New Riding Buddy (heheh)

Mark Hickey wrote:
MattB wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

I'm all for that. But the atheist religion requires 100% adherence to
its beliefs in the public realm, even though the practitioners are a
minority of the population (imagine if society had somehow chosen
another religion like Ismam or Judaism, and tried to force 100%
compliance).

Only in the very loosest definition of religion does atheism count as a
religion. (#4 in the webster dictionary as a 'system of beliefs' - right
after scrupulous conformity, and not present in most others). It is
generally associated in all cases with a belief in the supernatural. So
the most accurate description of atheism is the LACK of religion.

I don't see this at all. You see, I'm not an Atheist (surprise!) but I
feel like I've never been forced to accept anything from them.

Turned on the TV lately? The values represented by most of the drivel
are certainly not those of any religion other than atheism. Think
about how often you see a Christian portrayed in a positive light on
your favorite shows. If half the shows were like "Seventh Heaven"
(sic?) you'd have a point.

Well, it's only fair that if television is full of those of faith - as a
large fraction of programming is - that they are fair game for poking
fun. The same can be said of any number of lifestyles, characteristics,
ages, races . . .


Let some nutcase shoot an abortion doctor and it's front page news for
weeks (and fodder for countless newsgroup discussions), while the REAL
work that's being done by the Christian community (feeding the poor,
rehabilitating criminals, supporting those going through tough times,
etc., etc., etc.) is virtually absent from public view in the news.

Most people do recognize that religion does great things for humanity.
While I am not religious and frown upon many of the divisive stances
taken by those of faith, I recognize that it does amazing things for
peoples all over the world. I have friends that religion has done great
things for, and see that a great deal of selfless action comes from
church-affiliated programs. On the other hand, many of these programs
are subversively used to recruit more for their faith - for example the
lepers required to attend mass to eat depicted in The Motorcycle Diaries
- which is in mind akin to pharma's 'humanitarian' actions. In addition,
the good that faith-based programs in no way 'cancels out' a murder by a
zealot such as that you mentioned.


They don't come and knock on my door and try to convert me.

Check your inbox. No religion other than atheism could possibly come
up with the crap I get daily.

Are you kidding? Give me an example.


They don't
try and spend tax money on monuments to their belief system. They don't
even appear to be an organized group (there are no churches or other
specific meeting places for them).

There are plenty of denominations in the "church of atheism". The
only thing they really have in common is an anti-Judeo/Christian
philosphy.

Again, please give an example.


How am I being forced to comply
again? I'm just minding my business (from a religious perspective) and
trying to point out when someone else's beliefs are trying to steamroll
mine or anyone else's.

Look at the schools - the ACLU and others are trying to expunge
virtually any hint of anything related to religion from the classroom
and the textbooks. You can't even include rational scientific
discussion about evolution or the creation of the universe in the
textbooks because acknowledging some of the unknowns might open
someone's mind to the possibility that it was actually just more than
a coincidence.

The only neutral religion is no religion. It is of course a part of our
history, and ought be taught in that context. But no other! There is no
way to do a survey of religion or satisfactorily accomplish anything
meaningful that would be acceptable to all denominations.

Evolution cannot be taught beside faith-based belief because creationism
is NOT SCIENCE. You cannot have 'rational scientific discussion' about
it, because there is no 'rational scientific' aspect to creationism. If
you want to include it in philosophy or creative writing, so be it.
Otherwise, you cannot teach it in the same classroom as evolution.


Yeah, that rambled, but I hope it gave you at least a few things to
think about.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

"Mark Hickey" wrote in message
...
MattB wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

I'm all for that. But the atheist religion requires 100% adherence to
its beliefs in the public realm, even though the practitioners are a
minority of the population (imagine if society had somehow chosen
another religion like Ismam or Judaism, and tried to force 100%
compliance).

I don't see this at all. You see, I'm not an Atheist (surprise!) but I
feel like I've never been forced to accept anything from them.

