new thread
Have you guys ever heard of that guy John titor who claims hes from the future? If not check it out here: http://johntitor.strategicbrains.com/ Let me know what you think.
Yeah I've heard of him. He claimed he was from the future and in his wisdom decided to take the miraculous steps of posting on Internet Message Forums.
Personally I don't buy it.
I don't either. I don't buy ANY claims of anything supernatural, regardless of the source.
I don't believe anyone like that "Crossing Over" guy, the tarot card readers, fortune tellers, people who claim to speak with the dead, people who claim to speak to God, etc.
I'm amazed that people who are rational and clear thinking still find ways to believe this stuff.
Oh well!
I kinda approach supernatural abilities with a little more openness, though I don't buy the crossing over guy one bit, the situation would just be too easy to "stage" its made in a TV studio afterall.
As for John Titor. If I was a time traveler from the future, especial the future Titor Describes, I'd do more exciting things than post on an Internet Discussion Forum (no offence) but IF went back in time 10-15 years, here's what I'd do:
1) Go see the Stone Roses play live.
2) Throw eggs at Maggie Thatcher.
3) Cash in on the UK Property Market Boom & Crash.
4) Kick the hell out of that bully that battered me when I was 10.
Not to mention that the Internet Wouldn't even have been around in 1990 (not for public access anyway.) But still, I'd have far better things to do.
Sorted
I think id have to go to some bully battering also. :D
E-SKEPTIC FOR FEBRUARY 27, 2001
---------------------------------
DECONSTRUCTING THE DEAD: CROSSING OVER ONE LAST
TIME TO EXPOSE MEDIUM JOHN EDWARD
By Michael Shermer
History is not just one damn thing after another, it is also the
same damn thing over and over--time's arrow and time's cycle.
Fads come and go, in clothing, cars, and psychics. In the 1970s
it was Uri Geller, in the 1980s it was Shirley MacLaine, in the
1990s it was James Van Praagh, and to kick off the new
millennium it is John Edward. Edward's star is rising rapidly with
a hit daily television series "Crossing Over" on the Sci Fi network
and a New York Times bestselling book "One Last Time." He
has appeared, unopposed, on Larry King Live and has been
featured on Dateline, Entertainment Tonight, and an HBO
special. He is so hot that his television show is about to make
the jump to network television, as he is soon to go opposite
Oprah in CBS's afternoon lineup.
Last month Skeptic magazine was the first national publication
to run an expose of John Edward in James "The Amazing"
Randi's column (in Vol. 8, #3, now on newsstands and
bookstores or at www.skeptic.com), a story that was picked up
this week by Time magazine, who featured a full-page article on
what is rapidly becoming the Edward phenomenon. There is, in
reality, nothing new here. Same story, different names. In
watching Edward I'm amazed at how blatant he is in stealing
lines from medium James Van Praagh. It reminds me of
entertainers, commedians, and magicians who go to each
others' shows to glean new ideas.
Time's reporter Leon Jaroff, quoting from the Skeptic article,
wrote a skeptical piece in which he reported the experiences of
an audience member from an Edward taping. His name is
Michael O'Neill, a New York City marketing manager, who
reported his experiences as follows (quoting from the Skeptic
article):
"I was on the John Edward show. He even had a multiple guess
"hit" on me that was featured on the show. However, it was
edited so that my answer to another question was edited in after
one of his questions. In other words, his question and my
answer were deliberately mismatched. Only a fraction of what
went on in the studio was actually seen in the final 30 minute
show. He was wrong about a lot and was very aggressive when
somebody failed to acknowledge something he said. Also, his
"production assistants" were always around while we waited to
get into the studio. They told us to keep very quiet, and they
overheard a lot. I think that the whole place is bugged somehow.
Also, once in the studio we had to wait around for almost two
hours before the show began. Throughout that time everybody
was talking about what dead relative of theirs might pop up.
Remember that all this occurred under microphones and with
cameras already set up. My guess is that he was backstage
listening and looking at us all and noting certain readings. When
he finally appeared, he looked at the audience as if he were
trying to spot people he recognized. He also had ringers in the
audience. I can tell because about fifteen people arrived in a
chartered van, and once inside they did not sit together."
Last week an ABC television producer flew out from New York to
film me for an investigation of Edward they are conducting. The
segment began as a "puff piece" (as she called it), but a chance
encounter in the ABC cafeteria with 20/20 correspondent Bill
Ritter, with whom I worked on an expose of medium James Van
Praagh a few years ago, tipped her off that Edward was, in fact, a
Van Praagh clone and that his talking to the dead was nothing
more than the old magicians' cold reading trick. After waching
the 20/20 piece the producer immediately realized what was
really going on inside Edward's studio. She began to ask a few
probing questions and was promptly cut off by Edward and his
producers. ABC was told they would not be allowed to film inside
the studio and that they, the Sci Fi network, would provide edited
clips that ABC could use. The ABC producer became
suspicious, and then skeptical. She has been trying to get an
interview with Edward to confront him with my critiques, but they
continue to put her off. In fact, she just phoned to tell me that
Edward's publicist just left a message on her voice mail (with a
date and time) stating that Edward was not available for an
interview because he is out of state, yet the producer just caught
him on television live in studio on CBS New York! Something
fishy is going on here and I know what it is.
The video clips I was shown make it obvious why Edward does
not want raw footage going out to the public--he's not all that
good at doing cold readings. Where I estimated Van Praagh's hit
rate at between 20-30 percent, Edward's hit rate at between
10-20 percent (the error-range in the estimates is created by the
fuzziness of what constitutes a "hit"--more on this in a moment).
The advantage Edward has over Van Praagh is his verbal
alacrity. Van Praagh is Ferrari fast, but Edward is driving an
Indy-500 racer. In the opening minute of the first reading
captured on film by the ABC camera, I counted over one
statement per second (ABC was allowed to film in the control
room under the guise of filming the hardworking staff, and
instead filmed Edward on the monitor in the raw). Think about
that--in one minute Edward riffles through 60 names, dates,
colors, diseases, conditions, situations, relatives, and the like. It
goes so fast that you have to stop tape, rewind, and go back to
catch them all. When he does come up for air the studio
audience members to whom he is speaking look like deer in the
headlights. In the edited tape provided by Edward we caught a
number of editing mistakes, where he appears to be starting a
reading on someone but makes reference to something they
said "earlier." Oops!
