Atheists Among Us

[Synnical]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_felix_wi_060912_atheists_among_us.htm

There are atheists among us. They believe in no god. They worship nothing. Their worldview precludes the supernatural and includes only the natural. They view God as an adult's fairy tale. They look at those who spend Sundays at church and think what a waste of time. They believe in one life and one life lived well.

There are atheists among us. You will see them on the street, in the supermarket, in the mall. You will meet them at work and at parties. You will meet them in the restroom and at the gym. You will not know who they are. You will not know them by their fruit. All you can know is that they do exist and that they do influence you, your city, your state, your country, and, slowly but surely, your world. Atheists matter.

There are atheists among us. They are scattered in every corner of the earth. They influence politics, education, science. They have their materialistic hands in everything. Everything they touch turns to naturalism. Everything they touch turns to realism. Everything they touch turns to reality.

There are atheists among us. Most hide, but more and more are coming out. More and more are witnessing of religion's deceit. More and more are evangelizing trust in logic and reasoning and common sense. More and more are telling others to grow up, to get with the evolutionary program, and to stop pretending that a single book, a hodgepodge of wishful thinking, solves the world's problems. More and more are coming to grips with life instead of avoiding it.

[Erika]

1. Atheists pay taxes and vote

This hang up on religion is almost 18th century.

What should religious beliefs have to do with the American government?

[Synnical]

4. Watch how quickly this post is moved to the Religion and Theology Forum!

-Cindy in Fort Lauderdale

[CarbonDate]

60. Well, I think it should be, personally.

IMHO. And I say that as one of the many "atheists among us" who still keeps the "Hello Cthulu" graphic in my signature.

[salvorhardin]

258. I don't have room in my sig for Hello Cthulu

But that's OK, because we've got the real thing at NG. :D
http://www.neuralgourmet.com/2006/09/18/9_11_and_the_continued_evolution_of_god

[moggie]

270. You know, some people will misunderstand that...

Hey, has it been a whole year?

[SledDriver]

2. We're here.

:hi:

[tandot]

3. "They believe in one life and one life lived well"

If we all would believe that we only had one live and that we had to get it right and live it well, the world would be a better place...

Some screwed up religous fanatics think that they don't have to care, because they'll have another chance to get it right, or that some "higher power" will forgive anything they do.

Thanks for posting :yourock:

[Erika]

8. But note how scared these religious are to die?

Art Buchwald isn't. It's always been fascinating to me that the most religious are the ones who most fight against dying and who are most scared of dying. They'll let the poor get poorer while they fund all kinds of security protections to keep them safe. Fascinating.

[tandot]

The thought of dying is scary. I don't know how I'll feel when the day

comes. However, I don't believe that there will be anything there after I am gone. This will be my only chance to do my best. To treat people like I wanted to be treated. To care and not to hurt...

I despise all of those religious freaks who teach hate in the name of some "God" ... Those people who cite "Jesus" or "God" when convenient, but live an awful, despicable life.

One of my co-workers knew all the Bible verses. She had all of the religious stuff on her desk - from crosses to religious calenders. The funny thing is that she was married but slept with anyone who seemed interested in her (actually, anyone who moved and had a dick)...while her husband was in Iraq. One of her daughters (15 years old) confided that she was more interested in girls. My co-worker said that she was devastated and that she prayed for her daughter to change. Her daughter seems to have taken her advise and hooked up with boys (or was raped - we'll never know)...and got pregnant at 16 years old...What a world...

I was raised catholic all my life and just recently came to the conclusion that I need to live my life as best as possible, without hurting anyone. I am responsible for my action and I try my best to get it right. I can't use any "God" as an excuse, neither can I rely on "someone" to forgive me for messing up over and over again.

[shrike]

168. Not me

I can't say that in my experience the religious are more frightened to die. My husband's not religious and he's scared to death of dying -- but mostly 'cause of the pain.

[shrike]

170. But what is 'living well'?

I'm sure Ted Bundy thought he lived well. I'm sure Boosh thinks he's living well. Probably Pol Pot thought he did, too.

[Stardust]

5. I hate the word atheist, although I am one. If asked, I just describe

myself as an unbeliever. I do wonder sometimes, though, if I would be happier if I did "believe." I did once, but no more.

[Erika]

13. As a child, I was brought up to be religious

but then I saw the reality of life. The poor dying by the millions because of lack of food and medicine while the rich are "worshiped". I couldn't stay religious.

[KnaveRupe]

81. A lot of liberals hate the word "liberal",

not because the word is inherently offensive (it obviously isn't), but because it has been transformed into an insult by conservatives who say it with a sneer of disgust. Likewise, the word "atheist" has had negative connotations associated with it for so many years that the "militant, in-your-face" atheism that liberal Xtians around here complain of is nothing more than backlash.

Personally, I call myself an atheist because it is the most descriptive term for my lack of a belief system. I am without any belief in a god, therefore, I am an atheist. Period.

Don't let the fact that others have turned a descriptive term ("a" - without, "theism" - belief in god) into a pejorative dissuade you from using that term to describe yourself. Own it, and screw the bastards who want to "diss" you for being what you are.

[wickerwoman]

143. Why define yourself as a negative though?

"a theist" literally means not a believer in God. I prefer "humanist" or "rationalist". I approach the world in a way that respect humanity and life in general and that remains open-minded and intellectually engaged.

[beam me up scottie]

154. Since when is a lack of belief in deities and superstitions "negative"?

"I approach the world in a way that respect humanity and life in general and that remains open-minded and intellectually engaged."

And atheists don't? :eyes:


Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, what you are in addition to being an atheist is irrelevant.

[wickerwoman]

230. It's not the lack of belief that's negative,

it's the term "atheist" which literally means not believing in God. It's like saying I'm an "un-conservative" or a "not man". It assumes that the one term is the standard and implies that you are out of the ordinary if you're not that thing. I say I'm a liberal and a woman. Likewise, I'm a "humanist" not an "atheist" because I don't define my belief as the opposite of the norm. I think my beliefs stand alone from the "theist" tradition.

[beam me up scottie]

233. I'm a vegetarian. That literally means I don't eat meat. I define my diet

as "the opposite of the norm".

Should I call myself an herbivore because it's sounds nicer?

I don't let religious conservatives define me and I don't change my definition of my atheism to suit anyone.

Atheism is the default position but like it or not, as adults, we are NOT the norm.

I am not a humanist and I am not a bright. I have no use or patience for don't-worry-be-happy zen-positive definitions.

I don't believe in gods or religious superstitions, I am an atheist.

Gee, that didn't hurt a bit.

Explain to me again why, as an atheist, I don't "approach the world in a way that respect humanity and life in general and that remains open-minded and intellectually engaged."

[wickerwoman]

250. That analogy is flawed.

You define yourself as a vegetarian (someone who eats vegetables) not as an un-carnivore. Calling yourself an atheist is the equivalent of saying "I'm an un-carnivore" when in fact you're a vegetarian.

Whether you have the patience for it or not, the words we choose color what we are able and unable to conceive. How can you conceive something that doesn't have a name? And when the name for one group is simply the negative form of another group, we are unable to think of that group except in relation to the other. Except I'm not a humanist in response to the theist tradition. I got there on my own. And I think if we want to argue for "atheism" as a seperate, cohesive philosophy of life and not as an "uhn uh" reaction to the religious community then calling it what it really is instead of "not-something else" IS important.

And for the third time, I am an "atheist" and I'm not arguing that they don't respect humanity. I'm arguing that theists don't.

[beam me up scottie]

251. Your logic is flawed. Meat eaters eat vegetables, they're not vegetarians.

I can't believe you just fell for that.

I won't bother explaining what just happened, hopefully you can figure it out for yourself.


And, fyi, I AM an atheist, and an uppity one. I do not need nor desire special code words and flowery phrases to cover up that fact.

I'm sorry you're so scared of the word, but stop acting like the rest of us should be as well.

[wickerwoman]

252. I'm sorry,

I moved out of the "aha, gotcha!" phase of discourse at age 16. If you have a point to make, please have the courtesy to make it.

I'm not scared of the word "atheist" (and I'd like to point out that accusing someone of being "scared" of something they object to is another staple of high school debate), I simply think it's not the most precise way to define what we both think. And I don't think "humanist" or "rationalist" are flowery code words. They're both well established terms for a tradition of thinking with it's roots in ancient Greece.

But ultimately, it's a semantic argument and certainly not worth the level of bile that you are bringing to this discussion.

Good luck to you then!

[beam me up scottie]

254. Right, because at the onset of adulthood nobody debates or plays chess.

:eyes:

You define yourself as a vegetarian (someone who eats vegetables) not as an un-carnivore. Calling yourself an atheist is the equivalent of saying "I'm an un-carnivore" when in fact you're a vegetarian.

Point: A vegetarian is someone who doesn't eat meat, it's the actual word that is used by people like me, who are, to use your made up word: "un-carnivores". We define ourselves by what we're not.
So much for your theory about negatives.

Whether you have the patience for it or not, the words we choose color what we are able and unable to conceive. How can you conceive something that doesn't have a name? And when the name for one group is simply the negative form of another group, we are unable to think of that group except in relation to the other. Except I'm not a humanist in response to the theist tradition. I got there on my own. And I think if we want to argue for "atheism" as a seperate, cohesive philosophy of life and not as an "uhn uh" reaction to the religious community then calling it what it really is instead of "not-something else" IS important.

I'll just skip over the English lesson and get right to the point this time, atheism is NOT A FUCKING PHILOSOPHY. It is not now, has never been, and will never be, a philosophy.

It is the LACK OF BELIEF IN GODS.

Jesus Christ on a trailer hitch, for the last time, it's not about your poo-pooing of the word "atheist", it's about letting the reich wing redefine certain words to suit their agenda.

You choose to enable them, and I, an uppity liberal, atheist and feminist, don't.


Happy trails.

[KnaveRupe]

162. The post to which I was replying began:

"I hate the word atheist, although I am one."

If you want to refer to yourself as a "humanist", or a "rationalist", go right ahead. It could not possibly matter less to me what you prefer to call yourself.

My point was that, much like people who call themselves "progressives" because they are ashamed of the word "liberals", many atheists look for other terms because they have let American society turn "atheist" into a pejorative.

I think atheists should be able to admit to being "atheists" without being accused (implicitly or otherwise) of not respecting humanity and life in general, or of being closed-minded and intellectually disengaged. If we choose to call ourselves "humanists" or "rationalists" that's hunky-dory, but not if doing so implies that those of us unafraid to bear the scarlet "A" are in any way inferior.

[wickerwoman]

231. I agree

that we shouldn't let others turn perfectly good words into perjoratives, but I see the word "atheist" as relatively flawed and not really worth defending.

I wasn't accusing atheists of not respecting humanity (I am an atheist). I was accusing the theist tradition of not respecting humanity and being intellectually disengaged.

I'm not afraid to be called an atheist- I just don't think I should have to define myself as a "not-something". I'm not an "un-Republican" or a "not-gay". So why call myself an "a-theist" when there are two other perfectly good words "humanist" and "rationalist" which aren't negatives?

[KnaveRupe]

235. Point taken, and not worth arguing.

I shall magnanimously agree to disagree with you! (who says we atheists are all contrary, argumentative bastards?)

:)

[bloom]

255. I agree with you.

I could go around calling myself an aRepublican - but that would be ridiculous. (And seems to highlight Republicans).

It's easy to be against things. It takes more effort to know what you are for.

Some people may not want to be for anything.

Sometimes it seems that there is a group of people who are "againsters" - that is their identifying tribe. And some of them make the effort to alienate anyone who does not agree with them. (And they are not all as rational as they would like to think).


I am for nature - that is what I root for - I am rather an idealistic naturalist. I am also somewhat of a Universalist - I think that some religious myths are interesting - it doesn't mean that I think that they are real (I don't assume that people who identify with the myths do either). I like what Einstein had to say about "Cosmic Religious Feeling" and art and science (which could be interpreted as a sort of Pantheism - where there is no "god" figure).

The trouble with saying that you are this or that label is that people have pre-determined assumptions about what you must think or believe - whether you do or not. As if you have to fit in with someone else's predetermined thinking. (Einstein said that he was NOT a pantheist NOR an atheist - though things that he said suggest that at different times he would have been one and/or the other).

[beam me up scottie]

257. "againsters" ???

:spray:

That sounds like something right out of Chimpy's dictionary...under "a" for againsters which comes before "d" for deciders.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Goblinmonger]

259. but, but, but...the prophets of my church

made it clear that being an "againster" was hip and cool

"Well I'm against it
I'm against it
Well I'm against it
I'm against it
I don't like politics
I don't like communists
I don't like games and fun
I don't like anyone
And I'm against...
I don't like Jesus freaks
I don't like circus geeks
I don't like summer and spring
I don't like anything
I don't like sex and drugs
I don't like waterbugs
I don't care about poverty
All I care about is me
And I'm against...
I don't like playing ping pong
I don't like the Viet Cong
I don't like Burger King
I don't like anything
And I'm against...
Well I'm against it
I'm against it"

Seriously, bloom, stop taking a page out of Bush's book. We are not "haters," we just don't believe.

[bloom]

261. I don't believe, either

But I'm not a fundamentalist about it like some people.

And I'm not anti-all-religion like Harris and his followers. (Please note that Harris has quite a following among neo-cons - if you are going to throw out the "Bush's book" card - you might want to think about that - Goblinmonger).

[Goblinmonger]

262. So religious neo-cons like Harris?

Got a linky for that little tidbit you threw out. I imagine there are actually conservatives that are atheist and that those atheist conservatives like Harris for what he has to say about religion. I'm sure there are conservatives that like that Harris is calling out the liberal religious, but I seriously doubt that there are conservatives that like Harris for his political viewpoints. I'll wait to be proven wrong.

And you just love to throw out the ad homs, don't you. I still don't know why I would be considered to be a fundamentalist, but whatever gets you through the night, I guess. (Or were you "just sayin'" that there are fundamentalists--aka The Pope's apology?)

[bloom]

265. I decided to see...

try Googling

"Sam Harris", "Daniel Pipes"

and see what comes up. Lots of stuff. (More stuff than if you Google Harris and Palast). Blogs that list Pipes (a signatory to PNAC and a Muslim hater if there ever was one) that have people gushing over Harris. People who love to hate Muslims think that he is great.

The only difference that I see between Harris and Pipes and Falwell is that they have different religious affiliations (or none) - they seem to have the same agenda. And I think that Harris has duped a lot of people who would not have fallen for the neo-con line if they heard it from a Crazy Christian - or a Radical Jew - who eat it right down when it's cloaked in atheism/anti-religion.

I mean really - what's up with his defense of Israel if he is so anti-religion? Arguing that they have such moral high ground.

And then all of this liberal-bashing. Which is mostly the bashing of people who don't follow the Bush - "let's all remake the Middle East" (for Israel) - line.

[beam me up scottie]

266. Hey, you're right!

I just Googled "Elmo" and "Osama" and lots of stuff came up too!

This is fun.


Let's try another...how about "bloom" and "atheist basher".

Yesssssssss!

Luck be a lady tonight!



Okay, one more, "BMUS" and "goddess"

Shazaam!

Hit the Mother lode that time!

:woohoo:

[beam me up scottie]

269. Your hatred of the man has become your religion, bloom

I wish I could say I'm surprised that you're spending so much time and effort declaring your own personal jihad against non-players like Sam Harris and DU atheists, or that you're completely oblivious to the fact that your liberal atheist bashing actually benefits those who are a real threat to democracy.

But like you said in your earlier post, some people are "againsters" because it's easy to be against things.

Good luck with your crusade.

[eppur_se_muova]

113. How about "non-aligned" ? nt

[vickitulsa]

238. Thank you! You just gave me the term I think I like best to define

myself. :)

"Non-aligned." At least where religion is concerned.

I too have shied away from labeling myself "atheist" but only because so many people assume it's a negative, thanks to name-callers who are against atheism and atheists.

What this brings to mind for me is the way Hitler turned the word "liberal" into a dirty word, if it wasn't considered such before his despicable reign already (and I don't think it was, certainly not on the scale it reached thanks to Hitler).

A few days ago I watched three hours of programming on the History Channel -- Gestapo Parts I and II, and an episode of "Histories Mysteries" which dealt with the "mysterious" way so many high-level Nazi officials disappeared at the end of WWII.

I'm working on an OP right now about the significance of that period, pre- and post-WWII, with respect to how a madman can assume power and consolidate it all unto himself largely by reframing the argument and changing how the population viewed and understood certain terms, people, and concepts.

When Adolph handed out the orders for the invention of the Nuremberg Laws (well before Nuremberg was known for the trials of Nazi war criminals), his fellow thugs in the Gestapo or SS came up with this list of people to be shunned, punished, and eventually incarcerated, tortured and killed:

Jews
Poles
Communists
Liberals
Homosexuals
Gypsies (Roma)

I typed that from memory but it is very close to if not exactly what was on the actual Gestapo document distributed to their men and from which they worked. I saw this document on the History Channel programs about the Gestapo -- they put it on camera for everyone to see with their own eyes.

What Hitler did was to make the word "liberal" (along with the others in the list) as negative and nasty in the minds of his followers as he did the word "Jew."

In doing research for the OP I plan to post later, I found this amazing quote from the diary of William Shirer, a resident of Germany during the build-up to Hitler's Third Reich and later to be the author of the well known and respected Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

What follows really is just four paragraphs, but I include it here even though it is somewhat OT for those who are interested in a moderately long read of thoughts set down at the time by a brilliant observer of Hitler's rise to power who lived through it himself.

(NOTE: The emphases indicated by italics in what follows are mine, and the book names and other short terms such as Lebensraum that were in italics at the site where I found this, http://www.datasync.com/~davidg59/shirer.html, didn't transfer with it. But I didn't take the time to go through and add them in again here since I feel everyone at DU can tell what's a book title or special German term without them. I included my italics solely for the purpose of emphasis on the term "liberal.")

We who have been so close to this German scene, who have seen with our own eyes the tramping Nazi boots over Europe and heard with our own ears Hitler's hysterical tirades of hate, have found it difficult to keep a sense of historical perspective. I suppose the reasons why Germany has embarked on a career of unbridled conquest go deeper than the mere fact, all-important though it is, that a small band of unprincipled, tough gangsters have seized control of this land, corrupted its whole people, and driven it on its present course. The roots go deeper, I admit, though whether the plant would have flowered as it has without Hitler, I seriously doubt.