Turned on the TV lately? The values represented by most of the drivel
are certainly not those of any religion other than atheism. Think
about how often you see a Christian portrayed in a positive light on
your favorite shows. If half the shows were like "Seventh Heaven"
(sic?) you'd have a point.

values that are watched day in and day out by the Christian majority.


Let some nutcase shoot an abortion doctor and it's front page news for
weeks (and fodder for countless newsgroup discussions), while the REAL
work that's being done by the Christian community (feeding the poor,
rehabilitating criminals, supporting those going through tough times,
etc., etc., etc.) is virtually absent from public view in the news.

Building multi-million dollar houses of worship with money that could be
used to feed the poor, etc., yeah, that doesn't get print either.....and I
can think of at least three within 5 miles of my house.

and that nutcase is supposedly a representative of the Christian Faith, just
like the hijackers of 9-11 were supposedly, representatives of the Muslim
Faith, go figure.


They don't come and knock on my door and try to convert me.

I've never had a Jewish person try to convert me, either....and I'm married
to one. Come to think of it, no other religion other than some sect of
Christ has ever tried to convert me.


Check your inbox. No religion other than atheism could possibly come
up with the crap I get daily.

I can't prove it and you probably couldn't disprove it either but I'd say
that most of that stuff comes from your good "born again Christian" who
thinks they will be forgiven after sending all that lame stuff out. Your
grasping, so am I but I know of at least one person that made a living
spamming people and he's been forgiven... but not by me.


They don't
try and spend tax money on monuments to their belief system. They don't
even appear to be an organized group (there are no churches or other
specific meeting places for them).

There are plenty of denominations in the "church of atheism". The
only thing they really have in common is an anti-Judeo/Christian
philosphy.


this reads to me as if your condeming all religions that don't believe as
you do.

and anti-Muslim, anti-Bhuddist, anti-religion of all faiths. I'll give you
credit, you're really grasping at trying to label athiesm as a religion.

How am I being forced to comply
again? I'm just minding my business (from a religious perspective) and
trying to point out when someone else's beliefs are trying to steamroll
mine or anyone else's.

Look at the schools - the ACLU and others are trying to expunge
virtually any hint of anything related to religion from the classroom
and the textbooks. You can't even include rational scientific
discussion about evolution or the creation of the universe in the
textbooks because acknowledging some of the unknowns might open
someone's mind to the possibility that it was actually just more than
a coincidence.

Yes because it's one sided, pro-Christian rhetoric that's trying to be
established in our public schools. Make religious teachings of all
religions part of school and I'll accept that. Teach the kids the
differences and let them decide which way to proceed instead of brainwashing
them into submission. I have no problem with teaching the idea of
creationism along side scientific facts as long as you can back up your
theories with facts, which you can not.


Yeah, that rambled, but I hope it gave you at least a few things to
think about.

Like the bumper sticker says

"Don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church"

Gary

cc wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:
MattB wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

I'm all for that. But the atheist religion requires 100% adherence to
its beliefs in the public realm, even though the practitioners are a
minority of the population (imagine if society had somehow chosen
another religion like Ismam or Judaism, and tried to force 100%
compliance).

Only in the very loosest definition of religion does atheism count as a
religion. (#4 in the webster dictionary as a 'system of beliefs' - right
after scrupulous conformity, and not present in most others). It is
generally associated in all cases with a belief in the supernatural. So
the most accurate description of atheism is the LACK of religion.

You're twisting the definition - in NO definition is a "belief in the
supernatural required", and in most it's not even mentioned. I don't
see ANY way that atheism doesn't fit perfectly the second definition
(in my Websters): "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices
generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects".

I don't see this at all. You see, I'm not an Atheist (surprise!) but I
feel like I've never been forced to accept anything from them.