Edward begins by selecting a section of the studio audience of
about 20 people, saying things like "I'm getting a George over
here. I don't know what this means. George could be someone
who passed over, he could be someone here, he could be
someone that you know," etc. Of course such generalizations
lead to a "hit" where someone indeed knows a George, or is
related to a George, or is a George. Now that he's targeted his
mark, the real reading begins in which Edward employs cold
reading, warm reading, and hot reading techniques.
1. Cold Reading. The first thing to know is that John Edward, like
all other psychic mediums, does not do the reading--his
subjects do. He asks them questions and they give him
answers. "I'm getting a P name. Who is this please?" "He's
showing me something red. What is this please?" And so on.
This is what is known in the mentalism trade as cold reading,
where you literally "read" someone "cold," knowing nothing about
them. You ask lots of questions and make numerous
statements, some general and some specific, and sees what
sticks. Most of the time Edward is wrong. If the subjects have
time they visibly nod their heads "no." But Edward is so fast that
they usually only have the time or impetus to acknowledge the
hits. And Edward only needs an occasional strike to convince his
clientele he is genuine.
2. Warm Reading. This is utilizing known principles of
psychology that apply to nearly everyone. For example, most
grieving people will wear a piece of jewelry that has a connection
to their loved one. Katie Couric on The Today Show, for example,
after her husband died, wore his ring on a necklace when she
returned to the show. Edward knows this about mourning people
and will say something like "do you have a ring or a piece of
jewelry on you, please?" His subject cannot believe her ears and
nods enthusiastically in the affirmative. He says "thank you," and
moves on as if he had just divined this from heaven. Most people
also keep a photograph of their loved one either on them or near
their bed, and Edward will take credit for this specific hit that
actually applies to most people.
Edward is facile at determining the cause of death by focusing
either on the chest or head areas, and then exploring whether it
was a slow or sudden end. He works his way down through
these possibilities as if he were following a computer flow chart
and then fills in the blanks. "I'm feeling a pain in the chest." If he
gets a positive nod, he continues. "Did he have cancer, please?
Because I'm seeing a slow death here." If he gets the nod, he
takes the hit. If the subject hesitates at all, he will quickly shift to
heart attack. If it is the head, he goes for stroke or head injury
from an automobile accident or fall. Statistically speaking there
are only half a dozen ways most of us die, so with just a little
probing, and the verbal and nonverbal cues of his subject, he
can appear to get far more hits than he is really getting.
3. Hot Reading. Sometimes psychic mediums cheat by
obtaining information on a subject ahead of time. I do not know if
Edward does research or uses shills in the audience to get
information on people, or even plants in the audience on which
to do readings, but in my investigation of James Van Praagh I
discovered from numerous television producers that he
consciously and deliberately pumps them for information about
his subjects ahead of time, then uses that information to deceive
the viewing public that he got it from heaven.
The ABC producer also asked me to do a reading on her. "You
know absolutely nothing about me so let's see how well this
works." After reviewing the Edward tapes I did a ten minute
reading on her. She sat there dropped jawed and wide eyed,
counting my hits. She proclaimed that I was unbelievably
accurate. How did I do it? Let's just say I utilized all three of the
above techniques. After the show airs on ABC New York this
week (Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday I'm told) I'll reveal the
details in another posting.
Most of the time, however, mediums do not need to cheat. The
reason has to do with the psychology of belief. This stuff works
because the people who go to mediums want it to work
(remember, they do the readings, not the mediums). The
simplest explanation for how mediums can get away with such
an outrageous claim as the ability to talk to the dead is that they
are dealing with a subject the likes of which it would be hard to
top for tragedy and finality--death. Sooner or later we all will face
this inevitability, starting, in the normal course of events, with the
loss of our parents, then siblings and friends, and eventually
ourselves. It is a grim outcome under the best of circumstances,
made all the worse when death comes early or accidentally to
those whose "time was not up." As those who traffic in the
business of loss, death, and grief know all too well, we are often
at our most vulnerable at such times. Giving deep thought to this
reality can cause the most controlled and rational among us to
succumb to our emotions.
The reason John Edward, James Van Praagh, and the other
so-called mediums are unethical and dangerous is that they are
not helping anyone in what they are doing. They are simply
preying on the emotions of grieving people. As all loss, death,
and grief counselors know, the best way to deal with death is to
face it head on. Death is a part of life, and pretending that the
dead are gathering in a television studio in New York to talk
twaddle with a former ballroom-dance instructor is an insult to
the intelligence and humanity of the living.
---------------------------------
Michael Shermer is the Publisher of Skeptic magazine, the
Director of the Skeptics Society, the host of the Skeptics Science
Lecture Series at Caltech, and a monthly columnist for Scientific
American. Go to www.skeptic.com to join the Skeptics Society
and subscribe to Skeptic magazine.
Copyright 2001 Michael Shermer, Skeptics Society, Skeptic
magazine, e-Skeptic magazine (www.skeptic.com and
skepticmag@aol.com). Permission to print, distribute, and post
with proper citation and acknowledgment. We encourage you to
broadcast e-Skeptic to new potential subscribers. For
newcomers to e-Skeptic you can subscribe for free: just send an
e-mail to join-skeptics@lyris.net
That was excellent reading!
I've never heared of John Edward, but still, now I understand how he and others like him in his profession gets their infos:)
He was the guy that was so "famous" about a year or two ago with the tv show "Crossing Over" which sorted mentioned (kind of suprised that we were able to import that crap over to England).
Too many questions and too many holes in John's story for me to plausably believe his tale.
I'd go visit myself and let me know not to do some dumb things. Anyhow, how many of you have been called to pick up your muskets, fix bayonets and CHARGE!!? Not me. At least not yet and its been what...a whole year since this supposedly started. Civil war....what good would that do (again) ? Does this guy say how to build lightsabers that work? Nah, use nukes. Very original. I think he should have quoted some of that 'the bible says so' baloney and maybe I would be more inclined to believe him. BTW, when was it that K'pax came out?
Um a civil war is just beginning he said not started. The republican/democrat thing could be just the start. you never know.
I think it is a rather realistic scenerio that is possible. Whether he is a liar or not is irrelevant. What he is speaking about could come true. Especially after 9/11 and corrupt politicans using that as an excuse to start wars.
Well He claimed to be from the future, he has not posted since 2001. Even if what he says is not true, the chance of a police state and nuclear war is. I recommend you start changing the future by going out and voting, if you are an american, if you are British oust Tony Blair. and ousting all the republicans Senators and representatives that support Mr. Bush and his Cronies. John kerry may not be perfect, but he is certianly a better canadiate than Mr. Bush
Michael Shermer talk @ the GRCC Calkins Science Center;
Tuesday, April 11, 2000, @ 7PM.