One root is the strange, contradictory character of the German people. It is not correct to say, as many of our liberals at home have said, that Nazism is a form of rule and life unnatural to the German people and forced upon them against their wish by a few fanatical derelicts of the last war. It is true that the Nazi Party never polled a majority vote in Germany in a free election, though it came very close. But for the last 3 or 4 years the Nazi regime has expressed something very deep in the German nature and in that respect it has been representative of the people it rules. The Germans as a people lack the balance achieved, say, by the Greeks, the Romans, the French, the British and the Americans. They are continually torn by inner contradictions which make them uncertain, unsatisfied, frustrated, and which force them from one extreme to the other. The Weimar Republic was so extreme in its liberal democracy that the Germans couldn't work it. And now they have turned to the extremes of tyranny because democracy and liberalism forced them to live as individuals, to think and make decisions as free men, and in the chaos of the 20th Century, this was too much of a strain for them. Almost joyfully, almost masochistically, they have turned to an authoritarianism which releases them from the strain of individual decisions and choice and thought and allows them what to a German is a luxury -- letting someone else make the decisions and take the risks, in return for which they gladly give their own obedience. The average German craves security. He likes to live in a groove. And he will give up his independence and freedom -- at least at this stage of his development -- if his rulers provide this.

The German has 2 characters. As an individual, he will give his rationed bread to feed the squirrels in the Tiergarten on a Sunday morning. He can be a kind and considerate person. But as a unit in the Germanic mass he can persecute Jews, torture and murder his fellow men in concentration camps, massacre women and children by bombing and bombardment, overrun without the slightest justification the lands of other peoples, cut them down if they protest and enslave them. It must also be noted down that Hitler's frenzy for bloody conquest is by no means exclusive to him in Germany. The urge to expansion, the hunger for land and space, for what Germans call Lebensraum, has lain long in the soul of the people. Some of Germany's best minds have expressed it in their writings, Fichte, Hegel, Nietzche and Treitschke fired the German people with it in the last century. But our century has not lacked for successors. Karl Haushofer has poured books from his presses dinning into the ears of the Germans the maxim that if their nation is to be great and lasting, it must have more Lebensraum. Books of his such as Macht und Erde (Power and Earth) and Weltpolitik von Heute (World Politics fo Today) have profoundly influenced not only the Nazi leaders but a great mass of people. So has Hans Grimm's Volk ohne Raum (People without Space), a novel which has sold nearly a half-million copies in this country despite its length of some thousand pages. And so has Moeller van den Bruck's The Third Reich, written 11 years before Hitler founded the Third Reich.
All these writings emphasized that Germany was entitled by the laws of history and nature to a space more adequate to its mission in life. That this space would have to be taken from others, mostly from Slavs who had settled on it when the Germans themselves were little more than rough tribesmen, made no difference. It is this basic feeling in almost all Germans that the "lesser breed" of Europeans are not entitled to absolute rights of their own, to a piece of land to till and live on, to the very towns and cities they have built up with their own sweat and toil, if a German covets them, which is in part responsible for the present state of Europe.

It is the evil genius of Adolf Hitler that has aroused this basic feeling and given tangible expression. It is due to this remarkable and terrifying man alone that the German dream now stands a fair chance of coming true. First Germans and then the world grossly underestimated him. It was a appalling error, as first the Germans and now the world are finding out. Today so far as the vast majority of his fellow countrymen are concerned, he has reached a pinnacle never before achieved by a German ruler. He has become -- even before his death -- a myth, a legend, almost a god, with that quality of divinity which the Japanese people ascribe to their Emperor. To many Germans, he is a figure remote, unreal, hardly human. For them he has become infallible. They say, as many peoples down through history have said of their respective gods: "He is always right."

This is the sort of thing -- and this one excerpt describes it better than all the other material I've found -- which is to me completely accurate in describing what is going on RIGHT NOW in the United States of America and how the RWingnuts are falling for a pisspoor imitator of Adolph Hitler. It is IMO no exaggeration to compare * to the modern world's most abominable and despised dictator! Those shoes fit him perfectly....

And one last thought. I feel quite sure that our current fascist ruler would like to include "atheists" as well as "liberals" in his own personal list of those who oppose him and who must therefore be villified, punished, and quashed.

[ladywnch]

6. proud to be one

this is from the Atheists.org home page:

"Your petitioners are Atheists, and they define their lifestyle as follows. An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist accepts that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth – for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist accepts that he can get no help through prayer, but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and to enjoy it. An Atheist accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment."


There is also talk about helping our fellow man, those less fortunate, those without. There is also an interesting article in Newsweek linked here as well.

I don't know, this doesn't sound particularly evil to me......unlike those involved with "Jesus Camp"...that is just plain evil what is being done to those kids.

[Synnical]

11. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

You might want to check out the Ath/Ag forum

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=263

[Synnical]

17. MMOH - a volatile woman - wrote those words

And was murdered for money. Chopped to pieces and discarded in a field.

[Jcrowley]

7. Who will you put your faith in

for social policy these people or atheists. I'd go for the latter.







K&R

[bperci108]

82. I agree...and I'm a theist.

:wtf:

I've always believed that this crowd (the mega-churched, the fundiementalists, the thrash-around-on-the-floor-doing-the-wet-tuna-faith-healer, thinly-veiled racist, misogynistic, anti-Liberty, anti-human, anti-logic, anti-science, anti-reality, anti-American bunch) have created far more atheists with their hypocrisy, pop-psycholgy, outlandish claims and snake-oil peddling than MMOH ever did...

I'm far more comfortable around atheists and agnostics than the overtly religious.

So many of them seem, well....rather zombie-like, for lack of a better term.

:hi:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

274. Why does the fact that they are religious believers

negate their ability to form social policy? They are also human beings. And so are atheists.

[swag]

9. Happy atheist checking in.

[Bigmack]

10. We know Dumbya...

is some weird kind of fundie, but his daddy didn't like us atheists, either.

When asked if he recognized the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists, Bush Sr. responded "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots."

Of course, Bush changed his tune when Ted Williams died. He praised the war hero/baseball great who was also an outspoken athiest.

Bush Sr. has praised Rev. Sun Myung Moon, calling him a "man with the vision” and more in a series of rallies in South America. The ties between the Bush family and Moon are well documented.

I'd think the country would be more supportive of atheists like Ted Williams rather than theists like Moon.

[BayouBengal07]

12. Reporting for duty.

At this point at least, I have yet to believe in the divine. I did when I was younger, but I just felt like I was going through the motions because I was raised that way (Episcopalian mind you; that's not a bad sect of Christianity). Maybe one day I will be turned. Who knows.

[Tyo]

14. Hi Guys

Nice post, Synnical. As an "out" Atheist the only problem I have with what you are saying is the evangelizing part. I didn't think we did that. Unless you mean simply evangelizing by example. I'm not interested in changing anyone's beliefs as long as they don't harm me or others.

[Synnical]

15. I did not say that - the author of the piece wrote those words

Just to clarity.

I don't preach, nor evangelize.

Thanks,

-Cindy in Fort Lauderdale

[Tyo]

19. Oh, okay. Thanks for clarifying n/t

[Erika]

16. Being an Evangelical to sell the Xtian line is thought of as Godly

Are atheists supposed to shut up and sit in the corner about their beliefs that we must truly hold ourselves accountable for our treatment of others?

Without some religious figure to forgive us for our sins and welcome us into the land of milk and honey forever?

[cigsandcoffee]

18. More and more are offending us...

...by making posts that imply Atheists have intellectual superiority and a corner on the "adulthood" market.

If preening Christian fundamentalists weren't annoying enough with their moral superiority, here come the fundamentalist Atheist movement with its self-acclaimed intellectual superiority.

No thanks to either.

[Wonk]

20. I knew it was just a matter of time before something like this was posted.

Oh, sorry, am I oppressing you with my intellectual superiority? :eyes:

[cigsandcoffee]

24. You haven't yet.

But this paragraph from the OP did:

There are atheists among us. Most hide, but more and more are coming out. More and more are witnessing of religion's deceit. More and more are evangelizing trust in logic and reasoning and common sense. More and more are telling others to grow up, to get with the evolutionary program, and to stop pretending that a single book, a hodgepodge of wishful thinking, solves the world's problems. More and more are coming to grips with life instead of avoiding it.


Do you want to tell me to grow up and come to grips with life by dumping my religion, too?

[tkmorris]

25. Help! Help! I'm being opressed!!!

Sorry, love that movie :)

[arenean]

73. Bloody peasant!

[Prophet 451]

92. Come see the violence inherant in the system! n/t

[eppur_se_muova]

115. LOL! Something about religious discussions brings MP up quickly ...nt

[Dorian Gray]

44. Not really. n/p

[Erika]

22. Atheists are claiming intellectual superiority?

Where do you read that? But shouldn't we have the same right to evangelize as Christians, or not?

[cigsandcoffee]

29. Sure. And while I call them on the moral superiority BS...

...I'll aso call Atheists on their intellectual superiority BS. Read the last paragraph of the OP, and explain where I've misunderstood the intent.

[Erika]

33. But the religious get the tax deduction for their givings

Atheists sure don't.

[cigsandcoffee]

35. Sure they do.

Give to any registered charity you want, and you can write it off.

[Erika]

39. You don't understand, do you?

Atheists don't proclaim their givings and demand tax relief for it for their holiness like fundies do. That's not what atheism is all about. If you demand tax breaks, you aren't really caring about others solely for the sake of others. We don't have to beat our chest to proclaim how Godly we are or declare it on our taxes..

In fact, it turns us off. We aren't judged by others, but by ourselves. We don't expect tax breaks, because that is not what it's all about.

[cigsandcoffee]

45. Are you actually pretending to know about the personal tax policy...

..of all Atheists? How could you possibly know whether anyone but yourself writes off donations or not?

[Erika]

48. Do you pretend to know better than me about my beliefs

and those I associate with? Please.

[Erika]

49. I once told a friend I refused to write off charitable giving

He said "What's wrong with you". "Tax incentives are given to help charities"

I responded that I will do my own thing and answer to my own conscience. I abhor the practice of tax relief for charitable giving. It makes it all a scam and does away with the human caring factor. Giving without expecting rewards. Just me.

[jilln]

123. That makes no sense to me.

How is it a scam? By taking the tax deduction, I have more money to give to charity, and I would certainly rather give my money to charity than to the government, because charities fund things I want to fund instead of things I DON'T want to fund.

[rman]

67. You sure enjoy using the broad brush, don't you

And why wouldn't you. After all, Muslims are equated to religious fanatics, and christians equated to reli-fundies all the time...

[focusfan]

86. we've all got to work out our own salvation

is it so bad to believe in God wothout being Radical about it.

[smirkymonkey]

248. Well, you would have to admit that religious faith is not based upon

logic or reason. I don't think athiests are necessarily claiming "intellectual superiority," rather they are claiming that there is no way to "rationalize" faith. Faith is faith and reason is reason - they occupy entirely separate realms.

[wryter2000]

121. No one should evangelize

I don't want anyone in my face with their beliefs -- theist or non-theist.

[neebob]

150. Hmm ... that made me think

and you know what? I don't really have a problem with evangelizing. A person can yack away at me, but I don't have to listen. It's when they try to force behavioral change, through legislation or whatever, that I have a problem. Then again, I can't remember the last time I got evangelized to ... or is it evangelized on, or just evangelized? I might feel differently if it happened very often.

[wryter2000]

172. It's not illegal or immoral or anything like that

It's just rude. Most of us are raised to be too polite to walk away or ignore someone, so we feel obliged to listen and make some kind of response. Religious faith should be a private thing, imho. I don't want to discuss it any more than I want to discuss how much my employer pays me or my sex life (or lack thereof).

And that goes just as much (maybe more) for people with their "imaginary friend" stuff.

[neebob]

184. Yeah, but they think it's their job

to save you, because they're brainwashed, and you're free to inform them of that fact and/or tell them to buzz off. I don't see it as a problem unless it happens frequently it affects your career or private life in a significant way. If it's just the occasional stranger on the street, so what.

[shrike]

169. How can non-believers evangelize?

Always had a hard time getting my mind around that one.

Oh well, I don't evangelize and I don't let anyone evangelize ME. Nuff said.

[Synnical]

23. I'm here, I'm a Registered Democrat

Deal with me. Do you really want me to vote for the Green Party Candidate?

-Cindy in Fort Lauderdale

[cigsandcoffee]

26. I'm not following you.

Not that I understand what it has to do with this topic, but feel free to vote for whomever you like and feel comfortable with.

[tkmorris]

30. Sorry pal

The religion/atheism argument is here, and at the root of it the debate is about intellectual approaches versus superstitious ones. Do I mean to say that all religious people are therefore stupid? No, I do not, but it is beyond debate for me that religious belief is not an intellectual, reason-based approach to life's fundamental philosophical questions.

Make of that what you will.

[omega minimo]

32. Well that was my question......

Is there an Athiest Bandwagon stridently denouncing the insane fundamentalism of the these days..................................?

[Erika]

34. Only in the paranoid fundies minds

They are liking the elephant crushing the mouse and then the mouse eeks.

[omega minimo]

40. It seems to be trendy

More a reaction (on DU? I'm not in the athiest loop) to something than a thing in itself............ :shrug:

[NoodleyAppendage]

38. Well...believing in a mythical being isn't the smartest thing in the world

Praying for divine intervention rather than doing something about one's situation is not terribly smart or productive. Just sayin'...

J

[Erika]

42. The GOP passes tax laws to help the rich

and tells the poor to pray for help. If God doesn't help the poor, it's their fault. What a system!

You can just feel the Xianity in all of it.

[CarbonDate]

58. Do you understand....

...that our very existence is what offends you? We cannot possibly explain our lack of belief without insulting your beliefs. In order to do so, we must explain why we consider those beliefs incorrect, and yes, irrational. We believe that believing in something for which there is no evidence is irrational. The fact that their existence hasn't been disproven doesn't make it any more rational. Lots of things haven't been disproven. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is called "arguing from ignorance", and it is a widely accepted logical fallacy.

Our position is based in reason. Yours is based in faith. You view faith as a positive attribute. We do not. We cannot explain it any other way. But you seem to want to have it both ways: you want to have your faith despite a complete lack of evidence, but you want us to tell you that it's rational. Sorry, not gonna happen, because it's not rational.

Hell, I don't think love is rational either, for what it's worth. But it's a part of human nature. I don't hold it against the breeders out there.

[cain_7777]

90. Always on target

again, I love your posts.

[CrispyQ]

110. Nicely stated.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[beam me up scottie]

76. Terms like "fundamentalist Atheist movement" are intellectually inferior.

And are usually the products of intellectually inferior http://www.tektonics.org/parody/fundyath.html">minds.

[eppur_se_muova]

117. And just what is a "fundamentalist atheist"?

Someone who really, REALLY, doesn't believe in God? As opposed to a regular atheist who, uh, doesn't believe in God?

The "fundamentalist" slur doesn't make any sense applied to atheists, agnostics, or Anglican theologians (= code for "unbeliever").

Tony Blakely (sp?) used the term "secular fundamentalist" in an NPR interview (maybe Diane Rheem show?) and I thought it was one of the dumbest phrases I had ever heard. It's an attempt to tar a group of people with a brush that can't even touch them.

[beam me up scottie]

153. An uppity atheist who won't shut up and sit in the back of the bus :)

Some people see our very existence as a threat to their beliefs. These are the kind who make up those cute little reich wing terms and talking points like "secular fundamentalist".

A pity I missed that interview, because Tony Blakely is a lovely man :mad:.
Check out the description of his latest book "The West's Last Chance" on Amazon:

Book Description

Blankley paints the picture of a Europe in which radical Islam is triumphant--a threat that is not only very real, but that would be more threatening to the United States than a Europe under Nazi domination. But there is hope--and a strategy--for Western survival; and Blankley illustrates what must happen to save the West.

From the Inside Flap

The Nazis failed to take over Europe, but Militant Islam might The West, says author Tony Blankley in this shocking new book, is down to its last chance. Within our lifetimes, Europe could become Eurabia: a continent overwhelmed by militant Islam that poses a greater threat to the United States than even Nazi Germany did. In The West’s Last Chance, Blankley shows how that could happen—and what we must do to prevent it. In The West’s Last Chance, you’ll learn: · What really happens if Islamist terrorists acquire weapons of mass destruction—it’s worse, and more likely, than you think · How Europe is already well on its way to being a launching pad for Islamist terrorism · Why Europe’s plummeting birthrates could wreak huge upheavals on the Continent—and how the United States could face a similar fate · What’s holding our government back from fighting the Islamist threat to the best of its ability · Why the U.S. has ignored the lessons of World War II—lessons that could hold the secret to winning the War on Terror · How liberalism degenerated from the war-winning policies of FDR to an ideology of Western suicide Tony Blankley asks the hard questions—and gives the straight answers—that our country needs to hear. Frightening, provocative, and instructive, The West’s Last Chance is the most important political book of the year. It will change the way we think about—and fight—the War on Terror.

One reviewer summed it up quite nicely:

Mr Blankley's ideas: Declare war on the terrorists, do some intense ethnic profiling, lock Muslims up in camps, make life more miserable for our enemy wherever and whenever we can and cross our fingers, pretty well sums it up.

Another added it to his list of dangerous books:

These kind of books by racist authors are emblematic of the sad truth in the world we now find ourselves in.

Under the guise of "terrorism" anyone with the most racist of viewpoints can disguise his anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, anti-progressive, anti-justice views with ease without the slightest of criticism because as the rightwing justification goes "now its not a time for being politically correct, we are in war."

Thus war becomes this ultimate catch phrase under whose umbrella a racist can find refuge and the non-partisan independent is confused and silenced.

Comments from people who liked his book:

Tony Blankley tells the truth in this book. The west is being destroyed by multiculturalism and the loss of its values. The leaders of Europe are traitors who are leading their own peoples to destruction. America must stop seeing Europe as some sort of equal and set about saving it. Blankley sees three great problems in europe: a lack of GOD, socialist economies and the creation of a multicultural enemy within who hate freedom.

