in order to make yourself feel like the fact that I have studied and understand things you don’t makes me a “nerd” or something. I’m okay with that, fire away, I have said things here that I wish I could take back, but I doubt you are honest enough with yourself to ever admit that.
The right to free speech also includes the right to shut the fuck up.
NeoWolfe
So am I to understand that you will not be giving us your definitions of the words “humanist” and “atheist”?
Fine by me.
Game over.