The author of "Why People Believe Weird Things" kicked off the lecture series at the Grand Rapids Community College Science Center, Tuesday evening, with a talk based on the ideas of that book where he examines the fallacies in every day human reason and the methodology of using critical thinking to see the more prosaic explanations behind beliefs that have no evidence to support them.
He has written another book that specifically addresses religious beliefs, how these supernatural concepts came to be, are perpetuated and the reasons people give for their religious convictions. This book; "How We Believe", points out how people often feel that others rely upon emotion for their spiritual beliefs while they themselves are using a rational basis for their own anagogical system. When asked what he thinks about the Afterlife, he is likely to quip that he is "all for it" but that wishing for something to be true, without evidence, does not make it so.
His soon-to-be released book "Denying History" deals with the denial of various historical events in general and the Holocaust in particular. Dr. Shermer has appeared on numerous talk shows and has written many items about this topic that he expands upon in this book.
The Skeptic Magazine publisher, Shermer, examined a number of aspects of "fuzzy thinking", pseudo-science and paranormal beliefs in his lecture, including his very own personal encounter with alien abduction! It happened in August of 1983, where he "lost" 90 minutes of time, saw bright lights and alien beings emerge from their craft with stiffly- extended pinkie fingers but otherwise humanoid in appearance. They took him into their craft and, the next thing he knew, upon regaining consciousness, was that he was back on the road that he was "abducted" from. What had actually occurred was that he was 83 hours into a cross-country bicycle race, severely dehydrated, physically exhausted, and had hallucinated that his support team in their vehicle were extraterrestrials. The extended digits were a confabulation from an old science fiction show that depicted such beings, and the "lost time" was when he fell into a deep sleep for an hour and a half, before going on with the immense bike ride. He uses this personal example to show that even the director of The Skeptics Society can fall prey to such very real experiences. The question is, he maintained, did this strong belief come from "in here", pointing to his head, or "out there."
Furthermore, on extraterrestrial visitation, he asked what the chances would be for a civilization so advanced that they are capable of traversing the mind-boggling distances of space, to spend incalculable sums toward something as unlikely as finding our small planet in an unremarkable system of planets ringing an un-noteworthy average star among billions of such in a typical galaxy only to land in "Farmer Bob's cornfield" to make "graffiti in fields" (crop circles) or steal eggs and sperm. Would such a stupendously technologically advanced race (10-100,000 years beyond us) really feel the need to do such rudimentary experiments? And imagine, he asked of us, these beings
returning from this staggeringly daunting journey across unimaginably vast stretches of space, with only photos of "crop circles" and human eggs and sperm to show for it! He also mentioned our human paucity of imagination that we generally assume these beings to have the same primate body design as us, even though such a similar evolutionary sequence re-occurring on a far- flung planet is illogical. Shermer told an amusing anecdote about a woman in a Green Room of a show they were both to appear on, talking about the veracity of alien visitation to another woman. Dr. Shermer went through an exhaustive list of
reasons why this is so unlikely, including the astronomical expenditure of funds. The woman, "without blinking" or missing a beat, responded that on the hypothetical planet that Shermer had just made up, they don't use money and have no government. He intoned the verse from John Lennon's song "Imagine" at this point.
The host of the Skeptics lecture series at Caltech brought with him a Quadro Dowsing Rod that had been examined on his Fox Family Channel program that he hosts and is the consulting producer for, "Exploring The Unknown." It consists of a piece of plastic with a hinge with a metal antenna attached and a processing chip. This so-called "chip" that was not even hooked up to the "device" in any way was supposedly programmed to seek out specific items, depending upon the icon on its exterior. It had sold for 900.00 but when tested performed no better than chance, even with various changes in the testing environment to appease the claimants, including installing some underground pipes with "running water" as opposed to static containers for the "dowsers"
to locate. Dr. Shermer mentioned the "Clever Hans Effect" in relation to the double blind method for set up they employ in testing the claims of the paranormal. He does not want to give some unconscious cue to the testee as to where something exists that they are psychically divining. Clever Hans was a horse that clomped its hoof the correct number of times in answer to arithmetic questions. The effect resulted from the horse seeing its handler physically react when the correct number of clomps was achieved and stopping upon
seeing that reaction.
The radio program "Science Talk" host also demonstrated a "spoon-bending", asking for audience participation in projecting our will to assist in the bending process. Once again, this well-debunked example of "telekinesis" was shown to be a magician's trick. Dr. Shermer noted that those who claim to do this using the paranormal abilities of their mind, never do it without touching the spoon. One of the explanations for lack of results that he often hears for a
tested paranormal claim, using scientific methodology, is that the "skeptic(s) sent out bad vibes" that spoiled the results. They want one to believe in the claim in order to see it, whereas the skeptical approach is to see and critically examine the claim before believing.
Dr. Shermer made use of a "plant" in the audience to show how effective this can be in "proving", to the credulous mind, a pseudoscientific claim. And he demonstrated the procedures used by spiritualists and psychics to do readings. If the questions are kept vague and if any reaction occurs from the subject to denote that they are on the right track; if the "psychic" has knowledge of statistical probabilities and a sense for what is most likely to be true for most people, then he/she can produce some "hits." The misses are forgotten and sometimes the subject helps by supplying information or trying to reconcile a miss with something, to make it fit. Because the spiritualist is giving comforting messages of deceased loved ones at peace and forgiving transgressions and seeing a bright future for them, it is eagerly latched onto by the subject. They want it to be true, so for them it is.
Shermer spoke of "remote viewing" where people claim to have an out-of-body experience using this disembodied essence to perceive remote objects and locations. Our government spent a lot of time and money, wastefully, in pursuing this- in the effort to locate secret sites- as a sort of psychic espionage, after learning that the Russians were "well ahead of us" in their own use of remote viewing. He also talked, along these lines, about seminars that teach people to perceive hidden images, where the class attendees are to make drawings about what they think is depicted. When he investigated one of these seminars, the leader proclaimed one of Shermer's drawings to be a "hit" that depicted a statue he had seen in Hyde Park of two people kissing. The source image was of the Druidic Stonehenge. What one sees in these classes is a lot of "mining of the data" of random drawings to try to make the closest thing fit somehow. If he simply asked what specifically a given drawing was supposed to represent, before the source image was revealed, a very vague and fuzzy explanation would result.