If nothing changes, within a few years europe will look no different than Syria or Iran. The leaders of europe are intimidating their own people first into silence, then collaboration and then into their new Islamic lifestyle. Islam IS Fascism. If you look at Europe today, the countries that given in the most to the enemy are the same countries that gave in so easily to Fascism years ago.

Blankley draws an intriguing parallel between our situation today, and that of the America Indians and the first European settlers centuries ago. The situation was similar; in both cases they were not formally at war and even cooperated with each other at times. The Indians, he points out, could have easily held on to their heritage if they had recognized the threat of Europeans to their lifestyle, because while there were only hundreds of Europeans at first, there were thousands of Indians with superior knowledge of the land. The Indians, however, didn't have a historical reference point on which to judge the situation and failed to act decisively. We, however, have plenty of historical reference points to judge the threats posed by radical Islam.

My favorite review:

A giant leap backwards for mankind

The elements upon which this book is built are as illusory as a house of cards. Though seen from one angle it appears to be strong and solid, in truth it is about as substantial as a hot air balloon.

I despair for civilisation when a book based on the fear-mongering of one group in society is hailed as 'superb'. It is a bleak day indeed if we must accept that multiculturalism is a myth. Can we all get along only if and when everyone is the same? Are we nothing more as a species than a community of ants (though infinitely more destructive)?

Do Christians even believe in the golden rule anymore?

Do not let fear rule your life, your beliefs, your humanity.

[Realityhack]

144. Wow...

just WOW. That has got to be one of the most retarded sites I have seen.

[beam me up scottie]

155. That's just scratching the surface.

Google any reich wing phrase or talking point and watch what crawls up out of the sewer.

It's like playing Whack a Mole.

[smirkymonkey]

249. Wow - what an idiot (not you, the author of "You may be a fundie

atheist...)

That's the problem with trying to debate a religious moron - their little, narrow minds are impervious to reason.

[cain_7777]

93. Belief in god drops with education

"Religiosity and science
In one study, 90% of the general population surveyed professed a distinct belief in a personal god and afterlife, while only 40% of the scientists with a BS surveyed did so, and only 10% of those considered "eminent."<1>. Another study found that mathematicians were just over 40%, biologists just under 30%, and physicists were barely over 20% likely to believe in God.<2>

A 1998 survey<3> by Larson and Witham of the 517 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences showed that 72.2% of the members expressed "personal disbelief" in a personal God while 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism" and only 7.0% expressed "personal belief". This was a follow-up to their own earlier 1996 study<4> which itself was a follow-up to a 1916 study by James Leuba<5>."

"A June 2006 Gallup survey further supported that a definite belief in God declines with educational level."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

So yes, we are intellectually superior.

[Keepontruking]

21. atheists

What you believe becomes truth...our country was founded on
freedom of religion even if that means no religion.  It makes
no difference.  It's not our decision. It's their Makers int
the end.  He who is without sin cast the first stone. we all
have our thing.....we could say anything bad about any
religion. I remember when Kennedy was voted President
"suddenly the world would go to Hell-o cause cause the
pope would run Amnerica...get a grip and run your own
life............don't let them touch yours as a nurse I can
tell you they are far and few between when they are
dying!!!!!!!  Circus Girl

[girl gone mad]

27. In the words of Belinda Carlisle...

Heaven is a place on earth.

[Kolesar]

100. And I thought the song was about me being Belinda Carlisle's boyfriend

The hormones of youth, you know. Belinda was sweeeeet.

[Marr]

28. I'm an atheist and I've got nothing against religion or religious people.

I think there are many ways to find your place in the greater scheme of things. Some people find it in ritual and chants, some people find it in stars, and some people find it objective reason. Whatever helps you recognize your responsibilities and duties as a human being is fine by me.

[Erika]

31. As long as you recognize we do have a responsibility to others

That is fine. Bottom line, Atheists pay the same rate of taxes, and many times more, because they don't have religious write-offs, and they vote.

America wasn't suppose to be about religion or lack of.

[NoodleyAppendage]

36. Hell, yes...I'm a proud atheist and I'm coming to get you and your kids!

Boo!

J

[Tinksrival]

37. You can have them!

Ha Ha!!

[Erika]

41. take mine too!

[AJ9000]

52. Naw we're not going to steal your kids

but that damn Christmas? Oh yes, were going to have that. And thanksgiving too. and you'll never see them again!

[Erika]

55. What's a damn Christmas?

Is that like an Easter with out a bunny? What are you talking about.

[wryter2000]

122. Me, I'm going after Valentine's Day

If I can't be loved every February 14th, no one else will be, either. Bah humbug!

[longship]

43. Hear, Hear!!

I like this post.

[progressoid]

46. Yes we are among you...

And we're really pissed. Soon your Gideon Bibles will be replaced with the Communist Manifesto. Your children will be forced to drink the blood of Ravens. And, since we have no moral compass, we get together every month and cook some meth to sell to elementary kids (except December - we're busy paint-balling nativity scenes all month).

[Erika]

47. and Mitt Romney will send you an autographed Book of Mormon

Sail free religion!

[jazzjunkysue]

129. Shhh! Didn't you get the memo? Don't give it all away!

Then, they'll know what we're up to!

NO alk-tay about the aint-pay!

[Swamp Rat]

50. "Everything they touch turns to reality."

:rofl:

[ContraBass Black]

54. If only that were the case.

:D

[philly_bob]

51. Some of them even belong to religions! /NT

[magellan]

53. "Their worldview precludes the supernatural"

If that's true then I'll have to hand in my atheist card. I believe in ghosts.

[pitohui]

56. you and me both

i've had some experience with ghosts for lack of a better word (invisible vestigial entities)

atheist just means you don't believe in god, it doesn't preclude believing in other intelligences or in other things we haven't yet been able to explain

there are unexplained things out there, what atheist denies it?

we just try to look for an answer instead of explaining away mystery by pushing the god button

no one is claiming that science has already solved all the mysteries, we're well aware that science is still about searching

my issue with god is that god is about turning off your curiosity and turning off the search for answers, "god" is the (to me unsatisfying) answer to the question

if an atheist encounters an invisible, we don't have to fall on our knees and worship it like some kind of ninny, you know what, they are not better and bigger than us just by virtue of being invisible, to be honest the invisibles i've encountered seem quite primitive and more on an insect-level of intelligence, not something to be worshipped

a dragonfly can fuck and fly at the same time, i can't, does that make a dragonfly a god who should be worshipped, don't think so

:-)

[magellan]

65. Have you forgotten the Mile High Club? :-)

Yes, exactly, pitohui! All you wrote is how I feel about it. I too have encountered a spirit, that of my mother; it was an audio experience my sister and I shared though we didn't know it till later the same day.

I've had other experiences that have humbled me and made me realize that there's plenty we don't know about the world we live in. But putting the unknown down to god is something of a cop-out to me. It's easy not to ask questions, to turn responsbility over to some invisible all-knowing being. Generally it seems people need to believe there's higher meaning in everything that happens to them. I believe there's no grand meaning to anything but what we glean from life and pass on to others. The rest, like spirits, is simply unknown...though it may be known someday.

[CarbonDate]

57. I won't tell you what you should or shouldn't believe....

...and if you want to call yourself an atheist, then go nuts. However, I don't understand how one can believe in ghosts but call themselves an atheist. I view belief in spirits as a religious belief, since it addresses the existence of an afterlife. To my mind, there's more to being an atheist than not believing in gods. But that's just me.

People who believe in spirits but don't prescribe to a sepcific religious system of belief are generally described as, "spiritual, but not religious". That's a separate category from atheist, which doesn't believe in any of that.

I could call myself a "rationalist", but then religious folks would say, "Are you saying I'm irrational?" I don't like the term "materialist" because it implies other things that are unflattering and, in my case, untrue.

[pitohui]

62. atheists don't believe in god

since god hasn't bothered to put in an appearance for fuck-all years then it's pretty understandable

ghosts, UFOs, and many other "odd" experiences have a way of happening whether you believe in them or not

the atheist who "believes" in a ghost has had an actual experience that they can't explain

if god would show himself, the atheist would be happy to give god the same credit but apparently god can't be arsed

this is really very, very common, the entire wiccan community and many entire new age communities are filled w. people who noticed that god never turned up for any occasion but many lesser entities (not superior to us and not requiring worship, ghosts, UFO brothers, blah blah blah) do turn up

it;'s only good common sense to believe in what you've actually experienced...

[Wonk]

64. I think pagan would more accurately describe your view

and I don't mean that in a disparaging way, just descriptive.

[magellan]

69. Pagan isn't right

Merriam-Webster says -

pagan 1: HEATHEN 1; esp: a follower of a polytheistic religion (as in ancient Rome)
2: one who has little or no religion and who delights in sensual pleasures and material goods : an irreligious or hedonistic person

I don't worship spirits and I'm not a hedonist. I am, however, irreligious, while believing in spirits as a result of direct experience.

There's no rule that says to believe in spirits one must be religious.

[trotsky]

83. "an actual experience that they can't explain"

Yeah, but you're trying to explain it.

I and many atheists I know would be perfectly fine with "something happened, I don't know what" and leave it at that. But you're assigning an explanation where it's not necessarily warranted.

[neebob]

84. What I noticed about those odd experiences

is how they stopped happening when I stopped wanting to believe in them.

There was a period of several years, not so long ago, where I didn't believe in a god but still wanted to believe in spirits and other dimensions and reincarnation and ESP and stuff like that. I used to feel presences or entities or whatever you want to call them. For three months, I walked around on the verge of an orgasm over someone I'd met on the internet, convinced (because of the physical feeling - and believe me when I say it was intense) that we were connected and the universe had brought us together. I had a dream where he said we had first mated in the year 1732 and became convinced I'd known him in a past life. All I can say now is it must have been hell, because he turned out to be the worst person I've ever had the misfortune of knowing - a fucking monster. I don't even like calling him a person.

My soul mate, my other half, my twin flame. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see him on the news one day and learn he's also a prolific serial killer.

Anyway, all those wonderful feelings just went poof. I stopped believing in psychic connections and past lives and the power of the universe what have you, and haven't had so much as a tiny tingle ever since. I won't say this experience is what made me an atheist because it only started a much larger thought process, but it did help to convince me that desire plays a huge role in how you interpret things.

That's why I always say people believe what they want to. People who want to see ghosts see ghosts. People who want to have psychic experiences have them. People who want to feel the presence of God feel the presence of God. And so on.

[ozone_man]

277. Unexplained phenomena

don't require supernatural causes. Like you say, we just haven't learned their causes yet. Take evolution theory. Before Darwin, our existence was often explained by divine creation, and was often the reason why many religions got started. Trying to explain the unknown. Now we have reason, the scientific method, evidence for evolution.

Ghosts are basically spirits, so like the poster above, I think that essentially disqualifies you as an atheist. No superatural beliefs really, not just lack of belief in gods, even if that is one of the definitions. Perhaps you are a pantheist, of which there are scientific (no supernatural) types and religious types (e.g., god is everywhere, in all matter and space).

Having said that, I think the human brain is quite complicated and can "communicate" with our subconscious mind as if a spirit. How about speaking in tongues? Ever witness that phenomenon? Spooky, but I think once again, it's just tapping into the subconscious mind, parts that we don't understand yet. I think all god is to most people is just this sort of internal communication. To some, it is god, to others, a spirit, to others, a ghost, maybe even a holy ghost. ;)

When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly realized I was talking to myself.
- Peter O'Toole

I don't know whether he's an atheist, I just thought it very funny and true for many sceptics.

[cyborg_jim]

283. People speaking in tounges

Are just making that shit up. Seriously - speaking in a jabbering language, wave your arms about, close your eyes, maybe roll on the floor, add in the occassional 'AMEN!' or 'HALLELUJAH!' and you too can communicate with the creator of existence! There's nothing to be found out about our mental processes from these people other than if you get a bunch of people together, tell them some crazy shit then they'll act it out as if it's real just so they are doing what everyone else is.

As for sub-conscious communication all available evidence points towards conscious experience as being an after-effect of decisions already made by the sub-conscious.

[ozone_man]

284. Making it up subconsciously perhaps.

I agree that it's no human language, which they get around by claiming that it's a language of angels, yet most of these people sincerely believe that they are having an intense religious experience. I think speaking in tongues is just another manifestation of the delusion of religious experience. IMO it's all an internal conscious or subconsious experience, which is why the Peter O'Toole quote was so appropriate (and funny).

Glossolalia: This is the most commonly meaning of "speaking in tongues." This term is derived from two Greek words: glõssai, which means "tongues" or "languages," and lalien which means "to speak." It is observed in some tribal religions and within some Christian denominations, notably Charismatics, Mormons in past times, 1 and Pentecostals. One source claims that Atheists and Agnostics have also spoken in tongues. 2 Another source defines it as "a phenomenon of intense religious experience expressing itself in ecstatic speech." 3 Still another source comments: "To the outsider, hearing someone speaking in 'tongues' is like hearing so much gibberish. ..Glossolalia is the common prayer speech heard at Pentecostal churches." 4 The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary on the Bible defines glossolalia as: "the ecstatic utterance of emotionally agitated religious persons, consisting of a jumble of disjointed and largely unintelligible sounds. Those who speak in this way believe that they are moved directly by a divine spirit and their utterance is therefore quite spontaneous and unpremeditated." 5 A person speaking in tongues is typically in a state of religious ecstasy and is often unable to understand the words that she/he is saying.

Most Christians who speak in tongues believe that they are speaking in an existing language. However, it is not similar to any known human tongue. Many speculate that it is a heavenly tongue. i.e. a language spoken by angels or by God, and not similar to any human language. It was seen frequently in the church at Corinth in the 1st century CE. It was experienced rarely during the history of Christianity until the 20th century when it has become quite common.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/tongues1.htm

[magellan]

63. Atheism is the rejection of the existence of a deity

Nowhere can I find that atheism requires the rejection of an afterlife. Believing that the spirit can persist doesn't necessarily require that one also believe in a god.

[Random_Australian]

68. Lack of belief. Rejection would imply that we say that God CAN'T exist.

Which is clearly not a realistic thing to say about atheists!

Don't mind me, just picking over people's choice of words.... ;):)

[magellan]

70. Nitpicker! :-)

But I kindly disagree. I got my definition of atheist from the NY Library Desk Reference.

Atheism The rejection of the belief in God....

From Merriam-Webster -

reject 1 a : to refuse to accept, consider, submit to, take for some purpose, or use <~ed the suggestion>

I think saying atheism is the rejection of the belief in God is correct.

[Random_Australian]

71. Don't try to out-nitpick me. :) Watch!

Atheism, as in "implicit atheism is the lack of belief in God", (whereas explicit says there is no God), makes more clear the role of evidence, which I would argue is the basis of the derivation of implicit atheism.


Oh yeah, I back up how I define atheism with this guy:
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/whatisatheism.htm


P.S. I got more where that came from. :)

[magellan]

72. Oh geez, you just fried the last connections in my 4.30 a.m. brain

Enough! Uncle! I concede to your superior nitpicking powers!

But I'm still gonna call myself an atheist. And if you aren't careful, I may just haunt you when I'm dead as well. Pfffft! :P

:rofl:

[Random_Australian]

74. Oh shit, I didn't accidentally imply you weren't atheist, did I?

Nah - couldn't have. *phew* I say just ditch implicit/explicit and call yourself an I-Like-Parsley-Atheist. :rofl:

OR go all the way and call yourself an If-God-Is-Real-Your-Ass-Is-So-Haunted atheist! :rofl: :hi: :)

[magellan]

75. LOL

Naw, you didn't imply I wasn't an atheist; the sub-thread your op to me derived from did. But, uh, you do seem to be saying above, as others have, that one can't simultaneously be an atheist and believe in spirits. Where is that rule? Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity. Ghosts and religion aren't synonymous. I absolutely don't believe in God, but I absolutely do believe my sister and I shared an audio experience of my mother after she died, at the same time but different for each of us, while we were in different parts of the house. I view it scientifically and add it to the many wondrous things about this universe which we don't yet understand.

And I'm a parsley-hating atheist, dammit!! :)

[Random_Australian]

79. The OP was a bit..... weird, in my opinion.

Like they had just had a lecture from a fool about how evil atheists are.

[neebob]

85. It does have a kind of "so there, neener neener" tone about it. nt

[Finder]

95. You want or need to believe in ghosts is more like it...

and even atheists have experienced events like these after the death of a loved one. It is the minds way of dealing with grief for some.

Being atheist does not vaccinate one against mental illness or psychological trauma and anomalies.

[magellan]

147. Uh...thanks.

I trust there's no bill for that remote analysis.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

105. I hereby declare I'll never deny you the right to call yourself atheist.

Signed,

Commie Pinko Dirtbag

Formula One driver, nuclear physicist, and Beyoncé's personal trainer.

[Common Sense Party]

59. What. The. Hell.

"Everything they touch turns to realism. Everything they touch turns to reality."

Can someone tell me what the HELL this line of tripe is SUPPOSED to mean?

[Wonk]

61. Once you become an atheist, you get magical superpowers ;-)

I'm pretty sure that was supposed to be funny. I laughed.

[eppur_se_muova]

119. I recognise that sig line ... this was about LINCOLN, right?

Could you post or PM the whoe quote, if you have it? I saw this long ago, but don't have the whole thing.

[rman]

66. "You will not know them by their fruit."

Can't judge atheists by the fruits of their labor because those are in indistinguishable from the fruits of the labor of religious folks - both for better and for worse.
And what was it that Jesus said about judging people? Only by the fruits of their labor, iirc.

[beam me up scottie]

77. BOOGA BOOGA !!!

It's the BOOGIEATHEIST!


Did you know we have a flag now?:

[hunter]

88. Arrrrrrrr! Pirate Fish!

That's so cool.

[jazzjunkysue]

130. Arrr! There be athiests among us! Lock up the rum!

[obreaslan]

78. Ooo Ooo Ooo, PRESENT!!!!!

Just checking in. :hi:

[onager]

80. Sorry, we're organized now and you have to pay dues.

http://www.cyberdespot.com/home.html?eac.html&frames/left.html&frames/top.html

[Festivito]

87. There can also be two-faced atheists posing as Christians.

I realize the author intends to promote less fear of atheism. However, on DU there is a heightened sensitivity that divides us and can seek to conquer our democratic effect.