Turned on the TV lately? The values represented by most of the drivel
are certainly not those of any religion other than atheism. Think
about how often you see a Christian portrayed in a positive light on
your favorite shows. If half the shows were like "Seventh Heaven"
(sic?) you'd have a point.

Well, it's only fair that if television is full of those of faith - as a
large fraction of programming is - that they are fair game for poking
fun. The same can be said of any number of lifestyles, characteristics,
ages, races . . .

I dare say that if minorities were portrayed as harshly, there would
be hell (pardon the religious concept) to pay.

Let some nutcase shoot an abortion doctor and it's front page news for
weeks (and fodder for countless newsgroup discussions), while the REAL
work that's being done by the Christian community (feeding the poor,
rehabilitating criminals, supporting those going through tough times,
etc., etc., etc.) is virtually absent from public view in the news.

Most people do recognize that religion does great things for humanity.
While I am not religious and frown upon many of the divisive stances
taken by those of faith, I recognize that it does amazing things for
peoples all over the world. I have friends that religion has done great
things for, and see that a great deal of selfless action comes from
church-affiliated programs. On the other hand, many of these programs
are subversively used to recruit more for their faith - for example the
lepers required to attend mass to eat depicted in The Motorcycle Diaries
- which is in mind akin to pharma's 'humanitarian' actions.

There are as many different approaches to outreach as there are
churches (probably more - since most churches have multiple forms of
outreach to their community or to the world in general).

In addition,
the good that faith-based programs in no way 'cancels out' a murder by a
zealot such as that you mentioned.

I don't see any connection between the two though - there's not a
church in the land who would condone the action of a murderer. The
trigger-puller may consider himself doing the work of God, but that's
only true in the sense that it is for the Islamic radicals who'll
strap on a bomb belt and force their way into a Jewish wedding.
Except for the amount of condemnation from their respective churches,
that is. In either case, they're whack jobs who are missing the
entire point of their respective religion.

They don't come and knock on my door and try to convert me.

Check your inbox. No religion other than atheism could possibly come
up with the crap I get daily.

Are you kidding? Give me an example.

I probably get 30-40 pornographic emails a day.

They don't
try and spend tax money on monuments to their belief system. They don't
even appear to be an organized group (there are no churches or other
specific meeting places for them).

There are plenty of denominations in the "church of atheism". The
only thing they really have in common is an anti-Judeo/Christian
philosphy.

Again, please give an example.

ACLU, PFAW (People For the American Way... guess they had to
capitalize the "For" to keep from being "PAW").

How am I being forced to comply
again? I'm just minding my business (from a religious perspective) and
trying to point out when someone else's beliefs are trying to steamroll
mine or anyone else's.

Look at the schools - the ACLU and others are trying to expunge
virtually any hint of anything related to religion from the classroom
and the textbooks. You can't even include rational scientific
discussion about evolution or the creation of the universe in the
textbooks because acknowledging some of the unknowns might open
someone's mind to the possibility that it was actually just more than
a coincidence.

The only neutral religion is no religion. It is of course a part of our
history, and ought be taught in that context. But no other! There is no
way to do a survey of religion or satisfactorily accomplish anything
meaningful that would be acceptable to all denominations.

I'm certainly NOT in favor of teaching "religion" in anything but an
historical context.

Evolution cannot be taught beside faith-based belief because creationism
is NOT SCIENCE. You cannot have 'rational scientific discussion' about
it, because there is no 'rational scientific' aspect to creationism. If
you want to include it in philosophy or creative writing, so be it.
Otherwise, you cannot teach it in the same classroom as evolution.