He talked of his own personal experience with "Firewalking," explaining the scientific understanding of the varying heat conductivity of different materials. He used the example of the cake in a pan in the oven. One can place one's hand in an oven and not get burned. One can, further, actually touch the baked cake also without getting a burn- but when one touches the pan, with its superior heat conducting and maintaining properties, this will likely result in a burn. The actual burning embers that he walked across were, even with a radiant heat of 1200 degrees, poor heat conductors. He traversed the pit several times with no harm occurring and saying the experience was less uncomfortable than walking across a hot pavement in the summer. No mind over matter technique was required.
Shermer brought up "lie detectors" as mostly ineffective devices that are used primarily to intimidate the suspect into offering a confession before the equipment is hooked up. Often this personal interrogation, prior to using the device, is laced with falsehoods about having eye-witnesses, etc.
He gave a run-down of other pseudoscientific and mystical claims ranging from palmistry to astrology, to Tarot card readings. In all cases, the common denominator is using psychology to influence the subject into believing in the power that is being tapped into. With horoscopes, messages are vague and mixed, so that at least part of it somewhat fits and that which does not is ignored by the subject. When skeptics randomly mix up the readings for various people, they still feel "their" reading has described them well.
Shermer asked, rhetorically, what the harm was in all this credulity. In this vein, he spoke of cults such as Applewhite's Heaven's Gate and untested remedies for illness and disease. With the latter, people will try out exotic methods performed by hucksters, instead of efficacious medicine and techniques, thereby endangering their lives. As to homeopathic "medicine, where the medicinal essence is diluted until there is only the "memory" of it in the water- Shermer said that back when medical understanding was of a poor quality, doing nothing (what homeopathic medicine provides), where the natural recuperative ability of the body came into play, was actually less harmful than getting bad treatment. But this is no longer the case.
And he spoke of the mass hysteria that has swept our country at different times about various large scale Satanic cult activity. When investigated, nothing besides random unconnected things could be found. He talked in this regard of our "confirmation bias" where we seize anything that fits our preconceptions and ignore disconfirming data. This, he explained, is how a couple of mutilated cats, for instance, can be blown up into a gigantic scare over Satanic cults by
those who already believe they exist. This also works with conspiracy theories. And he referred to the numerous chilling examples of how "recovered memory" (he would say "planted memory") therapy resulted in families being torn apart and innocent people being wrongly accused of horrific acts. He does not deny the existence of terrible abuses, but when critical thought and skeptical investigation is suspended, this paves the way for false "memories" to be inserted and for any accusation, no matter how wild and unsubstantiated it is, to be believed at face value.
Without critical thinking skills, all claims have equal validity and value. One cannot, then, distinguish between good and poor ideas and claims; one is easy prey to any huckster and charlatan. And as the general population becomes further removed from understanding the scientific method and applying critical analysis to life, the result is an uninformed populace dangerously making decisions of great significance and leaving decreasing numbers of people to wield the power of science for good or harm.
Dr. Shermer ended with a question & response period. The questions ranged from his opinion of the O.J. Simpson case, to those who would restrict research into biotechnology. As to cryonics research; he sees this as a sort of "secular religion" as it uses faith in science, rather than supernatural entities, but still looks to an afterlife, and substituting an ethereal "heaven" with a bright future paradise on Earth. When asked if our filters, our conformation bias tendencies also spoil the results of scientific research, he replied that science is a self-correcting method, falsifiable and reviewed "blindly." Claims involving the natural physical materialistic realm are all subject to testing. This is why, he explained, science cannot address the validity of spiritual claims regarding the supernatural. He said that to proclaim "science as godless" is the same as saying that plumbing is godless, supernatural entities are irrelevant to the problems addressed by these fields. Science, he said, was the best tool we have for teasing apart the natural processes of the world. When asked, of all the things that have been investigated, what has left him most perplexed, he responded monosyllabically: "Cher."
Great post!
The Bible contains a simple test for whether or not a prophet is to be believed:
Do any of his predictions come true?
If they do, he's a prophet and if they don't he isn't.
This is also a nice counterpoint to those who think the Bible is not a logical book, or that it's anti-intellectual. The idea of an "anti-intellectual book" seems silly anyway.
Most false prophets attempt to weazel out of this test in a variety of ways:
1. Place your prediction so far in the future that you won't be subject to the test.
2. Make your prophecies really vague and subject to interpretation.
3. Don't really prophesy, just interpret current events as being the fulfillment of part of a prophesy that's not fulfilled until the distant future. This is similar to 1, and answers the question "what do you talk about while waiting". It's the favorite technique of the TV preacher Jack Van Impe. He ducks out from under the risk of being a false prophet (a very heinous offense) but the trade-off is he doesn't prophesy anything.
Numerous prophets have come along on the 'net with timeframes of a few years, and they invariably fail the test. If you encounter one, ask him for something with a reasonable time-frame and explain that you simply want to apply this simple, Biblical test. Real prophets from the OT accepted such tests.
And the prophet with beard and long hair is the Judeo-Christian aspect of the "wizard/professor" phenom, so that brings us back on topic (think John the Baptist).
Considering the Bible is riddled with errors and supposed prophecies that never came true, it's the last thing one should use as a measuring tool.
Let's keep religion off of this board, please. It only creates arguments and fights.
OK then, no more atheistic posts, because assertion that there isn't a God is just as much a statement of faith that there is one.
In order to keep religion off the board, you would have to keep all humans off the board. The spiritual (or the desire to supress it) is as much a part of being human as anything else, and the attitudes of various religions have an impact on longhairs so it isn't always off-topic either.
As for creating arguments and fights, people do that over just about everything. I would only agree that if you can't debate in a civil fashion, then you shouldn't participate.
Peace.
An atheistic post would be any post that doesn't acknowledge religion as a "theme" in the post. That would include just about every post. Not every post asserts that there aren't gods or talks about religion.
It is a common fallacy to suggest that Atheists have faith in atheism and that it is a belief, such as a belief in a god(s). Atheism is simply a lack of belief in any gods due to a complete lack of any evidence/proof/etc. of the thousands and thousands of supernatual beings that humans have dreamt up over the course of human history and cannot therefore be a belief in something. It does not promote the faith/belief in something that cannot be established. If you say that one cannot disprove a god either, then you need to understand that it is of course impossible to disprove the existance of something that doesn't exist. It would first be up to the person making the claim to prove the existance of said being first. It has nothing to do with an Atheist having faith that there is no gods.