It would serve Rove to push it here.

[neebob]

189. If Rove gives a crap about DU

it's probably more because of the disparaging remarks about him and his lesser sociopathic protege. He's probably flattered that everyone thinks he such an evil genius.

If his hirelings are here, why do they have to be atheists? Do you think there a lot of atheist Republicans who support fake Christian presidents? Do you think most atheists are that gullible? Or are they just immoral?

If you ask me, it's much more likely that the doers of Rove's bidding on DU, if any, would be Christian. Most atheists either never learned or have forgotten the language.

[Festivito]

217. Maybe, but I doubt he's concerned about remarks about himself from DU.

.. after all, he just wants to win.

What makes you think his hirelings would be atheists? It's not from what I said.
Now it would be atheists, who, enraged by specialized community rhetoric that would run around fighting. And, this is what Rove does well, he makes specialized community rhetoric from his professional background of direct mail targeting.

He is merely a sellout to a bigger treason. But, enough on Rove.

There are atheists who support Bush, or as you put it: atheist Republicans who support fake Christian President. I know some. And, they are that gullible. But, not MOST atheists. And, no, I do not consider atheists as immoral.

I'd also think that real Christians would not sell out, as others do, yet, some would fall for the idea that the ends justify the means. Much easier to get a hedonist knowingly to sell out than to get a Christian knowingly to sell out, the body would allow it, the image of Christ would not.

It is your use of "most" that is unwarranted and errant. Be it 2% or 92%, it's still divide, incite and conquer in a manner that at minimum wastes the time we are spending along with all the other posts here, and keeps the two sides expending their energies not looking at the real mess, unless we'd come to accord and disarm the incited factions. And, that accord, Rove would not allow.

[neebob]

220. Sociopaths hate it when people talk bad about them

Narcissists hate it even more. Either way, Rove and Bush are covered.

You said, or implied, that atheists - two-faced atheists - are posing as Christians on DU. Okay, so you didn't mean to say Rove hired them. How about I just go with what I was tempted to say in the first place: That was a stupid statement. I don't even know where to start with all the new ones.

[Festivito]

232. I said there are atheists who pose as Christians. I didn't say at DU.

And, there are atheists posing as Christians. Unless we get back to the semantics game of saying that agnostics are atheists when we're talking about good people, and that agnostics ARE NOT atheists when we talk about bad people. Look at the wealth created by some big churches. Yet, the top guy gets into big trouble. They use hidden people to surprise others into belief -- all for money. They are not Christians in their hearts, they are charlatans. It is just business; it is not stupid.

To incite division all Rove or his ops need do is spend ten minutes a week inciting in a religion forum, before hitting something else. But, their incited hordes are all over yelping their talking points. They have tons of money they can spend from donors who wish they could give more than the rules allow. So, they find ways to spend it. So, why not attack here?

BTW, Rove may hate the talk, but he'd rather spend time winning. Remember, it is a business.

[neebob]

241. Uh-huh

and you have a gift for obfuscation.

[Festivito]

243. A little more beer and we'd all agree and laugh heartily.

I wish you well. I wish us all well.

[neebob]

244. Well, that explains it then.

I'm still on my morning coffee. :)

[vickitulsa]

239. Oh boy -- another good laugh from this thread.

And I'm laughing WITH you, not at you, definitely.

It's quite possible I might be one of those who some people could (if they stretched it -- a LOT) see as being an atheist who posed as a Christian. But it's not true of me and would be a sore mistake on the part of anyone who made that assumption.

I'm simply so opposed to insulting or hurting people for what they believe, even if I think it's "nonsense," that (once in a great while) I agree with a devout Christian's expressed viewpoint and (very often) I decline to argue with them if I do NOT agree with them.

Ergo, some might say I "went along to get along." That could be, in the estimation of some following that mistaken idea, considered "two-faced" or "posing as a Christian." But it's not, it's just not. What it is is courtesy, and perhaps courtesy carried a bit too far (I don't believe it is), but nothing more.

I've known for many years that if I applied myself to the task, I could get my own dear mother to give up believing in her Christian tenets and teachings. But I decided long ago that it would be cruel to her to do that, and I absolutely will NOT be cruel to my mother -- or to anyone else I believe has a good heart and is doing no harm, or very little harm, and that mostly to him- or herself.

If Christians responds to a post of mine that indicates I'm sad or depressed by telling me they will "pray for me," I generally thank them for their kindness and support. I don't come back with, "Don't pray for me, send me money or a car or pay my rent." I don't even say, "Don't pray for me, just think kind thoughts about me or send 'good vibes' my way."

Why offend someone who obviously means well and is being kind? I don't do that. I don't believe their praying for me harms me or anyone else in any way. I appreciate their compassion and support.

I have, however, been just a little bit concerned that some people here who have seen me declare myself an atheist at times would think me "two-faced" or at least wonder where I was coming from if they then see me "making nice" with a devout Christian. I'm not worried enough about that to change my behavior at this point, though.

I guess I just view myself as "open-minded" as long as no great harm is being done. Only when those who call themselves "Christians" do bad things that harm others or possibly infect them with malice do I get roused enough to take the offensive against them. Even then, it's largely a defensive posture, defending the ones attacked or harmed by so-called Christians -- like the one in the Oval Office.

Clear as mud now, eh? ;) I thought so. Time to finish reading this thread (which hasn't been a complete waste of time for me at all) and move on.

Have a great Sunday, everyone! :hi:

[neebob]

242. I'm not laughing

just scratching my head. No idea how this is about you. Enjoy!

[vickitulsa]

245. My mistake there. I didn't specify what I was laughing about.

It was only the last sentence of your post. Actually, just the last part of the last sentence.

"...That was a stupid statement. I don't even know where to start with all the new ones."

"Funny" to me only in that I can see why you and many others would "not even know where to start with all the new ones."

To me, and possibly me alone, that was ironic humor. I strongly suspect you're not the only one who's read or participated in this thread who would be having that problem.

So I was laughing, not as in 'haha' funny but as in 'sheesh' funny, more like exasperation, which is how I felt and why I commented in that subthread at all.

To clarify further: Not the furious exasperation we feel with the nightmare of the * administration but the relatively milder exasperation we sometimes feel when others who are thought to be "on our side" and to "get it" are instead demonstrating their lack of good sense?

Hope that explanation suffices. I was remiss in not being more specific or careful last time. I do believe I understand why you're scratching your head.

So you're right, and were right all along. In the usual vernacular instead of my less common ironic take on it in this instance, I don't really find it "funny," either!

(Shows what my bungled attempt at brevity got me in terms of lack of clarity ... and demonstrates one of my many reasons for being so damned longwinded. Always saddens and frustrates me to be misunderstood -- especially when it really is my fault because I didn't explain fully what I meant.)

Could be I was just laughing to keep from pulling my own hair out? Might have been better off this way :banghead: ... or simply scratching my head as you did....

[neebob]

247. That's okay

I have the opposite gift for boiling things down to a level of clarity and specificity that doesn't leave me any wiggle room. Rarely do I say anything other than exactly what I meant. If someone else says I'm wrong, I generally have two choices: admit it or argue my point.

Thanks for the explanation.

[neebob]

246. Which is not to say I don't know what you're talking about.

If I chose to respond to everything I disagree with - or agree with, for that matter - I'd be sitting here 24/7/365, with the backlog getting bigger and bigger.

I hear ya, too, about the mom thing. In my case I'm just not sure I'm the one who's being cruel. My dear mother is exceptionally skilled at avoiding issues she doesn't want to talk about. I finally just gave up.

As for how it's about you, Festivito made an oblique statement that he or she has yet to explain to my satisfaction. I apparently took it the wrong way; I'm just not sure how.

[BeyondThePale]

89. Thank you...

I am so tired of a culture dominated by fairy tales. I am happy for you if religion makes you feel good, but it is nonsense and provides no basis for science or government.

[jazzjunkysue]

131. Um, I disagree. It's all politics and control. It serves many purposes.

Most of them evil. With the exception of many local ministers who do take care of their congregations. There are many local, loving congregations. Although I've never had the good fortune to wander into one. Everyone's thrown me out for my un-controlled self-determination and inclination toward asking difficult questions. Even the Buddhists threw me out. Geez!

But nationally organized religion serves many political purposes, indeed. And it's a real head-rush for some who feel in need of a way to put down others as "outsiders." A.k.a.: "Non-believers."

[Prophet 451]

91. Athiests among us? OH, NOES!!!!

I'm terrified by the idea that an athiest might actually hold any kind of power! Why, they might not think of everything in terms of whether God would approve!

(yes, that was sarcasm).

Who cares if there are lots of athiests around? I have my beliefs, they have theirs and so long as neither of us tries to impose our beliefs on the other, we'll get along. I know lots of athiests (it's much less of an issue here in England). Some are great people (Douglas Adams, Terry Pratchett), some are jerks (the Amazing Randi). Pretty much the same state of affairs you'd find in any faith.

Honestly, we have got to stop judging someone's faith or lack thereof as the be-all, end-all measure of their character.

[immoderate]

98. Randi? What did he do?

Got any details?

--IMM

[Prophet 451]

101. I just don't like him

I think there's a fine line between being a sceptical enquirer and just being a "scientific fundementalist" (for lack of a better term, with all the superiority complex that implies).

[immoderate]

104. Sounds like you made an aesthetic judgement.

There are some fundamental rules for doing science. If you don't follow the rules, your claims are not valid. Otherwise, you're dealing with pseudo-science. I'm a long time follower of Randi's work, and I don't think you can name anybody who has exposed more frauds and quacks. When you do work like that, you're bound to rub some people the wrong way. Could be, he's been on your toes a bit.

--IMM

[Prophet 451]

106. It is partly aesthetics

I think Harry Houdini might have exposed more charlatans though.

Admittedly, my beef with the man is largely a matter of personal distaste. I think he's a publicity hound and I think he's (how to put this?) inclined to leap to the simplest explanation. Somewhere between "God made it all" and Randi's "world according to Hoyle", there's a very complex universe with mysteries we have only just begun to investigate so I find Randi's attitude that everything is solveable and explainable (by the data we have right now) irritating. From what I've read and seen of the man, he's less a sceptic and more a serial debunker of the kind who wouldn't believe in (purely as an example) levitation if his head was gently bouncing off the ceiling. Also, I'm wary of the tendancy of a (fairly small) faction to hold him up as infallible in the same way Christian fundementalists do with their Bible (I'm neither a Christian nor a fundementalist).

[immoderate]

124. That's not how I know him.

Yes, he can be abrasive and revels in the role of curmudgeon, but that's not what he does. He doesn't seek out things to debunk. People make claims of things they can do. Randi offers a million dollars if they actually do what they claim. In all cases where there are tests, the candidates agree beforehand that the tests are fair. The judges are neutral third parties that are approved by the claimants.

I wonder if you've ever seen "Randi in Australia" a movie on Google. Here's a link.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7461912885649996034

I'm wondering what objection you have to that, considering that thousands or even millions of people are sucked in by this "stuff." Do you think that spoon benders, faith healers, psychics, etc., should be able to sucker the naive without any challenge? Some of these people are vultures, preying on the misfortunes of others, literally ripping them off. Randi, as far as I am concerned, is performing a valuable public service.

Take the case of Sylvia Browne, the "psychic." She charges people $750 for a phone consultation. Many of these people are desperate to find missing loved ones. If not for Randi, how would we know that they all get the same "reading?" She appears on Larry King and Montel Williams without challenge. This, to my mind, is fraud. Don't you think someone should point this out?

Interestingly, my first encounter with Randi was an incident where someone was hoaxing me, a girl with "psychic powers." I had an opportunity to speak to him on a call in radio show, and he told me how she was performing her "miracles." And he was right. It was an eye opener.

It's difficult, I feel, to seek the truth, if you can't expose what's false.

--IMM

[vickitulsa]

138. Not trying to speak for Prophet 451 -- he does a fine job of speaking

for himself. But I totally agree with him on "The Amazing Randi." Geez, just the way he named himself is offputting to me -- possibly because I never saw him performing onstage as a magician. Just sounds like he really does think he's "amazing"! ;) Where I come from, we call that conceited, or bragging, and it's not a good thing -- it reveals a lot, most of it negative, about a person.

I have seen nothing amazing about Randi at all ... in fact, to me he's just (in contrast to how you know him) an overblown, self-inflated, publicity hungry and minimally talented guy who (yes) has done some good by exposing frauds but who also has probably damaged a lot of people psychologically with his behavior. He badgers people, tries to intimidate them if he doesn't agree with them, never mind if it hurts or confuses others.

He's a showman, and in my eyes not one with a lot of integrity -- all the while he challenges everyone else's integrity. But then I don't know him as you do, either!

His challenges to anyone who can demonstrate their abilities -- for money, big money -- in a way that satisfies HIM are in and of themselves, IMO, enough to drive away anyone who may well have "abilities" but is far too self-respecting to engage such a showman in a melodramatic "test" of his design. Even if the parties are supposed to agree about all the aspects of the so-called test, it's still an environment Randi himself sets up from the git-go because he's the one who came up with the challenge scheme in the first place.

I can just see how it might go. Let's say we stipulate that there really IS a person who has psychic abilities. This person has solved cases for quite a few law enforcement entities when they were totally stumped, and generally is respected by everyone who knows her, even those who doubt psychic things in a broad sense. This lady decides it's time to put Mister Bigmouth Randi in his place and contacts him about his challenge.

She says she is not interested in the million dollars because that's not what motivated her to respond to his challenge. She did so because she thinks HE may be the fraud, or at least that he's misleading people and doing possible harm to a special minority out there and to those they might be helping.

She simply wants to demonstrate her abilities to disprove his claim that there is no such thing as "paranormal" abilities and that any and all who say they have them or have witnessed them are frauds or dupes.

So she and Randi speak on the telephone, after she finally gets past his assistants and can talk directly with him. They discuss the terms and conditions and the details of the "test." Before long disagreements emerge because she believes he is trying to "shape" the test to favor his opinion, while he claims she is "trying to wiggle out of it." She disagrees with his insistence that she renounce before everyone all psychics and psychic claims if she cannot perform upon command in his special little "test."

The "negotiations" break down because he won't back off on his very specific rules (you know he has them -- it's his game) and she won't agree to his total package of what constitutes proof without what she genuinely believes to be practical and fair modifications.

No test is performed because they simply couldn't agree on the methods of the test.

Forever after, whenever someone mentions this woman to Randi, he claims she refused to take his "test," implying or saying outright that she knew she couldn't perform a psychic task because she's a fraud. Yes, she refused to take his "test," but not for the reasons he claims. She is too dignified to engage in a public rebuttal, so his take on the matter is allowed to stand and people believe he "busted another fraud"!

There's one thing worse than being a fraud, and that's accusing other people of being one when they're not!


Just like I believe it's probably better to refrain from trying to convince some believers that there is no God, allowing them to benefit in whatever ways they do from whatever it is religion brings to their lives, I also think it's kinda hypocritical for someone to try to dissuade those who believe in supranormal phenomena or who think there's a strong possibility that such phenomena do indeed exist that they're just plain wrong -- or stupid or duped.

Please excuse the tortured syntax, there, but you get my drift, right? :)

It's only when religious people try to cram their personal beliefs down my throat or force their "rules of living" upon me that I resent them and wish they would keep their personal beliefs to themselves. And on a broader scale, when a really extreme believer does things like blow up innocents as "infidels," no matter WHICH sect these violent people belong to, including Christianity, I strongly disagree with their right to act on all their beliefs. Think that others are "infidels" if you like, resent and avoid them in your life -- that's fine. But no-one's religious beliefs gives him the right to kill or harm others who disagree with his beliefs and precepts.

I have just as much trouble with an Old Testament God who, upon sending the lost children of Israel into the promised land in Canaan tells them to kill every single living being -- including the babies and animals -- in order to "purify" the land and make it ready for them to move in as I do with any fanatic, extremist Muslim who flies an airliner into a skyscraper. I honestly can't see the difference in the two. Slaughter of innocents is slaughter of innocents.

But if people want to believe in God or gods, of whatever form, then if they don't harm others due to these beliefs and if they demonstrate kindness and acceptance of other human beings and integrity in their everyday lives, I'm fine with that. I don't see why some believers seem to enjoy telling others that they are "going to hell" or that they're wicked and untouchable and not fit for the "cleansed ones" to associate with. Worse yet is when they claim atheists are not fit to raise children, and many believers think just that. That's part of why they want Christian precepts taught in the public schools.

The believers I get along best with are Buddhists (esp Zen Buddhists), Taoists, and others along that line, including some very special Christians who actually live what Jesus taught. But I get along okay with ANY believer until he starts to tell me how wrong and bad I am and how I need "saving."

Not only that, no weird-assed "foreign" religion (as many fundie Xtians see them) could possibly embrace a more bloody and cultish sort of belief than fundie or "charismatic" Xtians do because of the whole blood and body of Christ thing. "Here, this is my flesh, take and eat..." Yikes! I like many things about Jesus and what he taught, but ya gotta admit, that's a symbolism that's pretty hard to explain. Way back when I WAS a believer, I found it totally bizarre trying to explain THAT aspect to others!

Yet Xtians are all the time claiming that those "Muslim terraists" are bloody and violent. How bloody and violent were those takeovers in Canaan and elsewhere in biblical times, or the military actions taken by so many through the centuries wherein they slaughter the living by the MILLIONS all the while claiming that a god of their choosing is on their side?

To me, there's just way too much self-righteousness instead of true piety among believers of just about all religions. And way too much hypocrisy, as well, although believers by no means have cornered the market on hypocrisy. Hell, if I had to sum up MY beliefs about how people should treat each other, I could quote Rodney King! "Can't we all just get along?" From the mouths of babes, after all....

I've heard small children asking their mothers and daddies, "But WHY can't I play with 'so-and-so'?" or "WHY isn't my friend Ahmed in class going to heaven?" and it just breaks my heart. We do indeed have to teach our children to hate and condemn others. And sadly, too many people are doing a great job of it. :cry:

I didn't much like quite a few things in the quoted part of the OP, but I welcomed the chance to check in as a resident atheist here at DU when such a thread appeared on the Greatest page. Frankly, I sort of doubt you'd ever get a roomful of atheists to agree fully on how they'd define themselves. :)

And I have seen enough of psychics who get involved, usually reluctantly and not through aggressive or theatrical tactics, in hard-to-solve crimes or in searches for missing persons, to believe there is "something" to their abilities. My mother had a very strange, one-time experience of knowing exactly the moment when my dad was wounded in Italy in WWII, and knew he was not going to die from it -- then she received a Vmail from the Army telling her he was "improving" before she got the notification he'd been wounded in the first place! An absolutely true story, and my mother is a lifelong Christian.