You'll note (perhaps you already did, but ignored it?) that I said
nothing at all about "creationism". I am talking about the inability
to even mention that the current science of creation and evolution are
far from "settled", and that it's only GOOD science to discuss these
shortcomings and missing bits. We still laugh about those who
dogmatically clung to the flat earth concept because they felt it
supported their theology... many educators are doing precisely the
same today, passing off theory as fact, rather than engaging our
students with the mysteries of what we don't know (perhaps some of
them would be tempted to make it their life's work to take us to the
next great breakthrough, assuming they are actually taught that
they're still there to be found).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Mark Hickey wrote:
cc wrote:


Mark Hickey wrote:

MattB wrote:


Mark Hickey wrote:

I'm all for that. But the atheist religion requires 100% adherence to
its beliefs in the public realm, even though the practitioners are a
minority of the population (imagine if society had somehow chosen
another religion like Ismam or Judaism, and tried to force 100%
compliance).

Only in the very loosest definition of religion does atheism count as a
religion. (#4 in the webster dictionary as a 'system of beliefs' - right
after scrupulous conformity, and not present in most others). It is
generally associated in all cases with a belief in the supernatural. So
the most accurate description of atheism is the LACK of religion.


You're twisting the definition - in NO definition is a "belief in the
supernatural required", and in most it's not even mentioned. I don't
see ANY way that atheism doesn't fit perfectly the second definition
(in my Websters): "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices
generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects".

In my Webster, the first
definition includes the term
'superhuman agency', along
with describing ritual
observances and a code for
conduct. Atheism has NONE of
these criteria. There is no
'set of beliefs.' There is the
/absence/ of belief in god or
gods. The 'supernatural' came
from every other dictionary
source I found. As I mention
below, you are lumping
everyone that doesn't fall
into one of the denominational
categories as 'atheist'. There
are also many shades of
disbelief, for example those
that are just unsure or don't
believe in the form of modern
religion. Are they all part of
the atheist agenda too?



I don't see this at all. You see, I'm not an Atheist (surprise!) but I
feel like I've never been forced to accept anything from them.

Turned on the TV lately? The values represented by most of the drivel
are certainly not those of any religion other than atheism. Think
about how often you see a Christian portrayed in a positive light on
your favorite shows. If half the shows were like "Seventh Heaven"
(sic?) you'd have a point.

Well, it's only fair that if television is full of those of faith - as a
large fraction of programming is - that they are fair game for poking
fun. The same can be said of any number of lifestyles, characteristics,
ages, races . . .


I dare say that if minorities were portrayed as harshly, there would
be hell (pardon the religious concept) to pay.

Oh, please. I hardly think
they're portrayed 'harshly'.
There are just as many overt
stereotypes for every class,
gender and race. One needn't
even look as far as Chappelle
Show to see that it goes
around. That said, it's not as
if there are not enough
zealots in the mainstream to
justify a few charicatures of
Pat Robertson here and there.



Let some nutcase shoot an abortion doctor and it's front page news for
weeks (and fodder for countless newsgroup discussions), while the REAL
work that's being done by the Christian community (feeding the poor,
rehabilitating criminals, supporting those going through tough times,
etc., etc., etc.) is virtually absent from public view in the news.

Most people do recognize that religion does great things for humanity.
While I am not religious and frown upon many of the divisive stances
taken by those of faith, I recognize that it does amazing things for
peoples all over the world. I have friends that religion has done great
things for, and see that a great deal of selfless action comes from
church-affiliated programs. On the other hand, many of these programs
are subversively used to recruit more for their faith - for example the
lepers required to attend mass to eat depicted in The Motorcycle Diaries
- which is in mind akin to pharma's 'humanitarian' actions.


There are as many different approaches to outreach as there are
churches (probably more - since most churches have multiple forms of
outreach to their community or to the world in general).


It does not excuse the trade
of the means for survival for
a pledge of faith. Ever hear
of a cult?


In addition,
the good that faith-based programs in no way 'cancels out' a murder by a
zealot such as that you mentioned.


I don't see any connection between the two though - there's not a
church in the land who would condone the action of a murderer. The
trigger-puller may consider himself doing the work of God, but that's
only true in the sense that it is for the Islamic radicals who'll
strap on a bomb belt and force their way into a Jewish wedding.
Except for the amount of condemnation from their respective churches,
that is. In either case, they're whack jobs who are missing the
entire point of their respective religion.