If you go to your dictionary which provides definitions for the words we use in our language you will see that faith is the belief in something without logic, reason or proof. "Faith" does not apply well to an accurate definition of an Atheist.
Not so, and I don't think that Rokker (and others) meant that every reference to religion should be kept off the board, just those that are personal testimonies of faith from the religious warriors. Why? Well because everything that is posted here has a right to be responded to and when that happens on off-topic subjects such as a person's need to witness or some other historical/technical religious subject, it tends to spiral out of control because people just don't like challenges to their beliefs (whatever they may be).
You are correct that religion has, does and always will have an impact on people's decisions about hair length (I don't think that it should but it can) and this too is why he wasn't referring to keeping all mention of religion off the board. I suppose that he could have worded that to be clearer but it seems that by the points that you brought up you already understand those different types of "mention".
And this is what many an Atheist also think but when it comes to discussing religion with the religious, the religious are more often than not unable to keep to the rules of what a debate consists of because of the nature of what faith is (see definition). This is not a true debate forum. It's generally a single topic discussion forum and should stay that way.
So for the sake of keeping discussions civil certain topics problably shouldn't be brought up here in full force.
I'm just posting this to try and clear up some inconsistencies/misconceptions that many people have. When it comes to Atheists there is a lot of mis-information that is being spread around and it's usually by people who don't have a source for the correct information.
One example is the issue of prayer in the schools. Some Christian groups (not all) accuse Atheists of getting prayer banned from public schools. This is of course not accurate. Along with people who don't believe in gods were people who believe in different gods who didn't want some teacher or school trying to spread their own different beliefs to their kids who are under their care to be educated. Not to much to ask for. The ruling did not mean that little boys and girls couldn't pray over their lunch, they are still free to do so if they like. They just can't use the school to promote their own personal beliefs to other kids who are stuck in that realm of influence day after day and the teachers and administration certainly cannot either due to the potential influence they can have. Some Christian groups have already seen this and don't feel that it is an issue.
That is not so hard to understand if it is presented correctly but when it's not then it can be used by some to spread bad information to manipulate others to support their cause.
Now, this post is not meant to ruffle the feathers of Christians or other religious persons, it is merely an explanation of sorts. It does NOT deserve a response.
But this is the issue brought up by Rokker, no doubt someone(s) (maybe even you) will post a response criticising what I have said and then the explanation will spiral into a disagreement and on and on as more people feel the need to weigh in on it. All when there is no need for it and when it has nothing to do with long hair on men. Just take it as a clarification/explanation and leave it at that and move on to the next post.
What's going to happen?
That is your perspective. For those of faith:
A religious post would be any post that doesn't acknowledge atheism as a "theme" in the post. That would include just about every post. Not every post asserts that there are gods or talks about atheism.
JE
P.S. I enjoy reading your posts, even though I do not always agree with you. :-)
Steve NoVA also broke it into two groups. But he implied somewhat different labels than the ones you describe in your "person of faith" definition, although the grouping appears the same. He broke them down into "atheist" and "non-atheist", "atheist" as inappropriate for this board, and "non-atheist" containing both non-religious and religious posts, both being appropriate.
We don't have to break it down into two categories, one of which attempts to shoehorn hair-only posts into a specific religious orientation category.
Thank you, and I fully agree that atheist, agnostic, religious, and even apathetic posts all belong here, as long as the posters are respectful of everyone else. It would be helpful for people to remain open to others' ideas instead of trying to prove points. It is doubtful that anyone is going to convince anyone else to change their belief or value systems, seriously, LOL.
JE
The point to Rokker's post was that this is not the place to bring in off-topic posts that deal with trying to convince other's to change their belief or value systems (you got the right idea).
There is a religious contingent here that has shown a willingness in trying and get you to change you belief and value systems to their's or to go on about their personal religious beliefs when it has nothing to do with the subject of the board.
Katherine didn't clear up anything and your thoughts about respectful posting are not new (we go through this on a regular repeating basis). What the board reqires is a general adherance to the topic of the board (though that has gotten a bit abused in the last 6-8 months). This board has always maintained a high degree of civility, often due to everyone trying to limit the discussion of certain topics that do nothing but clutter the board and get religious people riled up because you don't think that their beliefs are as super as they do. (religion isn't the only topic like this either)
Guys on this board tend to be pretty open to different ideas (sometimes that is part of being a man with long hair) but some of those who are religious are not always open to some of the ideas here. Just as some of different political persuasions are not open some things, etc. (maybe you missed some of the unprovoked ripps on Atheists from some of the Christians on the board last month, one of the threads got so out of hand that it was deleted in short order).
What the creator of the board doesn't want is the board to be open to people going on about ideas that don't contribute to the topic of the Longhair Men's Hyperboard.
This isn't a challenge so please don't take it as one.
No, a religious post would be any post that talks about religion.
(be careful about trying to be too clever, it has to make sense)
------------
atheist
\A"the*ist\, n. [Gr. ? without god; 'a priv. + ? god: cf. F. ath['e]iste.]
1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
2. A godless person. [Obs.]
Syn: Infidel; unbeliever.
------------
Any post that doesn't acknowledge a religion is a non-religious post (atheistic if you will). Most posts on this board are not religious in nature and over the years that I have been here, have not been. There is no questions in the minds of most members here what a religious post is.
Your stumbling point is (as stated before) the incorrect assumption by religious people that atheism is a religious belief. It is in fact not. Nor is atheism (or to be an Atheist) about trying to bring down religion as you seem to imply athiestic posts are only about. This is where the misconceptions come from. This is also the hardest thing for a religious person to come to understand due to the fact that they have themselves adhered to a belief system that accepts and promotes the idea of a god(s) regardless of it's basis in reality.
There is a saying that goes like this:
"I only believe in one less god than you do. The day you understand why you reject the other gods, you'll know why I reject yours."
Yes, my post makes perfect sense. People of faith see everything as faith-related, whether consciously, sub-consciously, or unconsciously. To say that some of their posts are "non-religious" is to claim that religious people are sometimes religious and other times not. It's like saying that they go to service to "get their religion," but as soon as they leave their services, they revert to some non-religious state. For people of faith, this is not true. One's faith permeates everything, so yes, all posts are religious in this sense, save for those that are specifically atheistic.
A post doesn't have to be specifically about religion to be religious. Every subject matter on earth or in the universe becomes embued with religion as a part of its essential state, as the god(s) permeate everything. So just as you hold that everything is devoid of religion in its essential state, people of faith hold the opposite position, regardless of their religion.