Simply knowing that human beings use so little of the capacity of their humongous brains is enough to convince me we've got potential we haven't even touched on yet.

What's that quote in one DUers sigline? Something about not trusting those who say they know the truth, but trusting those who continue to seek it. It's the "I know for certain" attitude of believers that bothers me -- especially if their beliefs also require them to try to convert everyone else they meet to their belief system.

I remember a little ditty from people at a charismatic church I attended a very long time ago: "I know that I know that I know...." And that's all they'd say to back up their convinctions. I trust far more those who, though they are believers, admit that they don't know it ALL, that they too continue to seek.

In order to grow, we must be willing to change. Anyone who believes s/he has all the answers isn't likely to grow much more, it seems to me. And that's true of believers and unbelievers alike.

[Prophet 451]

142. More things in heaven and earth, Horatio

You've pretty much summed up my opinions on Randi except I'll add that his serial debunking has probably set the cause of genuine psychic research back a century.

I'm into history. Specifically, historical mysteries. There's all kinds of these things: A belt buckle discovered in China in 1993, dated to around 300ad but made of aluminium, a metal not discovered until 1803, not refined in a pure form until 1854 and hardened to a degree we still can't duplicate. A mammoth discovered frozen in ice in Siberia 1901 with a bullet hole in it's skull. The Tunguska incident. Whatever the hell Saunierie was up to at Rennes le Chateau. Historians hate this stuff but there's hundreds of bits like this.

The world is very complex and has a lot of unanswered mysteries to it. I kind of like it that way. Personally, I believe in a God (whom I loathe) and a devil (whom I worship). Others believe differently and that's fine. The key point is if we can respect one another's right to our beliefs.

[beam me up scottie]

157. "set the cause of genuine psychic research back a century" ?

You must be joking.

Boy that skepticism is some potent stuff, it can set jen-u-wine sigh-kick research back a hundred years just by disproving hoaxes!

Why, it's almost as dangerous as science.:scared:

Psychics (and other snake oil salesmen) have been exposed as frauds for centuries and you expect us to believe that Randi is personally responsible for destroying their creds?

A mammoth discovered frozen in ice in Siberia 1901 with a bullet hole in it's skull.

:rofl:

I'm sorry, I was really trying not to laugh, but the only other people I know who believe that are "creation" scientists.

What a coincidence, they also use the ridiculous claim that "historians hate this stuff", except they include scientists among the haters as well.

Unfortunately, some believers see experts as a threat and find it necessary to malign them and anyone else who debunks their pet myths.

"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."


"Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense."


~Carl Sagan

[Prophet 451]

191. OK, excluded middle there

"Psychics (and other snake oil salesmen) have been exposed as frauds for centuries and you expect us to believe that Randi is personally responsible for destroying their creds?"

Not by debunking frauds, no. By being an obnoxious jerk about it. No-one likes setting themselves up for ridicule. If he's set about debunking people like the late, great Harry Houdini, in a quiet, professional manner, I'd be supporting him.

"I'm sorry, I was really trying not to laugh, but the only other people I know who believe that are "creation" scientists."

Fair point. It was included primarily as an illustration, I haven't looked too much into it. And no, I'm very much not a creationist.

"Unfortunately, some believers see experts as a threat and find it necessary to malign them and anyone else who debunks their pet myths."

Cheeses, I don't know how many times I have to say this while people keep assuming I have a problem with Randi for being a debunker. I couldn't care less how many charlatans Randi debunks. I don't have a problem with anyone debunking frauds, cultural myths, etc. Sagan, Houdini, etc, no problem with them. My problem with Randi isn't about what he does, it's about the manner in which he does it.

[beam me up scottie]

195. When you use the term "serial debunkers", dislike of debunkers is implied.

I am an ardent fan of another "serial debunker" who was also considered to be an obnoxious jerk by some people.

Maybe you remember him:

[Prophet 451]

197. OK, clumsy phrasing on my part

I'll hold my hands up to that one. I dislike those who claim to be seeking truth but seem to have already made their minds up that they can never be proved wrong. This is what I consider Randi to be.

On edit: A little illustration of the difference. Sagan was interested in UFO reports. He didn't jump to the UFO=alien and therefore, ridiculous conclusion. He applied the term properly to mean simply an object in the sky which could not be readily identified (no-one can dispute the existance of that, you can see them on any given night). Personally rejected the alien hypothesis but thought the UFO phonomena should be studied: He was interested in getting at the facts. Contrast that with the link I shared in another post where Randi simply refuses to test a claimant.

Where'd you get the picture of Carl Sagan from? Don't think I've seen that one before.

[beam me up scottie]

199. I googled images in his name.

I miss him.

Yeah, we'll just agree to disagree on Randi. I thought you were attacking skeptics in general.

[Prophet 451]

201. Not at all

Sceptics in general are fine with me. Some of them have done great things in the world. And yes, the world is a little poorer for Carl's passing.

[neebob]

207. Off topic

but I'm curious, and I don't see where you've explained about worshipping the devil. You were asked about it a while back, on a thread that was locked. I was disappointed that you didn't get to answer.

This devil you worship - would that be Satan? Why worship him? Can you point me to a page that outlines your beliefs? Because I'm not finding in on Beliefnet.

[Prophet 451]

215. Worshipping

Thought I'd replied on the first thread. Obviously I didn't.

Yes, the devil I worship has Satan as one of his many titles. I prefer to use the name "Lucifer". I worship him/her/it (gender being pretty much optional for gods) because, to my mind, God is a sadistic bully, a dictator with a superiority complex and an egomaniac. I can't convince myself to disbelieve in him (note: That's a comment on me personally, not on athiests generally) but I'll be damned if I'll worship a being like that, no matter what it costs to oppose him.

So, dismissing the Bible as propoganda for God, I tried worshipping the devil and found that he wasn't as bad as he was painted. Lucifer is the rebel and rebels are always villified, unless and until they win. Luciferianism, as a belief system, holds principles of freedom, personal responsibility, compassion and resistence to the tyranny of the Big Beard, resistence at any cost. We accept that, if we are correct, we will be damned and we're willing to pay that price to be able to say "not in my name, I had no part of this". Resistance has a price and it's one we're willing to pay.

It means I believe in the same things Lord Lucifer does, that humanity has the right to make it's own choices, it's own mistakes; that the punishment must fit the crime and that nothing and no-one is above being called to account for their wrongdoings, no matter what. Jehovah demands worshippers, Lucifer would rather have comrades and that, right there, says everything about the difference between them. Lucifer doesn't demand worshippers, worship is entirely optional. I choose to worship because (put bluntly) I like a little formalism in my faith. To call The Morningstar "Lord" means, in earthly terms, that I will stand with him and even if it's just he and me, I will do what I believe to be right, no matter what the cost.

I actually work for Beliefnet. It's about numbers. We do have a Satanism board but that's really for the followers of LaVeyan Satanism (which is why I call myself a Luciferian, rather than a Satanist) and, to be frank, there aren't enough Luciferians to warrant a board for us. I mainly hang out on the Christianity Debate board.

[Finder]

216. Interesting...What do Luciferians believe?

I have talked to some that call themselves Luciferians but they did not worship anything...except for a few teens who thought it was cool and didn't understand that Satanism is atheistic.

As far as I knew only Christians believed in Satan or Lucifer(the angel).

Do you have a link to information about your belief system?

[Prophet 451]

218. Sort-of

The problem is that, like any young belief system, interpretations vary wildly.
http://www.spiralnature.com/spirituality/satanism/luciferianism.html">Spiral Nature has a decent but very basic primer.
http://luciferian.org/">The Church of Lucifer have some interesting stuff, not all of which I agree with (they see Lucifer and Satan as distinct beings, I see them as different views of the same being for example).
http://www.neoluciferianchurch.org/">The Neo-Luciferian Church, I disagree with on, well, virtually everything but their's is a point of view.
With the demise of teh Chruch of The Fallen, http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion2/traditionalsatanism/view.html">The Cathedral of The Black Goat is probably closest to my personal interpretation although I find them to be worryingly dogmatic for a belief system based on personal freedom.
http://www.ordo-luciferi.org/">The Ordo Luciferi take a more mystical view based in intellectual and personal improvement.
I have my own little section http://talkfreedom.netfreehost.com/index.php?mforum=talkfreedom">HERE explaining my beliefs (I'm under the ID "Ebon", scroll to near the bottom and click on "Faith").

Many Luciferian groups also hold the Al-Jil-Wah and Qu'ret Al-Yezid (Yezidi tests concerning "devil-worship" of a kind, believed to date from around the 12th century) to be sacred or "inspired" in the same way as Christians hold the Bible.

Finally, don't ignore hard-copy. The single best introduction to Luciferian thought is The Devil's Apocrypha by John A DeVito. It's not perfect, it's written as a lost book of the Bible and is therefore as styalised and full of metaphor as the Bible itself but it does an exceedingly good job of laying out the basics of our principles and beliefs. You can probably order it from your local library.

[neebob]

221. Thanks for sharing that.

I will read.

[Finder]

222. Thanks, I am familiar after all. Also...

ironically I am familiar with the novel you cite--Devil's Apocrypha. Small world.

[immoderate]

165. I'm old enough to remember Randi as a stage magician.

Lots of magicians used epithets like "Amazing" or "Great" or "Incredible." He specialized in performing tricks pioneered by Houdini, often adding a twist of his own. Be assured that he was a first rate performer.

Like Houdini, he never claimed to have any magical powers and was honest about his presentation being an illusion. At the same time he observed that there were others, doing the same tricks as he was, that claimed to have Devinne or supernatural powers. And they used that to take advantage of others. Randi has a higher ethical code.

The problem with scientific study of paranormal phenomena is that scientists are naive to magicians tricks and can be fooled like any other audience. The incident that is critical here is studies by Puthoff and Targ on ESP conducted at Stanford Research Institute which led to a best selling book on their "discoveries." The main subject was Uri Geller, your classic spoon-bender, and he took those scientists for a ride. Randi exposed it. I see that as a good thing. Don't you?

There is also no instance of any crime being solved by psychic ability. I think it's good for people to know this. Interestingly, there's a series on TV currently, "Psychic," which most closely reflects the reality of the situation. The hero is running a scam on the cops and using other means, cold and hot reading, memory tricks, research, to fool them into thinking he has psychic powers. Ironically this is more in line with the truth than the series that are based on "actual cases."

Psychic research has been going on for hundreds of years. It has never been shown to exist in a controlled environment. Experiments that have suggested success have been debunk, or results not replicated.

You are totally wrong about the conditions of the JREF prize. The rules are here. Have you ever read them? What is not fair about them? How would you change them to make them, so as not to give the JREF the advantage you claim and still get a valid result? Remember, the tests are designed by the applicants. What's more fair than that? Have you watched the movie of Randi in Australia? Tell me how that reflects your claims of unfairness. Randi exposes frauds, rip-offs and Charlatans. Whose side are you on?

Thousands of applications are received by the JREF, many are incoherent, some, which have been published are from very obviously disturbed people. But every applicant gets a fair chance. Are you going to defend Sylvia Browne, John Edward, James van Praagh, who rip off thousands of dollars from naive people but refuse to be tested? Do you understand that it's a public service to expose these frauds?

Where did you get your information? How do you know the challenge is unfair? Got any examples of your so-called "serial-debunking?" BTW, to me, debunking means exposing frauds. What's wrong with that? Have you spent any time in Randi's archives? Read any of his books? How did you get to be so well informed?:sarcasm:

--IMM

[Prophet 451]

196. OK, I am going to say this once more...

...and hopefully, that will be the end of it: My problem is not with Randi debunking frauds. My problem is with him being an obnoxious jerk about it. I am not biased against him because I'm a believer, I am biased against him because I consider him a publicity-hungy egotist. Hopefully, this is actually clear now.

The JREF test: I found one through run-through of the rules which outlines the problems with them: HERE, another where Randi refuses to accept a challenger, seemingly because there was a fair chance of him beating the test: http://www.alternativescience.com/randi-retreats.htm">HERE.

No, I haven't seen his movie. Since I dislike the man with a passion, why would I want to see his movie? I refuse to see Ben Stiller's movies too, for much the same reasons.

You're trying to paint me here as some delusional believer with a grudge against Randi for debunking charlatans. Should I then respond by painting you as so possessed of the "world according to Randi" that you will attack the character of anyone who doesn't support him? No, I will simply state, yet again, that my problem is not with what Randi does but with the way he does it.

[vickitulsa]

219. Well, I thought we were having a decent discussion, until you

got me mixed up with another poster and went from a reasonably polite tone to outright personal attacks and sarcasm. I don't respond too well to sarcasm when it's heaped up hard and heavy and aimed directly at me.

I'm a PEACEFUL atheist, you see -- possibly I'm even a genuine pacifist -- and my background as an abused daughter of a state trooper causes me to shy away from strident or even strenuous confrontations and conflict with others. It just disrupts my peace of mind too much and, once again I say IMO, it isn't productive as a rule.

Actually, I started reading your post at first not even realizing you were responding to me. It was that hard to tell that you were even doing so. I was just catching up on what had been posted to this thread while I've been busy the last half-day, reading all the posts as they scroll down the page, and yours was next.

I honestly don't understand why on earth you got so doggone angry at someone who spoke about Randi only as a prelude to the main thing I wanted to discuss in this thread -- the issues I dealt with for the last 2/3 (if not more) of that post. The whole Randi discussion was an aside only and was not important to me, though I found it interesting at first. I doubt too many others here did except for those of us commenting in it, and it's definitely NOT what I think atheists are all about -- those atheists among us the OP was talking about.

I was polite to you -- or at least I feel I was, and intended to be. I'm still being polite to you, even if you don't care whether I am or not. :) That's my nature. I'm not being sarcastic by putting a smile at the end of a particular sentence I write -- I'm honestly just smiling at you in an agreeable and not sardonic or ironic way. I could wish it were smiling WITH you, but you really do seem VERY angry about others and myself not liking or believing in Randi.

To me, your fierce, rapidfire questioning of me and my "credentials," insinuating I had no right to comment unless I had studied Randi devotedly as it appears you have done, along with the many details you offer up about the man (whom a lot of people don't know at all -- which is what propelled this subthread), has me thinking you have a lot more invested in The Amazing Randi than I understood at first from your own comments. I thought you were pretty rational and courteous and meant only to discuss him a bit, as I was and did.

I don't care to do so any more, on any level. I just don't care that much about the guy or what he does, though as far as I'm concerned, he's done some good and some not so good things.

The main thing for me about all this Randi talk is that I simply hate anger-filled conflicts of any kind, but especially with people I don't even know. I shy away from fighting, more than almost anything. So I'm choosing to end my "attacks" (as you seem to have seen them) on Randi here and think about other things.

You clearly feel very differently about him, and that's fine. I don't have a problem with that. I'd ask you why you have such a problem with me, but it might kick off yet another tirade and cross-examination by you and I do NOT want to read through another one of those~! I flat-out WON'T sit still to be scolded and reamed out.

I do feel scolded now after your last blast, and I don't think adults should be scolding other adults. I also feel falsely accused, but perhaps that really was only your getting me mixed up with another poster.

Regardless, I am not feeling any joy right now; rather I sit again as I have on a scarce few occasions before, wondering how my pleasant and now rather long stay here at DU can be suddenly thrown on its head, as a person I don't know reams me out real good in front of God and everybody.

(See, everyone, I didn't forget what this thread was supposed to be all about! <BSEG>)

Someone else jumped all over me once during my first weeks at DU, now over a year ago, and s/he is posting in this thread. I figure s/he might remember who I am, but likely not. I doubt I made the impression on him/her that s/he did on me. I've seen a lot of other posts since the ones where this person pounded me over what was basically a misunderstanding then (something I think we cleared up at the time), and I generally like what s/he has to say so I'm definitely not holding any hard feelings about him/her -- nor will I harbor any about you, IMModerate. I've read posts in other threads by you before, too, and liked what you had to say and how you said it. (Hint: you weren't scolding anyone or confronting them in a strident way.)

I just don't get it, why you got as angry as you did at me -- especially when at least two points you made an issue of really referred to what another poster here said, not me. Maybe that part was what got your dander up so much, is that it? If so, I feel less battered. Oops, I'm sorry -- loaded word, scratch that and I'll say I feel less chided and cross-examined ... perhaps that'll work for both of us?

I will speak up gently in my own behalf and say that I have pretty damn good credentials, but I don't want to sound like a self-serving braggart so I won't detail them here. :)

But please (I used "please" a fair bit in my last post, too -- see, I was trying to avoid any friction) please remember that it's always risky to challenge someone you don't know on their credentials when you're arguing with them -- especially someone on a board like this. You could be talking to Stephen Hawking or Bill Nye and not know it, right?

If I may be perfectly candid, I'm a bit surprised that this thread ended up including a fair bit of name-calling, taunting, pointless arguing and just plain bickering -- along with the other, more positive content, of course, which includes the good humor. But still the unpleasantness marred the discussion, IMO. Once again, that's just my opinion, and I'm fine with anyone having another opinion. Some people aren't made uncomfortable by fighting, and some are bothered only if it's really nasty, cut-throat fighting and don't mind "lively" arguments at all.

I have a handicap, in that I can't take being yelled at and cross-examined with lots of questions peppered at me. Actually, too many questions to answer, were I inclined to try, and I think you knew that, IMModerate. I feel you were trying to win your points (as well as make me look ignorant) in part by overwhelming me and challenging me on specifics you no doubt guessed I didn't have. The reason I don't have them is because, one more time, I'm just not that interested in Randi, one way or the other.