I agree. Unfortunately,
something about the message is
not getting through. What kind
of 'whack job' condones the
assassination of the leader of
Cuba on national television?
God forbid he lead the
religious right of America!


They don't come and knock on my door and try to convert me.

Check your inbox. No religion other than atheism could possibly come
up with the crap I get daily.

Are you kidding? Give me an example.


I probably get 30-40 pornographic emails a day.


And pray tell WTF that has to
do with Atheism?! You can't
lump everyone you and your
religion sees as 'godless' as
a part of the 'atheist
agenda'. Jesus, man . .


They don't
try and spend tax money on monuments to their belief system. They don't
even appear to be an organized group (there are no churches or other
specific meeting places for them).

There are plenty of denominations in the "church of atheism". The
only thing they really have in common is an anti-Judeo/Christian
philosphy.

Again, please give an example.


ACLU, PFAW (People For the American Way... guess they had to
capitalize the "For" to keep from being "PAW").


These organizations do not
have an Atheist agenda. They
have a human rights agenda.
One of my rights is also
freedom /from/ religion. I
think you would be singing a
different tune if the nation
were 50% Muslim and the rights
in question were yours.


How am I being forced to comply
again? I'm just minding my business (from a religious perspective) and
trying to point out when someone else's beliefs are trying to steamroll
mine or anyone else's.

Look at the schools - the ACLU and others are trying to expunge
virtually any hint of anything related to religion from the classroom
and the textbooks. You can't even include rational scientific
discussion about evolution or the creation of the universe in the
textbooks because acknowledging some of the unknowns might open
someone's mind to the possibility that it was actually just more than
a coincidence.

The only neutral religion is no religion. It is of course a part of our
history, and ought be taught in that context. But no other! There is no
way to do a survey of religion or satisfactorily accomplish anything
meaningful that would be acceptable to all denominations.


I'm certainly NOT in favor of teaching "religion" in anything but an
historical context.


Okay then.


Evolution cannot be taught beside faith-based belief because creationism
is NOT SCIENCE. You cannot have 'rational scientific discussion' about
it, because there is no 'rational scientific' aspect to creationism. If
you want to include it in philosophy or creative writing, so be it.
Otherwise, you cannot teach it in the same classroom as evolution.


You'll note (perhaps you already did, but ignored it?) that I said
nothing at all about "creationism". I am talking about the inability
to even mention that the current science of creation and evolution are
far from "settled", and that it's only GOOD science to discuss these
shortcomings and missing bits. We still laugh about those who
dogmatically clung to the flat earth concept because they felt it
supported their theology... many educators are doing precisely the
same today, passing off theory as fact, rather than engaging our
students with the mysteries of what we don't know (perhaps some of
them would be tempted to make it their life's work to take us to the
next great breakthrough, assuming they are actually taught that
they're still there to be found).

You said 'creation of the
universe.' You also suggest
that the pointing out of
missing links in evolution
might lead to the conclusion
that it wasn't 'just a
coincidence'. That smacks of a
hidden religious agenda,
whether you admit it or not.

Creationism nuts keep trying
to sneak in that back door . .
find some 'data' and we can talk.



Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

cc wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:
cc wrote:

Only in the very loosest definition of religion does atheism count as a
religion. (#4 in the webster dictionary as a 'system of beliefs' - right
after scrupulous conformity, and not present in most others). It is
generally associated in all cases with a belief in the supernatural. So
the most accurate description of atheism is the LACK of religion.

You're twisting the definition - in NO definition is a "belief in the
supernatural required", and in most it's not even mentioned. I don't
see ANY way that atheism doesn't fit perfectly the second definition
(in my Websters): "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices
generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects".