Your stated definition of atheism has its very root in the denial of all gods. Following that definition, without the belief in god(s) by someone somewhere, atheism doesn't exist. The atheist's position revolves around a concept of god(s), namely that the god(s) don't exist. Since atheism can't exist without god(s) to deny, it appears that the god(s) are central to atheism, in a manner ironically more crucial to it than to many religious folk.
I have not stated a religious belief anywhere in this thread, or on this board. You jump to conclusions by grouping me with the others with whom you argue. I have no interest in belittling anyone's system of belief, or even if they don't have one. I never once stated that atheism is about bringing down religion. However, you rather revealed that it is, in your final phrase: "...regardless of it's basis in reality."
Implicit in this remark is that religious people are not based in reality, as you believe you (and all other atheists) are so grounded. This is an arrogant, judgmental statement only too similar to statements made by legalistic religious people who harshly belittle those who don't believe as they do, including atheists.
Your final quote makes another erroneous assumption that all religious people, once they choose a faith that suits them, reject all other faiths. However, whether or not you believe it, some religious folk have no difficulty strongly adhering to their faith while remaining open to what is unknown to them, namely that there could be more gods than they currently believe in, and truths beyond what they know. Living a life breathing constant and profound rejection is simply not a manner in which I prefer to exist, so your quote does not and never will apply to me.
JE
No, your statement, as clever as you thought it would be to try and take my words and flip them, did not make sense to anyone but yourself and I will tell you why.
Since you don't represent ALL other religious people you cannot tell me what all of their intentions are for doing what they do, only yours. How could you seeing that there are over 2000 different religious groups with hundreds of millions of members spread across them in this country alone? Is there a consensus among the 28,000 different denomination of Christianity alone since it’s beginnings? How about the thousands of different religions and gods the world over or the tens of thousands of religions and gods through out our human history?
I do not see most of your posts on this board as being religious so if you are trying to be such then you are not applying yourself well according to whatever religion you claim to adhere to and your purpose for posting in a religious manner (maybe not the best argument to take as it then just becomes wild claims in order to try and trump the other person’s point).
I also know that people of faith more often than not do see and do everything as faith-related (that’s folklore among Catholics). It’s a nice religious fantasy in a fundamentalist sense to think of the possibility of completely foregoing your own sense of self for a religious one but what a bizarrely unnecessary to strive and do. Among the list of things that come to mind are evacuating one’s bowels, pumping gas, paying money for a candy bar, changing a tire, turning your computer off, throwing away food, taking a hot shower, masturbating, studying biology, listening to Neil Diamond, changing the clock’s battery, buying yourself new jewelry, sleeping, and on and on. Do you really imagine that these things are all done because of their religion even if they don’t realize it? Is the post about playing computer war games or the post about spam and computer network systems that some of the young Christians have posted fall under doing it in a religious sense just because they think of themselves as religious? Maybe you do think this but that thought is not based in fact and doesn’t make a whole lot of sense despite the fact that you really want it to.
If you want to experience persons of faith doing everything in a religious sense because their religion permeates all of what they do then go read some of the email that they like to send to Atheists, or gay people or people of different religions or people of different political parties. Such godly love is just amazing…and something that they can keep. By what you have written it would seem that you live in a Pollyanna religious world where everything is done in a perfect religious manner (whatever that is).
Again I see that you either missed the large part of my posts that explain a bit about what atheism is and is not or have just chosen to “disbelieve” it because your ideas of what it must be in relation to your own religious faith seem to work better to back your argument.
Prove it and you will be the first in the world to do so and a rich woman (there are very large cash rewards in the excess of $1,000,000 ready to be given to ANYONE who can provide a shred of real proof that there are gods who permeate everything). If this were the case then it would be easy for everyone to see this “new age/Star Wars” kind of idea about the entire universe.
I do not hold that everything is devoid of religion, where did you get that idea? I understand that religion is an invention of man and cannot be without humans to practice it. What I see is a complete lack of evidence for the claims of supernatural beings that humans keep inventing other than in their own imaginations. By your usage of words it seems that you may not be clear what religion actually is. The religious cannot hold that religion is a part of everything in it’s essential state because” religion” is the practice or expression by humans in regard to their belief system. It comes to mind that a lot of folks these days are saying (including on this board) that they are spiritual but don’t believe in religion, or that they consider them selves to be of a particular religious belief but have no interests in the religion part of it.
Does a post from one person to another saying that they hate the other person fall under a religious post? How about one where someone didn’t fill in the subject line or message box? I think that you are trying to hard to make a case for all posts being religious…except for those that lack a belief in whatever god isn’t being talked about…?
Atheism, which is the lack of a belief in gods, is the default position about reality. An Atheist cannot deny a god if that god does not exist or the idea of which has not been presented to them yet (to be technical). This means that you have to come to me with your idea of a supernatural being and claiming that it is real (we don’t deny Harry Potter because no one is claiming that the character is real) for me to be able to deny it. Denying it is always the result up to this point in time due to a total lack of any real and verifiable evidence on the claimant’s part. How is this bad or unreasonable? Really, how, in a world of thousands of gods, could doing this not make sense to you (unless you were a certain type of Hindu or ancient Roman who prayed to them all to be “on the safe side”)? Have you accepted all the other god claims in the world as being true? Yes? How? No? Why not? If you actually are familiar with all the beliefs and say that you hold them all as true then what is the point and what do you base this view on? This is what the last entry in my previous post was all about.
No, not a specific one but you have tried to respond to a post that didn’t deserve a reply with a defense of religious belief in general and from a couple of identifiable types of religious positions.
With whom do I argue? Is it belittling to bring into question baseless claims?…especially when I didn’t bring it up? You argue from a position of one who is clearly religious but these days with so many different religions and quasi-religious beliefs I wouldn’t know which for sure unless you fessed up. So what? I don’t really care to know what you believe, that is the point. You can keep your idea of whatever gods to yourself and we won’t have to have these sort of needless conversations. I’ll keep not talking about my religion (because I don’t have one) and the board will hopefully stay more or less on topic.
There is an invisible pink unicorn (http://www.palmyra.demon.co.uk/humour/ipu.htm). "The Invisible Pink Unicorn is a being of great spiritual power. We know this because she is capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that she is pink; we logically know that she is invisible because we can't see her."