I'd view the film you linked (at least twice in this thread) about him except I just don't care to spend my time that way. I'm "old enough" to remember him as a stage performer, too, and actually I do. As I said, I just never saw him -- which may reveal how I feel about magicians in general as well. Just not fascinated, though I might be if I delved further, who knows? I like to keep all doors open, along with my mind, without becoming an airhead. :evilgrin:

And I'd rather spend my time checking out other types of intriguing things, not how slight of hand is done or how fraudulent "psychics" (whom I dislike intensely) do what they do. I did note that you never tried to say Randi is not a showman, as I referred to him, so I hope that means you didn't disagree with me there.

Well, not the response you were expecting or wanting, I'm sure, eh, fellow DUer? :) But this is what you get -- that's half the FUN of discussion boards, right? Ya never know what yer gonna get, just like with Forrest's box of chocolates. ;)

Now I don't know whether to go ahead and read all the rest of the posts in this thread as I had planned. Usually after being jumped on, rightly or wrongly, I go silent and am snakebit about posting again for awhile, anyway. It's not as enjoyable (for me) to simply READ DU when I know I'm not going to be joining in the conversation.

Yes, I'm a bit sensitive, but not all that much; and that's not the whole story here. I've been active on enough boards and in enough discussion groups online over the last ten years to have grown a reasonably thick skin -- had to in order to keep hanging out in such places! I found it worthwhile to make the effort to toughen up a little bit, and I've succeeded to a large degree. I'm simply still a bit sensitive to being assaulted with very personal verbal attacks and hammered with questions. Doesn't make my day, I'll tell ya that!

In fact, it pretty well ruins it. :cry:

Oh well, boohoo for me, huh? ;)

I'll be fine. Just carry on, everyone, wherever you were when you were drawn into reading this bit of -- whatever -- from that crazy old gal in Tulsa! :hi:

DU = still the greatest board around!

[beam me up scottie]

234. You're wrong about IMModerate.

He is one of the most gentle DUers I know.

He is defending someone he admires and although I can't speak for him, I'm fairly certain he didn't mean to intimidate or upset you. I seriously doubt he's even angry with you.

Most skeptics are natural smart-asses, trust me, I should know. :P

[vickitulsa]

236. Hey now, BMUS, you KNOW I'm not going to challenge YOU!

:)

And if you had the time to wade through my post again, I think you'd see that the real problem was that IMModerate got me mixed up with another poster when he "leaned toward hardhitting" the most.

I love the smartasses on DU, that's not a problem for me. Sometimes I'm even one of 'em, though I do try to be respectful and courteous -- and I don't always succeed. When I fail in that, I try harder, because we all know that there are some among us who really ARE sensitive and who can be very hurt, sometimes needlessly, when someone pounces all over them.

That's really all I was driving at, and I also freely give IMModerate the benefit of the doubt, for certain! As I said, I'm not holding anything against him at all, since I've read many of his posts elsewhere (and even here in this thread) that are just fine with me. He's articulate and rational, and yes, usually gentle; and I've probably responded to other posts of his with "I agree" on more than one occasion. :)

But hey, I'm really glad it was you who responded to my last post here -- you were absolutely right and I was incredibly naive in that encounter we had last summer. My widdle feewings were hurt by how you got my attention about that, but I was then very new at DU and only just beginning to get educated about some realities I had little idea of at that time. I'm glad you (and others) woke me up -- or at least opened my eyes wider, since I was already a *-loather when I got here.

There are times when a person with good intentions and even a lot of intelligence definitely NEEDS a good slap in the face to open their eyes so that learning can take place. You did that once for me, directly, and I've been glad in retrospect that you did.

Like Elrond has come to understand in this thread, you are well worth listening to and respecting. Not sucking up, here, definitely NOT! But both you AND IMModerate have been beneficial in my life more than once.

OK, now I'm sweeted out, too. ;) But thanks for the reply, it didn't hurt a bit! :hi:

[beam me up scottie]

237. You make me blush.

I don't deserve your praise, please stop. I was mean to you then and I'm sorry. I do get carried away when I think I'm fighting for something I can't afford to lose. That night on DU was horrible, and it was just one of many since * and his ilk were installed. I hate what's happening to my country and I feel helpless and hopeless.

Please understand that I live in a very red area and am constantly bombarded by reich wing talking points. People like us are maligned and mocked daily. I am called a traitor and worse, and I can't even take a stand because I am so vastly outnumbered. Keeping quiet lets me keep my job but not my self respect.

So when I come home to DU, it's like my own safe room, and I go postal when I think I'm hearing the same opinions here.

Believe it or not, I am, and always have been, oversensitive. I am deeply disturbed by the things I see, read and hear every day. Feeling like that just adds to my desperation though, and it's one of the reasons why I lash out like I do. Please accept my apology for being curt with you when we first met.

And if I had read your post after I had some sleep, I would have picked up on what you were saying to IMModerate.

You've always been eloquent, respectful and polite. If I could be more like you, DU would be a nicer place.

Peace :)

[vickitulsa]

240. Okay I'll stop. After this post. :)

And PEACE to you, too. I'm always for THAT! Well, almost always.

No apology from you is necessary at all, but thanks for that, too. You were, after all, CORRECT.

And I'm so glad you actually did wake me up to a very real and specific threat which, until that moment, I had not given much credence to. After you got my attention in that regard, I hung around at DU and eventually did more research, learned a LOT, and, with that enhanced awareness in mind, changed my mind in a big way.

Then a year later * & Co installed first Roberts and then Alito on the SC, and I felt something very close to out-and-out panic. BIG contrast to my earlier expressed opinion, eh?

Nice example of why it's a good thing that we (over)sensitive types not run away when pounced upon -- at DU or anywhere else -- but rather stay and listen, live and learn. Grow a thicker skin and use it wisely. :)

This is also why, whenever someone here gives me a hard time or a whack on the noggin for something I say, I don't dissolve in tears and usually don't even reply until I feel quite calm and positive. I just remember their screen name, check their profile, and then pay attention to other posts of theirs I encounter for awhile afterwards. Usually clears things up with no further explication or discussion needed.

It's also why I wasn't nearly as concerned about IMModerate's stand with me as I would have been had it happened a year ago. I've already read a lot of what he has posted at DU, so I know better than to think he's a lowlife creep who attacks sweet widdle old ladies like me. :evilgrin:

I also love the sense of humor and irony most "smartasses" here at DU display very often -- sometimes that alone really pulls the force of punches or criticism and totally makes my day!

I live in a very red area too (though it's changing, slowly), and experience the same frustration you and many others do over suppressing my speech to avoid losing what I can't afford or don't want to lose. It's maddening! DU has become my refuge for that reason as well.

I, too, am deeply disturbed by what I see happening to my country, and the way it's continuing in spite of so many clear warning signs. Raised by a very patriotic WWII couple in the fifties, I was the only person around who had a little flag on my car antenna and flag images on my T-shirts until * came to power. Now I've had to stop displaying them because too many people get the wrong idea about me when they see them. If anyone thinks this old patriot isn't pissed off about THAT.... MAN, it makes me wanta hurt somebody sometimes! (I do see the irony there. ;))

Now I've gotten out my old peace symbol gear (along with my knee-high moccasins and lovebeads) and acquired new versions of that noble symbol of peace protest, and I display THAT as proudly and patriotically as I did during Vietnam. The only flag I fly other than that is the POW/MIA one in black and white, with the silhouette of the prisoner of war with bowed head and sometimes the caption, "You are not forgotten." People can make of that what they will but I hope it's the RIGHT thing and not its opposite.

I put on my helmet and flak jacket (when advised to do so) and ducked potshots in the freefire zones of Vietnam veterans' groups for a long while so I could learn from them and soon understood how idiotic some of my notions about that war were plus finding some true pals for life. Enduring the occasional rude awakening or DI-in-my-face ass-chewing there was so worth it for me.

But other than that, I've never hung around any group as long or enjoyed my time there as much as I have here at DU. And no one here has, even ONCE, scolded me for my regrettable wordiness! NOT ONE TIME in over a YEAR -- now THAT's a FIRST!

DU is such an amazing venue, a unique gathering or meeting hall, peopled with a lot of truly good folks from the U.S. -- and many other places (who thankfully can see in us what the outer veneer of America does not at first reveal). The collective IQ here is out the roof and yet common sense, life experience, and "street savvy" is respected equally if not more. Thinkers here, articulate or not, formal or casual, are on most days given a fair hearing of even the most detailed and lengthy expressions of their thoughts and opinions.

If I could, I'd twitch my nose like Samantha the Good Witch and blink all of the criminals in our government out of office in one flash and replace them with DUers!

(Man, am I ever dreamin' NOW, huh. <wink>)

Again, PEACE -- and no more embarrassing praise, but thank you.


**SALUTE** (Learned that from my vet pals) :patriot: :toast: :beer: :hippie: :thumbsup:

:pals: (Oops, can't believe I did that!) :scared: :yoiks: :evilgrin:

(But since I did...) --> :grouphug: (--to include IMModerate and all the rest of ya's; and now I'm off to check the sports schedule for today before I read any more threads here and get "distracted." Hah! ;))

[Prophet 451]

140. Maybe all that's true

BUT, there is one of the fundementalist universities (Bob Jones?) that offers a million to anyone who can prove evolution too. Know what? Just like Randi's test, they money's never been claimed and never will be. Because a test like that requires firstly, an audience who hasn't already decided on the result and secondly, rules constructed to be impartial. From what I can tell of both the BJU and Randi's tests, they're both constructed in such a way that no-one would ever be able of satisfying them. In the conditions and rules governing his one million U.S. dollar challenge, Randi plainly states that both parties (himself and the party accepting the challenge) must agree in advance as to what conditions of the test constitute a "success" and what constitutes a "failure" i.e. he is perfectly free to draw the qualification of "success" so narrowly that nothing could satisfy the test.

Yes, I'm sure Randi has debunked a lot of hoaxers. On the other hand, I'm equally convinced that his abrasive, smug attitude has damaged many psychologically and possibly damaged any investigation into genuine unexplained phonomena. Effectively, I'm accusing him of the same "the world is the way I believe it" attitude as the believers he so loves to mock.

His comment of "The scientist shot himself after I showed him how the key bending trick was done" when the corpse in question died of natural causes led to a lawsuit he lost in a court who he refused to recognise the authority of (the Charles I arguement) and resulted in damages he refused to pay. He accused Uri Geller and Eldon Byrd of being the ringleaders in a criminal blackmail plot aimed at destroying Randi, and that Byrd was a convicted child molester. Neither was true and he lost that case as well (although was saved from damages by Byrd being such a prick that the jury awarded him $0).

While you seem to be under the impression that I'm offended by Randi's debunking of charlatans, I think you're being overly charitable to the man based on your experiances with him. Charlatans should be debunked, I'll agree with that but that's no need to be a jerk about it.

[KnaveRupe]

163. Here's something - make of it what you will.

From The Trickster and the Paranormal by George P. Hansen

Like many tricksters, some of Randi's antics have caused problems for himself. He was forced to resign from the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) because his accusations provoked lawsuits against the Committee. One of the most publicized involved physicist Eldon Byrd, a friend of Uri Geller. On May 10, 1988 Randi made a presentation for the New York Area Skeptics in Manhattan. After his lecture, during the question and answer period, a member of the audience confronted him with a tape recording, which allegedly had Randi speaking in explicit sexual terms with young men (the recording was not played during the public meeting). I was present and watched as pandemonium almost broke out. Randi did not completely regain his composure. He accused Byrd of distributing the tape and went on to claim that Byrd was a child molester and that he was in prison. He made the same assertion in an interview with Twilight Zone Magazine. This was untrue, and in a jury trial he was found guilty of defaming Byrd.

Randi has never been married, but his sex life has received published comment regarding rumors of pederasty, including from a longtime friend James Moseley. Randi threatened lawsuits over them, but he never carried through.

Much of this seems to have been a smear job by the "psychic mafia", although my brother is a magician, and has told me that young, attractive male magicians are routinely advised by others in the biz to give The Amazing Randi a wide berth.

Whatever the truth is regarding the swirling accusations of impropriety on the part of the Amazing Randi, I have always enjoyed watching lay the smackdown on hucksters and flim-flam artists. I don't think of him as some sort of "rationalist pope", however... he's just a guy.

[Prophet 451]

192. Not sure what to make of that

I've heard rumours that Randi was gay before (couldn't care less). If he isn't, his annoyance is understandable but what would lead him to make such a wild, libellous accusation?

[Chichiri]

94. Present. *raisehand*

My girlfriend too. *girlfriendraisehand*

[Danger Mouse]

97. Ah...

I love Chichiri. Heh.

[Danger Mouse]

96. Honestly...

I have no problems with atheists, though I am fairly religious myself. I went through a period where I was atheist myself.
I understand why people feel that way. I deeply identify with the song 'Dear God' by XTC.
However...the arrogance of a lot of the atheists on this thread bothers me. You mock all people of faith, making them all out to be the same. How can you claim to be tolerant, when you are clearly so intolerant of people who believe in God?
And I also don't think that explaining your atheist beliefs requires you to insult my beliefs. You don't believe, i do believe. End of story. If you want people to respect that belief, especially people that DO have some kind of faith, then you have to be willing to respect those that do have faith. I'm not telling you that you should have respect for Pat Robertson, nutso fundie types. Obviously, they are so steeped in hypocrisy that they deserve NO respect. But we're not all like that, and it really bothers me that so many of you hate religion so much. We're all on the same side. I wouldn't insult your beliefs just to make myself feel better about mine. Why must you do the same to me?
There are tons of religions in the world. Do you also mock Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu, Shintos, etc? Or is it only Christian?
All I'm asking for is a little live and let live.

[Danger Mouse]

99. In addition...

I am absolutley SICK of people saying that religion and evolution are mutually exclusive. And it's not just fundies who say this, it's a lot of atheist types as well. There are PLENTY of religious people who support evolution, right here in my town, which is as backwards and redneck as you can get.

[beam me up scottie]

178. You are aware of the fact that Synnical didn't write the article, right?

She neither insulted you or your beliefs, so why are you unloading on her?

And for the record, atheists don't have "beliefs", saying we do is like saying not having measles is a disease.

The rest of your post is nothing but straw man arguments.

[Danger Mouse]

182. Yes...

I do know that. I know that atheism is lack of belief. I SHOULD say 'lack of beliefs,' you are right about that.
I wasn't unloading on her. Any disputes I had are with the article itself, and with the people on this thread (notice I said 'many' not all, and referred specifically to this thread ONLY).
And all I was 'arguing,' is that I don't like being implied that I'm an idiot for being a Christian. Period.

[beam me up scottie]

193. Then why are you attacking the very atheists who defend you on DU?

Ask anyone who posts in here, I'm the FIRST one to call out atheists who are disrespectful to believers.

And I've been attacked by other atheists for doing so.


I never said christians are idiots. I don't believe that, why would I? I don't mock your beliefs and I don't dismiss them. I am very selective when I dis the fundies.

Most of the regular posters in here feel the same way.

So when you come in here, guns-a-blazing, we get a little irritated.

You have every right to criticize the op, that's part of posting on DU, and we expect it. But it's not fair to accuse DU atheists of something they're not guilty of.

[ElboRuum]

102. Checking in... n/t.

[jaybeat]

103. Personal beliefs vs. Public policy

Keep 'em separate, and you've got, what...?

Freedom of religion
Freedom from religion
Liberty and justice for all
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

Mix 'em up, and instead you have...

The Taliban
The Republican Party
The Crusades
The Spanish Inquisition
The Salem Witch Trials
The Scopes "Monkey" Trial
Prayer in (public) schools
"One nation, under God*..." (*that's a singular idea of God, not Allah, Buddha, Yahweh, Jupiter and Mars, etc.)
The Arab-Israeli conflict
9/11
etc.
etc.

[TwentyFive]

107. Christian God is more evil than Hitler

If you wonder why there is so much violence in the world, just look at all the violence god performed in the bible. Any human behaviorist will tell you people ignore the words...but emulate the actions perfectly. The bible is the worst possible book for kids to read. The kids would be better off with a subscription to Hustler.

No wonder Bush and Hitler are christians...they mimic the violent god they worship.

[Danger Mouse]

109. Excuse me??

The bible is the worst possible book for children to read? God is as evil as Hitler? I object to your insult to Christians everywhere. The problem is when people interperet the Bible literally...you just can't do it...there's too many contradictions and archaic laws. However, the bible has a lot of positive stuff as well. I'm not here to argue with you. However, when you insult my faith like that, I will NOT be silent. I WILL stand up for what I believe in...whether it is my liberal policies or my Christian faith. I am not ashamed to be a Christian or a liberal, and I will fight with anyone who insults either. That includes each and every person on DU that insults faith. Bush is a mockery of what Christianity stands for. Everything he believes in is opposite of the principles of Christianity. ANYONE, any evil person, can call themselves Christian, and do evil works in the name of Jesus. It doesn't mean that they speak for all of us. I will condemn him, and all like him, because his actions hurt the good name of other Christians who are not like him.

[TwentyFive]

112. Violent God >> Violent followers.

Bible is full repeated stories of god killing, torturing people and even entire nations. People mimic the actions, not the words.

As for people blind to this...I think Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits, said it best.

"If you indoctrinate a child before age 6, you have that child in your power for life."

[Danger Mouse]

114. Well...

I never said I was blind to this. But the bible is what you make of it.
Do you think all Christians are violent?

[Danger Mouse]

116. Let me be clear.

I am a Christian, and proud of it. Now go ahead and insult me as much as you want to stroke your ego.

[Finder]

120. Hey, you just challenged yourself...lol n/t

[Danger Mouse]

136. Damn straight =P

[beam me up scottie]

159. Oh, please.

Nobody's insulting you, get a grip.

Christianity is not exempt from criticism, so don't expect us to show deference to it.

[jaybeat]

134. *You* may not be blind...

But how much death, destruction, oppression and evil has been perpetrated in the name of religion? (All, or certainly most religions, not just Christianity.) How much more continues to this day?

How many alternative (possibly just as if not more accurate) descriptions of the life and teachings of Jesus were suppressed 300+ years after his death for purely political reasons? How do you even know what it is you are worshiping, following, or believing in, after so much twisting and deceit and oppression and death?

If your religion is what you make of it, fine. Go forth and do good works. But doesn't all of the, er, baggage that comes from the history of organized Christianity unbalance your moral compass, even by just a little? Why risk undermining your (benefit of the doubt here, fellow DUer) good message and good works?

[Goblinmonger]

263. Come on.

Don't blindly support the bible in its entirety. That just comes off as ignorant.

But since you are, please tell me what "you make of" the following biblical stories:

Lot
Job
Elisha and the bear

Cause those three stories just tell me that god is a prick. Why can't people just admit that?

[jazzjunkysue]

132. Fightin' words! Hee-Hee!

This is fun.

[Random_Australian]

253. *ahem* might I point out that ALL of the Bible is words not actions?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

273. Yep

that Jesus was a real Rambo. And of course, the Koran would be much better reading for children. I think I'll order Hustler for my second graders.

[doctor_garth]

108. Nothing compared to

the clearness of mind, the ability to see through the incredible lies told by each cult, each religion and each god.

[TwentyFive]

111. Catholic Pope: World's most prolific Child Molestor!

Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits claimed that if you indoctrinate a child before age 6, you have that child in your power for life.

All those molesting catholic priests (and the cardinals and bishops that covered for them) maybe believed what they did was less harmful than all the scare stores of torture and hell put out by the official churches.

[Danger Mouse]

118. I am glad...

In reading previous posts, to see that there are some other Christian DUer's here to defend against these attacks. So I guess it's a 'big tent' until you admit to having religious beliefs? I mean, considering that us religious types are so intellectually inferior to you atheists, and since we believe in fairy tales and lies, and have stupid weak minds like children, well I guess you must not want us around all that much, eh?
I bet Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a religious man. Was he stupid and intellectually inferior as well? In fact, a lot of your heroes, past and present, believe in any number of gods or faiths. It's possible to denounce fundies without insulting everyone who chooses to believe.

[immoderate]

126. Though it may seem contradictory...

there are religious leaders who don't buy into the supernatural part of religion and see themselves as performing service to the community through religious institutions. I know because I've met them. Sure there is wisdom in the bible, as there is in many works of fiction. In order for you to maintain your magnanimous positions, you need to go against some of the commandments of the bible. You also have to be able to accept as true, ideas that are contradictory. I think it's not an admirable situation.

By maintaining your belief in Christianity, you are necessarily asserting that the beliefs of other religions are false. You can't rationally escape that. Why should you be upset if someone claims that your beliefs are false?

People believe all sorts of things and some of it is irrational. Do you think that everything you believe is true?

--IMM

[Danger Mouse]

135. I maintain that...

What I believe to be true might not be. It's not fair of me to tell people that I'm right and they're wrong. Obviously, what they believe is true is true to them, and what I believe is true is true to me. It's not going to be exactly the same for every person, unless they're mindless robots. Generally, everyone's faith is a little different, because every person (generally) is a little different. I find it extremely arrogant to say 'I'M right and YOU'RE going to hell.' I guess that makes me a bad christian. So be it. I think that God, whoever or whatever God is, loves EVERYONE, regardless of their faith. Aren't we supposed to be God's children, every one of us? We're supposed to love everyone, to respect everyone, and all life. But so much contradicts itself. We're supposed to be tolerant and intolerant at the same time, pretty much.
It's all far too confusing...
Maybe this idea bothers people. And yes, tolerance goes against the 10 commandments to some degree. And most people only pick and choose what they want to follow or listen to. Actually, it's what most everyone does. I know all of this.
I've known for some time, and I learn more and more.
Faith is, by its very nature, irrational.
It is something that i have not let go of, however. Why? I couldn't tell you.
I guess...because I like what Jesus taught.
It moves me.
It sends a message that very few will ever truly follow.
Most modern conservatives would've hated Jesus, would've thought of him as a dirty godless hippy.
The Passion of the Christ had it all wrong, by focusing only on his death, and not on his life. And it's convenient to ignore his message. Love everyone. Respect everyone. Turn the other cheek. Don't judge others. Treat everyone equally. Always be forgiving. Always be generous, as generous as you are able.
I guess...I'm that kind of Christian. The message is what matters the most.

[neebob]

145. So, if it might not be true,

are you sure you believe it? Why bother believing it if it might not be true? Serious question.

[Danger Mouse]

146. Well...

Are you sure, 100% sure, that your beliefs are true? Assuming that you are an atheist, can you be truly sure that you are right?
That's the thing. There is so much that is unknown. I think it was thomas edison who said something like 'we know less than 1% of everything there is to know'...indirectly and badly quoted so don't take my word on it, but the point is...noone has a monopoly on truth.
There is what we DO know...which isn't that much. And what we DON'T know...which takes up an entire universe. Since there is so much that is unknown...not one person can be completely sure that their views are right. Well...some are...many are. Absolutely, thoroughly sure. It's okay to believe. We all believe in something...whether we believe in a faith, or believe in a lack of one, it's stuff we believe, but we do not KNOW. Faith is irrational because it is based upon the unknown. We can't prove it, so we must believe it without seeing it or truly KNOWING it for sure. We can only believe. If anything one believes might not be true, then why bother believing in anything? Everyone has their own reasons for believing what they believe despite this.
I have given mine. I really dig the teachings of Jesus. It is what I choose to believe.
Do I know it? Can I prove it with cold hard facts? Can I make a nonbeliever believe with empirical evidence? No! I can only tell them that I believe, and why.
I believe, and I do not regret believing...it is my truth, and my reality.
And I happen to enjoy it.
Faith makes me happy. I was very unhappy when I did not have faith. It fills a void in my life that I feel needs to be filled by faith. It is not the same for everyone. That's just how it is with me.
I think, at the very least, since none of us can be certain of what the REAL truth is...that we can at least respect each other, and our own versions of Truth.

[neebob]

148. Not all of my beliefs

but the ones involving a god and an afterlife, yes, I'm 100-percent sure about those. And no, I don't need to prove it or feel that I know everything. Just sparing myself a rerun of a previous argument there.

Now you answer my question. You answered the second one, but not the first one. Are you sure you believe it? Because to me it sounds more like hope or wanting to believe, and that's OK. I still want to believe in an afterlife, or I should say I want there to be one. I just don't believe there is.

[Danger Mouse]

152. That's a good question...

I just can't understand how people can be so SURE in their faith...when much I have seen in my life has led me to both believe and reject God. I think...when I am experiencing the positives of faith...it is easier to accept it...but when I'm experiencing the ugliness of church politics and human pettiness I start to wonder what the hell the point of all of it is.
I could go on and on for hours about the complexities of my faith. Honestly, the indoctrination of religions had affected me as well...all too well...
At this point, I am hopeful that what Jesus teaches is true, and that there is more than this mortal slime that we dwell in on a daily basis.
I want to believe, with all my heart...
But I can't past Fred Phelps, and Pat Robertson, and the creepy obsession with hell and punishment. Thankfully, my current minister isn't at ALL like that...which is refreshing.
It's hard to be a Christian in this world, when so few around you seem to honestly care about what Jesus taught. Yet I carry on, perhaps out of stubbornness.
So...to finally answer your question...I do believe. Yet...this belief is not as strong and sure as that of others. It is worn out and tired. I just need something to refresh it, to make it strong again, but I don't know what.
Sorry to make this so personal about myself, but my defensiveness caused a lot of introspection.
I still will not stand for you guys hating on Christians. Reserve it for the pricks who pervert Christianity to serve their own evil, but don't paint all of them...all of us...the same way.
Anyway...to respond to your responses...I had no intention of drawing you into an argument. Just wanted you to reflect a little. I can't ask you to prove your beliefs. You can't prove there is no god anymore than you can prove there is one. What's the name for that? A false positive?

[vickitulsa]

156. I for one will say I find your candor very refreshing, and your

intelligence is obvious from your own posts. I wouldn't mock you, and anyone who puts you down for taking the stand you do is probably ragging too much on the wrong person. The only excuse I can make for them in good conscience is that we atheists get so tired of the preachy, fundie-style, hypocritical attitudes, accompanied by a very loud mouth, of so many who call themselves Christians, and who are the very ones who gained so much influence for the worst in our country through not just this pResident but also a number of others in various positions of power who have believed similarly, it's just a bit tempting to pounce on ANY Christian.

Honestly? I don't run into too many rational Christians like yourself these days. It seems to me the fundies have hijacked the Christian faith just like the Islamist terrorists have hijacked theirs, and that's bad for everyone. What we have with that scenario is the groundwork for a very longterm if not everlasting battle between archaic and extreme beliefs -- and primitive and irrational beliefs, to boot. Warring between two fundie sects of two different faiths that threatens the entire world. "When elephants fight, the grasses and insects die by the millions." Or something like that.

Not that this is the ONLY insanity that threatens the entire world, however. Far from it!

Have you ever read Stranger in a Strange Land, by Robert Heinlein? I felt he did a great job in that classic book of laying out the many defects in a great many aspects of value systems that we Americans and perhaps all earthlings hold near and dear to our detriment.

But perhaps the most insightful statement, challenging to nonbelievers, that he made about atheism was through the words of one of the lead characters in that novel, the brilliant and often cynical Dr. Jubal Harshaw. I even marked in my paperback copy of that book many years ago the several paragraphs I speak of -- a veritable sacrilege in itself to those who "don't believe in" marking in books! ;)

I can only paraphrase Jubal's argument here because I don't have a copy of SIASL handy. In responding to Michael Valentine Smith's innocent, sincere, and quite intelligent questions about religion and faith and their opposites, atheism and agnosticism, as humans describe and practice them, he says something like this.

The believers in this world may have a hard time explaining and backing up what they believe with hard science and evidence, true. But it's just as, if not more, ridiculous that anyone believes all this (waves hand to indicate the world around him) came about due to a mere, freak accident of atoms and molecules banging together randomly and creating a "spark of life" out of the blue somehow in the clash. It is a tenet of their 'faith' that's most difficult to substantiate. It's just absurd on the face of it, from a common sense standpoint, to make such a claim.

Reasoning like this is what makes me willing to concede the point when believers tell me I'm not a true atheist but more like an agnostic. Problem is, I encounter few believers who can or will argue like Jubal Harshaw. And btw, I have always felt Heinlein used the character of Jubal Harshaw to express many of his own personal beliefs and questions on issues large and small.

Finally, a brief, current example from my life and experience. My neighbor's live-in boyfriend is a liar and thief and an idiot who alienates almost everyone he meets. The lady who once loved him or thought she did is not a liar or thief and not an idiot either, but others often remain aloof from her or criticize her because of who she lives with. The fact that she doesn't leave him means, in some people's opinion, that she endorses and supports what he is and how he behaves.

So she has to suffer through much of the "blowback" from her boyfriend's offenses. I've suggested to her that this won't change until either HE changes in a big way or she leaves him. It's "guilt by association," even though that may not be fair to her.

Same for you, Elrond. (Like your screen name, btw. :)) Seems likely to me that you get tarred often with the broad brush we unbelievers sometimes wield too readily due to our disgust with the extremist religionists and the great harm they've done to humanity over the ages. It's not fair to you, but in the opinion of some, you "ask for it" by simply affiliating with Christianity.

You might not want my sympathy, but I honestly feel for ya, since you must find yourself put in a position to deflect criticism that should not be aimed at you in the first place by reasoning, fair-minded people.

Does this make any sense? Or have I now pissed off my fellow atheists so that they will turn on me and eat me alive? <wink>

[Danger Mouse]

185. Thank you

I think you understand what I was trying to say, and express, so thanks for your post. It actually made me feel a lot better. I was starting to wonder if there was something seriously wrong with me...and yeah, I do feel the need to defend myself...I just wanted to stand up a little for my beliefs. I think a lot of the posters on this thread might not see how their statements might be taken as insulting by someone like me. I don't think I'm overreacting in this regard. Like I said before, if I got too defensive, I'm sorry. Anyway, thanks for your support and understanding =)

[neebob]

180. I don't like to argue

I engaged you because I was curious about a statement you made, not because I wanted to argue or thought you wanted to. I don't remember what a false positive is, don't care enough to google it, and am not impressed with those who do. I appreciate your thoughtful answers to both my questions.

However, you seem to have made some assumptions about me, including me in the statement about you guys hating on Christians. Who here is doing that? I went back and read all the posts you've replied to, and I don't see it.

The OP posted an article by someone else, and yeah, it has a mocking tone, but good grief - is everything about you? I suppose it would be hard to be a Christian, if you feel that you personally have to defend the faith every time the subject comes up.

Why do you want me to reflect? I think you need to reflect on whether you're being too defensive.

[Danger Mouse]

183. I probably

am being too defensive...largely because of my own doubts. If I was rude, I am sorry. I've tried not to be. Religion is a very emotional subject for people, and discussions of it often get very ugly very quickly.

[beam me up scottie]

204. You should look up old threads in this forum. There's a LOT of history.

I was freakin terrified of this forum when I first posted here.
And of course, my first post got me flamed for something I never said or even thought.
A DU veteran (and now a good friend), Old Crusoe came to my rescue. After that episode I lurked, asked questions and tried to figure out who was who and how people who were constantly fighting managed to not take most of it personally.

I guess we should always ask about intent before we assume somebody is dissing us. In a perfect DUtopia, we would.

If you think someone is mocking or insulting you, ask them to clarify. Most DUers don't like to offend, although unfortunately, some do (and are quite adept at it, too), but that's a subject worthy of its own thread.

Welcome to DU and The Arena.

:hi:

[Zhade]

226. "You can't prove there is no god..."

Most of us DON'T believe that. We simply lack belief in unproven deities.

Yes, there is a difference. An enormous one.

[Finder]

167. What is "truth"?...

To ask an atheist if what they believe is true makes no sense because we assert we do NOT believe a deity exists.

For myself, I BELIEVE there may be biological life on other planets in the universe. This belief is based on mathematical probability and an understanding of what the definition of life is from a biological standpoint. If it was proven there was life on other planets then I would state it as a fact(truth)rather than frame it as just a belief.

Anything I do believe, I believe because there is a demonstratable probability or evidence to support.

[Zhade]

225. Considering that atheism (excepting 'strong' atheism) is not a belief...

...yes, I'm sure I'm right about lacking a belief in unproven deities.

The only thing to be 'right' about with regards to atheism (again, 'strong' atheism aside, as it is an assertive stance) is that we lack belief in gods.

That's it. We're either right or wrong about our not believing in gods, and since we know our own minds, it's an easy question to answer.

[Zhade]

224. A simple question: why is it necessary to believe the bible is true...

...in order to like the purported message of Jesus?

Do those words not mean something in and of themselves? Must they be imbued with unproven supernatural myth in order to be of value?

Personally, I feel that to believe in such things as virgin births and resurrections actually detracts from the message, and removes humans' ability to embrace and carry out that message by making it appear to be unattainable 'in this world'.

[beam me up scottie]

160. Like a dinner bell.

Every time someone posts an article that portrays atheists in a positive light, members of the christian MAJORITY show up to complain about how they're being attacked.

Time to bring out the cartoon:




If you see an "attack" in progress, alert the mods instead of accusing DU atheists of claiming we are intellectually superior, not wanting you around, and "insulting everyone who chooses to believe".

Atheists get their posts deleted when they broad brush christians in the same manner.

[Danger Mouse]

175. Ha.

Like I've said many times, my problem isn't with atheists feeling good about themselves. MY PROBLEM IS SOLELY WITH THE PEOPLE WHO ARE BASHING ON EVERYONE THAT HAS A BELIEF. If you want respect, give respect. You obviously have none for me or my faith, so why should I have any for you and yours?

[beam me up scottie]

177. Who asked you to respect atheism?I don't give a fuck whether you do or not

You won't respect my "faith"?

I have no faith, remember? What I have, is a lack of belief in deities and religious superstitions.

What are you going to do, insult my Not-God?

[Danger Mouse]

188. Argh...

Alright, alright, I keep saying 'belief' or 'faith' when I really should be saying lack of =P Sheesh.

[beam me up scottie]

194. I defended you in another thread when you did the same thing.

Remember?

It's not a mortal sin, but it does get tiring when I have to constantly argue with others who insist atheism IS a religion.

Semantics are a big part of this forum, unfortunately.

Believers hate it when their beliefs are called "fairy tales" so most of us avoid using that comparison.

It's all about respect. I will try not to purposely offend or insult you, although I have lost it when retaliating. I apologize in advance if I do that. Call me on it at the time and you'll probably get another apology.

[mike_c]

125. I can live without the need for fairy tales...

...to define my world view, justify my morals, or understand my place in the universe. I'm an atheist.

[Seabiscuit]

127. I'm not really sure what I believe but it's not organized religion.

I have moments where I think the divine is in everything, especially in nature and in love between people.

I have moments when I just don't believe in anything except myself and what I understand, i.e., in my life as it is.

But I do find organized religions as practiced today (and certainly at most times through history) nothing but a destructive force.

When I say "organized religion" I'm not limiting it to Kristianity, as practiced by the fundies. I mean ALL of it.

[Canuckistanian]

128. Once again. If Christianity is a TV channel....

Then Atheism is the "off" button.

We simply disregard any non-provable, unverifiable "god".

Show me ANY correlation between the real, tangible world and the "heavenly kingdom", and I'll begin to listen.

Until then, this knowable universe will suffice.

And we're not even close to fully understanding that.

[jazzjunkysue]

133. Great post and screenname.

Did you ever see the red-blue map after the last "election?"

It listed the blue coasts as "america," and the middle red as "Dumbfuckistan."

[JerseygirlCT]

137. I was liking that until

the blanket anti-religion screed at the end.

Why is this always so binary here? Is there not room for both atheists and theists?

[Danger Mouse]

141. And the part that really bothers me...

Is how many DUers pile on to the anti-religion bandwagon.
This is the question that I ask...can't we just agree to disagree?

[illini66]

149. Methinks thou doest protest too much....

Of the many hundreds of DUers (just check the profiles) only a few atheists have checked in on this thread, including me now. Have you been so sheltered that we few brave enough to out ourselves leave you with the feeling of our huge number? Trust me, we don't feel it. Alas, we are few and far between.

[Danger Mouse]

151. I am not sheltered, by any means. Trust me.

I'm not so much bothered by atheists 'checking in.'
Like I've said before, it's not atheists that bother me. I have some very close friends that are atheists. Rather, it's those of said atheists who feel the need to come to this thread to bash people who are not atheists. Would you be offended if the Christians on DU started a thread bashing atheists and calling them stupid? I can deal with people that don't believe what I do. That's fine. But I will NOT be silent when people openly insult what I believe. Period.