Reality is an accepted marker for the truth. If you don’t realize this or cannot bring yourself to accept this then there is nothing I can say to make you think otherwise. Most Atheists are more than content to share the world with all these religions (personally I say there is plenty of room for everybody and their beliefs) but when religions feel the need to get in your face with their imaginative stories then is more than appropriate to say “ no thanks, go away”. Unless you like being told that you are living an evil lifestyle and should change to suit them or that you are missing out on everything because you don’t believe in something that someone made up and not only can’t prove it but actually refuses to prove. (I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I’ll sell to you for $1) If I am not gullible then it’s logical to assume that I am an arrogant, judgmental person who belittles people for not being as grounded as myself? Please, if that is your argument (a familiar one from religious folks who bring on these sort of discussions) then don’t bother because it’s just annoying.
Better yet, how about you tell me what reality actually is?
I don’t think that I assume that ALL religious people do this (an assumption on your part that I assume such things). Experience tells me that they don’t. A great many do though. Some people try several different belief systems on for size until they find something that they can live with (not sure how that makes someone’s idea of god anything close to valid). And as I noted before, there are religions that allow for more gods or for the believers to accept the ideas of more gods regardless of that practice not really helping to validate the reality of those gods. Actually, what it really comes down to is that it’s just personal preference how or in which god idea someone chooses to accept as right for them. And there are a great many who don’t choose this and are brought up by parents and communities where they are expected to continue with the belief system already in place (also not a great way to validate your god).
Personally, I don’t feel the need to tell people how to live their lives but I do support the idea that to make a decision like this, which people claim to be their most important, it would be a good idea for them to have as much information as possible to be able to make it well and I see an awful lot of folks out there not getting info, regurgitating bad info, etc. I don’t really do anything to try and “remedy” that but if I am called into question or I see someone saying odd things to people who may not know any better then I will say something.
By the way, are you implying that I am living a life of constant and profound rejection? Maybe you could reword that so it’s easier to understand your meaning (breathing in or exhaling) because I don’t go out of my way to find rejection either. If you are saying that you accept everyone’s god and religion as valid (the only way the quote wouldn’t apply to you) then please clear up too (even though I don’t really care to know your beliefs) because in regards to the subject matter of this post it would seem to be a strange position to be taking and would again demonstrate how you do not speak for a majority of the religious worldwide.
(I know, you think that I missed your point and will probably reiterate this about this post as well but I didn’t miss anything that you wrote, it just doesn’t all make sense)
Sheesh, get busy for a couple of days, come back, and find the same ol' stuff. While the subject and discussion both merit intensive replies, I find that the attitudes here do not. The bottom line of this discussion is that it's a matter of faith and individual relationship with the divine (so there should be millions, if not billions, of different religious interpretations in the world, not merely thousands), but these are concepts that you and some of these others are demonstrably very closed to, rendering respectful conversation moot. I can attempt until the day I die to explain or "prove" things, but without the openness of mind that is required, it becomes an endless circle of repetition. The judgmental, superior, patronistic attitude ("Pollyanna," "invention," "imaginative stories") I'm facing here does not reflect well on atheism at all, but does more to reinforce why I (and others) prefer true godlike love (not the hateful opposite that you choose to erroneously define it as) than atheism, which seems defensive and full of anger such as that which you're directing my way because some others in your past behaved the same way toward you and your belief system. Thanks for lumping us all together. Sorry to see it, but you remind me very, very much of the legalistic, fundamentalist preachers that so turned me off from religion when I was a child.
I will not be replying any further in this thread.
Sincerely,
JE
You are the one who has shown an attitude by trying to fuel a discussion that didn't need fueling, open a can of worms and don't be suprised to find...worms.
Of course it an individual matter, that's the point. There are millions and even billion of interpretations of belief in the past and present and to be future world. Everybody adjusts what is out there to suit them and even make it up as they go. If you ever study the history of religions you will see this very thing happening. They ALL plagerize each other and change over every generation, culture...and even person. You think that we are closed to everything but you might be amazed to learn that a great many Atheists are very open to the idea of a god(s) if someone can show some actual evidence beyond an imaginative story because if it were really true then it would be the indesputible truth. The "truth" is what the religious claim to be seeking all the time, correct? Atheist hold the truth of things as paramount, how about you?
Athiests are always criticised for not being open-minded because they don't believe in what you (anyone) believes. I brought this up before about why should I believe in what you and millions of other people hold as different gods, beliefs, interpretations, etc.? We have standards in place already and pretty much every religious person follows those standards in their daily life but usually leave those standards at the door when it comes to their beliefs in a supernatural being. Why? Why can I claim to be able to sell you the Brooklyn bridge for a dollar and you not believe me, but if I ask you to believe in my imaginative idea of a god that I just dreamed up then that can be considered valid even though I cannot and will not produce anything to back it up other than telling you that you need an "open-mind"? An open mind is open to the facts.
What you face here is the face of atheism, it isn't tailored to suit you and your religious beliefs, you already had a low opinion of it due to your belief system and don't want to hear what it actually is, so what will change?
You deliberatly misrepresent myself and other Atheists after everything that I told you. Your charges of being full of anger are so sickenly repetitive by the religious in a pathetic attempt to try and "beat" the Atheist with out ever addressing the points of the argument that you felt compelled to start. The pollyana religious always try and say that it was other religious nuts who made us this way and that those nuts have nothing to do with US. That is such a typical new age attitude. So many of the young religious believers, especially in the Christian church, try to make it all about the love and good feeling stuff despite it's history and even written commandments (are you trying to change it again?).
I wish you would reply further and instead of trying to badmouth Atheists more actually reply to the points of the discussion and the questions I asked instead of running from them as every religious person I have EVER talked with has done. Deep inside you know you what I'm talking about but you have become so comfortable with your belief creation that you don't care to alter it...which is perfectly fine...did I say fine? How can an Atheist say that? But I did, it's fine, you should believe whatever gets you through life...just don't try dragging us through the mud.
I am not a bad person just because I don't believe what you do.
Wow HairReligion, I always thought I was an Atheist, but now I've read the defintition I realise I'm not.
I do not "deny the existence a supreme intelligent being", for it is I!
...Or at least it was I until I realised I wasn't smart enough to check the full definition of Atheist... so I guess once again I am an Atheist...
Man you're turning my faith around in circles! Lol!
Sorted
Well, to deny something can be read a couple of ways and this is what a lot of people get hung up on.
The first way is to go around "denying" things that come off the top of your head without already being presented it by someone else. That doesn't really make much sense especially if you don't know yet that there are certain concepts to deny.
The other way is to "deny" or disbelieve a concept(s) that someone has presented. Though the concepts of gods and religions were not always present (you may have to go way back to cavemen or pre-cavemen human-like species) at some point in the distant past people's ideas of supernatural beings began to spread. These of course were not supported by any facts as are such beliefs today but rather by superstition (most of the old religions are dead or were greatly plagerized and are viewed by religious folks as invalid. Ex. Greek gods). Anyway, the result is that every person (save some special exemptions) in today's world is already aware of the human concepts of gods because these have been asserted their entire life and even before. This puts a person who DOESN'T believe these god ideas in the automatic position of HAVING to "deny" them because they have already been presented. Hence the usual charges by the religious that Atheists are negative, deny-crazy people who don't get it because they won't give it a chance. When you are so surrounded by a world full of different belief systems and you stand on the outside of them, you tend to learn a lot about all of them. As many Atheists who were former members of one religion or another can tell you, when on the inside of a belief system you aren't always allowed a clear view out to the rest of the world.
The thing that both amuses and baffles me is how everyone knows that Jack and the Beanstalk is just a fairy tale. Everyone knows that no old woman lived in a shoe. Everyone knows that there is no magic flying carpet that can transport you around and no genie in a bottle that will give you three wishes.
Yet so many people believe some guy parted an ocean. People believe some guy built a boat so big that it contained two of every animal in the world. People believe some guy walked around who could heal people just by touching them. People believe someone died and came back to life.
Science has basically proven everything in the bible to be simply wrong. Bats are not fowls as the bible states, but rather mammals. The earth is not flat and does not sit on four pillars with a mountain so high you can see all four corners. There never was a great flood that covered all of the earth (proven by tree rings). There is no scientific evidence of an ark, a guy named Jesus (unless you meet a person of Hispanic descent, and even then it's pronounced differently).
How can a person know a little girl in red didn't come across a wolf in the forest, yet be convinced a guy parted an entire sea? If it's because the "good book" says so, then why are we on a ball and not a flat surface, and why are bats mammals?
have the final say about what gets in the dictionary and the wording of the definition.
Man You Guys take me FAR too Seriously....Lol!
This is interesting because to me it appears both Hair Religion and Lady G are unintentionally overstating their cases.
Hair Religion wrote-
Wouldn't this actually be a "non-theistic" post rather than atheistic? To be an atheistic post it would seem to need a rejection of all divinities. A post without denial or promotion of religion is neutrally silent on belief issues. To call a post atheistic on that basis is akin to arguing a person is stating hair does not exist if it makes no appearance in their post.
There seems to be an attempt at clarification later on in the thread with HR's: "Any post that doesn't acknowledge a religion is a non-religious post (atheistic if you will)." This connection of "non-religious" being the same as "atheistic" does not hold because the terms non-religious and atheistic refer to two different things.
A non-religious post means a post not about religion.
An atheistic post specifically takes a stance on religions, denial of the truth of them. That still is a post about religion even if it is the lack of it. This would be a non-religious person posting rather than a non-religious post.
On to the other disagreement. Lady G wrote-
Yep, it is picky and minor here but a religious person can still acknowledge atheism as a theme in the post as long as they do not take an atheistic stance. Discussion of atheism under these conditions still counts as a religion affirming post.
I must agree with this she wrote though-
"Yes, my post makes perfect sense. People of faith see everything as faith-related, whether consciously, sub-consciously, or unconsciously. To say that some of their posts are "non-religious" is to claim that religious people are sometimes religious and other times not. It's like saying that they go to service to "get their religion," but as soon as they leave their services, they revert to some non-religious state. For people of faith, this is not true. One's faith permeates everything, so yes, all posts are religious in this sense, save for those that are specifically atheistic."
In the same way the atheist's stance can be said to be part of everything else they do, as is being long haired or any other characteristic. They are part of the composer even though it may not come out in the composition.
Elizabeth, who fervently believes that with Sorted all things are possible and wants everyone to know, "Sorted loves you!"
P.S. Oh great and mighty, all-round attractive, knowledgable, dread Lord Sorted, might I petition you to consider anything you can do to increase my terminal length?
I was wondering how long it would take you to weigh in on this, Elizabeth.
Actually, atheistic IS non-religious...intentional or not. It is the opposite of religious is it not? This is what I attempted to clarify with another post about the definition. To "deny" does not always have to be an active denial, it can be a passive denial.
Maybe you have heard a fundamentalist Christian say: "If you aren't doing it for Christ then you are doing it for Satan". Does this actually mean that you as a non-Satan worshiper are doing something for Satan even though you have no intention or idea that you are just because a Christian wants to think that you are?
Actually, many religious people don't do most things in the name of their religion. I'm suprised that you haven't heard of all those folks who claim to believe that there is a god and go to church every week but screw around, smoke, drink, do drugs, swear, cheat in business matters, etc. This is so prevelant, due to people generally having little real knowlege about their belief system, that it has become a popular theme in movies and books. This is why I mentioned the Catholics in an earlier post (did you miss that?). Not to be aware of this would mean that you are possibly living a strangely sheltered life and I know that you aren't, Elizabeth.
I find it intresting how people who are not Atheists and don't demonstrate a very good knowledge of what one is seem to think that they know exactly what one is from what they have heard from other religious people. Maybe a Atheist can tell you better what one is?
I tell you what, I've learned more about being an Atheist than I ever thought I ever would. Lol. Not that I am Atheist, I don't really know what religion I believe in, I suppose Christianity, but I don't have any strong beliefs either.
I guess I don't know what I believe in, but I do believe that there is SOMETHING, and I respect that something.
Thanks for a very well written post.
You're right, most people have no clue what atheism is. I'm an atheist,and I do all I can to try to educate people (when they ask or try to preach to me) exactly what we believe. We aren't out to end religion, we simply don't want it forced on us.
The way I see it, we all need to respect each others' beliefs and leave it at that. Religion is a hot topic issue, and one that should be avoided in a forum like this. Inevitably, the topic will create heated arguments. It's best to leave religion where it belongs - at home and in the church.
Having someone quote the bible (intentionally put in lower case) or preach to me is to me like if I were to espouse or advocate being an atheist to you. I don't want to hear it any more than you want to hear the virtues of being a good atheist.
Anyway, good post!
Just curious... why intentionally in lower case? Aren't all book titles supposed to be capitalized? It *is* just another book, like any other, right?
JE
I'm going to get extremely busy, not have time for the board, and come back to discover that a thread formed and played itself out in fairly predictable ways. :)
No hard feelings I hope.
Peace.
--Steve
Of course not, cheers!