[immoderate]

158. It depends on what you call bashing.

I have no qualms with a person who holds your viewpoints. What's there to argue if we agree that no one holds the monopoly on the truth? And since no two people hold exactly the same beliefs, there can be at most, one, who's got it right. But I doubt it's even that many.

Some theists are very sensitive about words like fiction or mythology and take offense. Some get upset if you point out contradictions. I don't think of that as bashing. But as you say, beliefs are personal. I've had death threats because I don't believe in god, and I once missed out on a threesome with two eager sisters, because I said astrology is bullshit. (Wish I had that one to do over.)

Sometimes there's a need to establish reality and true causality and that brings the problems. Simplistically, how do you deal with someone who says that it's god's will that George Bush is president, and that he invade Iraq, or wherever? To disagree is to bash god.

--IMM

[onager]

161. And you're not bashing us atheists?

From your Post #96:

However...the arrogance of a lot of the atheists on this thread bothers me. You mock all people of faith, making them all out to be the same. How can you claim to be tolerant, when you are clearly so intolerant of people who believe in God?

Followed a few lines later by the now-standard Xian disclaimer...

I wouldn't insult your beliefs just to make myself feel better about mine.

:rofl:

Project much?

But your Post #146 took the cake: I think it was thomas edison who said something like 'we know less than 1% of everything there is to know'

Here's another Edison quote for you: "Religion is all bunk."

Boy! That Edison sure was an intolerant, mocking sort of guy!

When President William McKinley thanked God for victory in the Spanish-American War of 1898, Edison wrote: "But the same God gave us yellow fever, and to be consistent McKinley ought to have thanked him for that also."

In 1910, Edison gave an interview to the New York Times that seriously rattled the General Electric board of directors. They were afraid his anti-religious remarks would affect the price of GE stock:

“I cannot believe in the immortality of the soul...I am an aggregate of cells, as, for instance, New York City is an aggregate of individuals. Will New York City go to heaven?

No; nature made us--nature did it all--not the gods of the religions.”--Thomas Alva Edison, The New York Times, Oct. 2, 1910 ("No Immortality of the Soul" Says Thomas A. Edison, interview by Edward Marshall)

Under pressure from the GE board, Edison gave a follow-up interview in which he slightly softened his stance, saying only that he never seen any evidence of a soul.

When one interviewer asked "What does God mean to you?," Edison repied: "Not a damn thing."

[Danger Mouse]

186. I like...

Your Edison quotes. Very amusing. I quoted him not to imply that he was religious, but just to make a point about something else. I stand by the statement I made about some atheists. Notice i said 'many' 'in this thread.' That's a pretty small representation of atheists IN GENERAL wouldn't you say? You mean to tell me you don't know of any atheists that arrogantly insult anyone of faith as intellectually inferior? That's ALL I was trying to say, and it's ALL that I object to.

[beam me up scottie]

164. Nobody started a thread bashing christians and calling them stupid.

Can the hyperbole.

You need to read the rules again, criticize of religion and religious beliefs is allowed.

Broad brushing groups of people (like you did with atheists) isn't.

[Danger Mouse]

174. Oh?

And none of the atheists in this thread painted religious folk with a broad brush?
And I didn't mean to imply that everyone on this thread is bashing. Obviously, that's not the case. I'm just defending against those that did, and those that DO employ a broad brush. Like I said, live and let live. If you want to criticize organized religion, fine, but as you said, the very rules are against those that use a broad brush to classify EVERYONE who believes in a certain way.
So...if you don't want me to say 'all atheists are this...' is it fair for someone else to say 'all Christians are this...'?
Isn't that pretty much the same thing?

[beam me up scottie]

176. So point out the posts that violated the rules and I'll alert on them.

I'll wait.

And stop inventing straw men, it's so overdone in here it's disgustingly tedious.

[Danger Mouse]

190. Well now...

Reading those posts, there were a few I found specifically objectionable, but I don't know if it constitutes a violation of the rules? :shrug: I don't want to get anyone in trouble. That wasn't my intent.
Anyway, my statements don't encompass all atheists, just some that I feel are intolerant.
Sigh. I'm tired of explaining this. You're after the wrong guy. I'm just a lousy, half-assed Christian trying to stand up a little for my beliefs, as shaky as they are. My initial reaction was a bit on the emotional side, and again, if I offended anyone, I apologize...but I myself was offended. That was all. I mean, there's no reason we can't get along. You'd be surprised how supportive I am of your beliefs, or more accurately, lack thereof. Like I said...I've been there before. Most definitely.

[beam me up scottie]

198. No, if someone is insulting you, you SHOULD alert.

If I see someone calling you stupid or mocking your beliefs, I'll alert on it.

Most of the regular posters in this forum, both believers and non, try very hard to keep things civil. But this place still seems like a war zone some days.

Remember, most atheists can separate your religion from you and your personal faith, even though many believers can't.
When I criticize christianity, I am not automatically criticizing you.
I despise organized religion for many reasons but I have nothing against your faith or spirituality. If it comforts you and helps you to be a better person, why should I care?

[Finder]

179. If you disagree with a broadbrush statement, dispute it with the facts...

and we shall debate or discuss it. Of course if the statement is a personal attack then you should alert the mods. Some broadbrush statements happen to be true whether or not it offends someone.

All atheists lack belief in a deity is a statement of fact.

All theists believe in the supernatural is a statement of fact.

Christianity and Islam has endorsed killing in the name of religion/deity is a fact.

[Danger Mouse]

181. It seems as if...

You don't understand. I am aware of all of this.
Yes, all of that is fact. I would never argue with any of those statements. What I dispute as broadbrush statements, is statements regarding people that are religious as intellectually inferior, or referring to their beliefs as 'fairy tales.' That's just meant to insult, and adds nothing to the discussion. Anyway, it's kind of hard for me to dispute with statements about ignorance or intellectual inferiority with fact. I'm kind of sick about arguing this over though.
Can we leave it at this: I have faith and some of you don't. I don't have a problem with that. If this were a thread where there were some Christians bashing on atheists, I would defend the atheists just as readily...because I don't think there's anyone reason to insult anyone's beliefs...or lack of beliefs. It's hurtful and just plain rude.
I have definitely seen the ugliness that Christianity causes. One of my best friends, who is Jewish, was absolutely TORMENTED in high school by 'Christians' who hated her because of her beliefs. My involvement in my local church has been largely soured because of ridiculous church politics and the pettiness of people. I work as a Sunday School teacher, and almost quit because of the problems I was having with members of the church hounding me about certain things.
Throughout history, religion has impeded scientific progress, butchered people 'in God's name,' oppressed, slaughtered, tortured, and mangled. I am perfectly aware of all of this. I am disgusted to the point of becoming enraged when Fred Phelps says garbage like 'God hates fags,' or 'Matthew Shepherd went to hell for being a homosexual.' Religion is very easily twisted to evil purposes, and has been, time and again, since its inception.
All I'm trying to convey is that not all of us are like that.
I really don't want to argue about this anymore. But thanks for being civil to me. Some people on this thread have been very rude, and I don't understand why. I'm guessing that a lot of you have had encounters with some very bad christians. If so, I am sorry.

[Finder]

202. I do understand and think civil debate and discussion is the only...

way to understand each other. That is why this is a forum for discussing religon and theology in general. Those that do not want to have their beliefs questioned can do so in the major forums or one of the many groups for specific religions and philosophies set up here at DU.

That said, there are sometimes thin-skins and obvious baiters on both sides but neither last very long in this forum without rebuke.

It is important to distinguish discussions in this forum from the major forums. Many posts in the main forums that are discussions of religion get put in here.

[Seabiscuit]

228. Hmmm... I could have sworn I saw this in another thread:

"I'm not so much bothered by animal-eaters 'checking in.'
Like I've said before, it's not animal-eaters that bother me. I have some very close friends that are animal-eaters. Rather, it's those of said animal-eaters who feel the need to come to this animal-eating thread to bash us vegans. Would you be offended if the vegans on DU started a thread bashing animal-eaters and calling them stupid? I can deal with people that don't believe in healthy vegan diets. That's fine. But I will NOT be silent when people openly insult us vegans. Period."

[beam me up scottie]

171. Welcome to DU, illini66!

Here's your rubber chicken, compliments of DU's Evil Atheist Whackjob Posse:

[Goblinmonger]

264. I can't believe I missed this

You have forgotten Rule #1 of the Evil Atheist Whackjob Posse: You do not talk about the Evil Atheist Whackjob Posse.

Sheesh. If someone doesn't reprimand you for this one, it is time for new union representation.

[beam me up scottie]

267. Oh, thanks a lot, Gobby.

I just lost my Secret Decoder Ring for a month. :mad:

[beam me up scottie]

166. Anti-religious comments like these bother you?:

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind."

"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."

"On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind."

"Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"

"What havoc has been made of books through every century of the Christian era? Where are fifty gospels, condemned as spurious by the bull of Pope Gelasius? Where are the forty wagon-loads of Hebrew manuscripts burned in France, by order of another pope, because suspected of heresy? Remember the 'index expurgatorius', the inquisition, the stake, the axe, the halter and the guillotine."

"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes." "Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?"

This is who you would have censored on DU:

- Thomas Paine
- Thomas Jefferson
- James Madison
- John Adams

[catbert836]

203. Hey, BMUS!

Could you tell me where you got those quotes? Thanks.

[beam me up scottie]

205. I googled "founding fathers quotes on religion" and WOW!

There's SO many more out there.

I try to stick to sites that reference where the quotes originated since there are dishonest bloggers on both sides.

[Danger Mouse]

206. The founding fathers were very clear...

That unlike chocolate and peanut butter, they didn't want any of them religion gettin' mixed in with their politics.
That's why I can't understand why people always harp on 'Christian nation this' and 'founded on Christian principles' that...it's more along the lines of 'Roman with a little Greek for flavor.'
America belongs to everybody.

[beam me up scottie]

208. "America belongs to everybody"

That's a wonderful sentiment, and it's true, at least to liberals.

If * and his ilk have anything to do with it, America Inc. will become part of the conglomeration of bloated corporations which will eventually merge into one and claim ownership of the earth.

[Danger Mouse]

210. No doubt...

And the fundies want to make it 'One nation under OUR God'...I bet instituting a new Inquisition is their wet dream. Bush and the fundies are willing to use each other as far as it serves their needs...but I wonder at what point they will get in each other's way?
Anyways, I always wondered, why do people always say * instead of Bush here? Do you just not like to say his name, or consider it a bad word? Sorry for the dumb question =P

[beam me up scottie]

211. Yep, Bush = obscenity too vile to post. So we use *.

Gary Trudeau won't even draw *, and he didn't draw his father or DannyBoy Quayle either. IMO, he doesn't deserve a name either.

I think the fundies and the BFEE are already getting in each other's way. They figured they would get their money's worth after installing him, but it's not working out like they envisioned it. And moderate Republicans are really disgusted with him.

Too bad they didn't figure all of this out before the last election. Hopefully they'll remember it in the next one.

[eridani]

139. When will both atheists and religionists get a frigging clue?

There is NO SUCH THING as an ethically priveleged epistomology!

[beam me up scottie]

173. When will DUers stop inventing straw man arguments?

And when oh when will they learn to use spell check before inferring others are intellectually inferior?

"ethically priveleged epistomology" ?

:rofl:

[neebob]

187. Ethically privileged epistomology

I think that's something that rich pregnant women get.

[beam me up scottie]

200. Oh, well then, there you go.

It's obviously way beyond my comprehension since I'm neither pregnant nor rich.

:rofl:

[Danger Mouse]

209. In response to BMUS..

I figured I'd do a blanket response, since responding to everything was taking forever =P
Yeah, I admit I came into this thread with no knowledge of the forum's history or where people were really coming from. I've lurked on DU for awhile, but never set up an actual account till now, so I wasn't sure how to take the OP, or some of the people's responses to it.
At first, I got mad, then some people asked good questions, and it made me think.
I guess we got wrong first impressions of each other, individually? =P
Anyway, thanks for clarifying, and for providing some of your own experiences. It helps me understand a lot better. I guess this has been a learning experience for me overall. Thanks for the welcome! I really like it here...a place to find many people to identify with, morally and politically...a great comfort in a time where it seems like the country has gone insane...

[beam me up scottie]

212. Nice, Elrond.

Very nice.

:applause:

You already understand more about this forum than a lot of veterans who avoid it like the plague.

DU is like a ginormous pressure valve, we need to vent and we need to do it around people who understand and who won't use our beliefs (or lack of them) against us.

[Danger Mouse]

213. Thanks...

And yeah, I'll contribute to the discussion, when I can follow it =P some of this stuff makes my head hurt to try and think about...

[beam me up scottie]

214. If you want to start with a positive thread,

my good friend RA's thread about beliefs keeps getting kicked:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x79553

[Danger Mouse]

223. Thanks!

I posted in it, if you want to check it out.

[Zhade]

227. Welcome to DU, EH.

You've already showed more tolerance than some long-term believers here (really, only a tiny handful of jerks).

Hope you enjoy DU - I can't stop coming here, and it's been years now!

[Danger Mouse]

229. Thanks...

I've been reading the top 10 for years...didn't start perusing the forums till much later!

[and-justice-for-all]

256. Proudly NON-THEISTIC!

Religion is social poison and should be removed from society like a brain tumor...The only destructive force in society, is not only mans sef-destructive nature, but also religion; society would benefit and progress furthor and fatser if religion was not allowed to thrive and pollute the minds.

[alternativethot]

271. ...wouldn't go that far

But I consider myself an atheist anymore. I am Unitarian which seems to accept that.

[varkam]

260. Oh hell, I might as well check in.

I don't really have anything to say, but if it's all the same I'd still like to say it.

[beam me up scottie]

268. And you said nothing very well.

:D

[salvorhardin]

272. Stop oppressing us with your smug intellectual superiority! n/t

[TallahasseeGrannie]

275. aha

I just had one of those claifying moments. I've met a number of atheists on DU and enjoy them and have developed some level of friendship and it is precisely because they don't attempt to come off as intellectually superior. Now, I'm not saying nobody on DU has that little quirk, because there are actually quite a few hit and runners who do imply that people of faith are just a tad dim.

I look at it this way. Atheists are usually thinkers, ponderers, who don't accept the party line and that is their skill. Logic, rationality, linear thought. All things I admire. Believers who are strong in their faith, however, I feel have other skills that I admire: flexibility, intuition, perception, among others. Both are needed for balance in the universe. I am a believer and I believe that "God," if he/she is perfect, must also celebrate that balance. Where the situation becomes unbalanced is when non-believers are certain that they have all the brains and the rest of us are idiots, and when blind believers are certain that they alone are upstanding and moral and everyone else is going to hell.

Balance is good.

[salvorhardin]

276. I totally agree

But I do have to point out that your dichotomy doesn't hold up very well. Atheists are just as intuitive as believers, and there's nothing about believers that doesn't mean they can't practice deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning, logic, those are learned skills that need constant practice to keep sharp. We're born with the intuitive, probabilistic reasoning built-in. That's what our brains do.

I think one difference I've noticed though about non-believers and believers is that non-believers have less inhibition about applying the deductive skills they've learned to their own beliefs. Of course, that doesn't bother people so much because it's all essentially in the non-believers heads. I think what believers might be perceiving as intellectual arrogance is when non-believers start applying those deductive reasoning skills to the believers' beliefs. Then it becomes personal for them.

[Evoman]

278. Exactly!

The dialogue I have inside myself is really no different than I have with others. I am constantly mentally readjusting myself, usually in small ways, but in big ways to. I can usually point to my irrationalities faster than others can. Its not necessarily an inborn trait: I don't think I have some genetic capacity for rational thought or deductive reasoning. Its something I learned, and that I have practiced on my own. Believers can be JUST as rational as I am...the only difference is that I APPLY those skills to religion. I don't believe things just because I want to believe them...I analyze WHY I believe, and whethere is logical or reasonable to do so.

I think almost everybody is born with the capability, but don't practice it. I also think perception, flexibility, and intuition are something we are all born with...they are basic traits that, as humans, let us survive this long. I am both very perceptive and intuitive: I was actually involved in a psychology study that involved emotional perception, and my ability to judge moods and thought on peoples faces were very high (I'm gonna see if I can dig up a journal article for you guys to read on that study...took place at U of C.) Intutition, common sense...got em too. In science, they teach us that we can't always trust our intuition or common sense, because they can be limiting in understanding concepts our early human brain wasn't made to accept. Thats why you have to actually provide evidence for a conjecture, not just accepts something because it makes sense, with no evidence.

I do think that a lot of times atheists come out like they believe they are intellectually superior. Thats a hazard of training oneself to question beliefs...people who haven't practiced questioning their beliefs don't like it when others do it. But at the same time, believers also come out as being arrogant...they see us as uncreative, limited, stodgy and inflexible. But we aren't.

Most of the atheists I know are REALLY flexible. I mean, changing your mind about something in light of new evidence isn't easy to do...believing something because it feels good, or its what you were taught as a child...that isn't really flexible either.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

280. Well, I surely don't mean to imply

that atheists have no intuition. Maybe that isn't even the word I'm looking for. Because, truly, as humans we couldn't get through life without intuition.

I do know that I have something...don't know what to call it.... that allows me to access things that are unseen.

Perhaps it is delusional? LOL. But I'm so normal!

Well, there are those little pills...


hahahahah

[TallahasseeGrannie]

279. Agreed

We all have the ability to use both sides of our brain, but most of us favor one side. And that's the perfection of the universe.

[salvorhardin]

281. Well you might be surprised to know...

Well you might be surprised to know that deductive reasoning appears to lateralize on the right side of the brain while probabilistic reasoning lateralizes to the left side. I was certainly surprised to find this out. Now, if you'll forgive me for dipping into the well of pop psychology, wouldn't that mean deductive reasoning is a creative skill? http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/11/10/954

Thanks to DUer Febble for that reference.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

282. Wow. Fascinating!

This is very something I think a LOT about. I teach kids who have IQ's over 135. It is interesting to see how the right/left brain thing plays out in them. Very few are what I would call "balanced." And while it is not politically correct to say so, there is a gender trend. But just a trend.

I personally am very right brained but have had to learn left brained strategies such as list-making in order to stay organized in a very structured worl.d