In my Webster, the first
definition includes the term
'superhuman agency',

"Includes" but you leave out the fact that it's as part of a
"especially when" clause.

along
with describing ritual
observances and a code for
conduct. Atheism has NONE of
these criteria. There is no
'set of beliefs.'

Each group has its own. The ACLU has theirs, NAMBLA has theirs.

There is the
/absence/ of belief in god or
gods. The 'supernatural' came
from every other dictionary
source I found.

But obviously you never found a single one that REQUIRES a
supernatural connection to qualify as a religion, or you would have
posted it. A bit disingenuous, don'tcha think?

As I mention
below, you are lumping
everyone that doesn't fall
into one of the denominational
categories as 'atheist'.

No I'm not. Can't even imagine where you get that.

There
are also many shades of
disbelief, for example those
that are just unsure or don't
believe in the form of modern
religion. Are they all part of
the atheist agenda too?

Look up "agnostic" in your dictionary.

But it's obvious this (non-bike related) thread has gone on long
enough when we can't even agree on what's actually printed (clearly
and unambiguously) in the dictionary, and we're down to parsing
individual words to try to make a point. So with that...

Happy trails!

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame


I don't see this at all. You see, I'm not an Atheist (surprise!) but I
feel like I've never been forced to accept anything from them.

Turned on the TV lately? The values represented by most of the drivel
are certainly not those of any religion other than atheism. Think
about how often you see a Christian portrayed in a positive light on
your favorite shows. If half the shows were like "Seventh Heaven"
(sic?) you'd have a point.

Well, it's only fair that if television is full of those of faith - as a
large fraction of programming is - that they are fair game for poking
fun. The same can be said of any number of lifestyles, characteristics,
ages, races . . .


I dare say that if minorities were portrayed as harshly, there would
be hell (pardon the religious concept) to pay.

Oh, please. I hardly think
they're portrayed 'harshly'.
There are just as many overt
stereotypes for every class,
gender and race. One needn't
even look as far as Chappelle
Show to see that it goes
around. That said, it's not as
if there are not enough
zealots in the mainstream to
justify a few charicatures of
Pat Robertson here and there.



Let some nutcase shoot an abortion doctor and it's front page news for
weeks (and fodder for countless newsgroup discussions), while the REAL
work that's being done by the Christian community (feeding the poor,
rehabilitating criminals, supporting those going through tough times,
etc., etc., etc.) is virtually absent from public view in the news.

Most people do recognize that religion does great things for humanity.
While I am not religious and frown upon many of the divisive stances
taken by those of faith, I recognize that it does amazing things for
peoples all over the world. I have friends that religion has done great
things for, and see that a great deal of selfless action comes from
church-affiliated programs. On the other hand, many of these programs
are subversively used to recruit more for their faith - for example the
lepers required to attend mass to eat depicted in The Motorcycle Diaries
- which is in mind akin to pharma's 'humanitarian' actions.


There are as many different approaches to outreach as there are
churches (probably more - since most churches have multiple forms of
outreach to their community or to the world in general).


It does not excuse the trade
of the means for survival for
a pledge of faith. Ever hear
of a cult?


In addition,
the good that faith-based programs in no way 'cancels out' a murder by a
zealot such as that you mentioned.


I don't see any connection between the two though - there's not a
church in the land who would condone the action of a murderer. The
trigger-puller may consider himself doing the work of God, but that's
only true in the sense that it is for the Islamic radicals who'll
strap on a bomb belt and force their way into a Jewish wedding.
Except for the amount of condemnation from their respective churches,
that is. In either case, they're whack jobs who are missing the
entire point of their respective religion.


I agree. Unfortunately,
something about the message is
not getting through. What kind
of 'whack job' condones the
assassination of the leader of
Cuba on national television?
God forbid he lead the
religious right of America!


They don't come and knock on my door and try to convert me.

Check your inbox. No religion other than atheism could possibly come
up with the crap I get daily.

Are you kidding? Give me an example.


I probably get 30-40 pornographic emails a day.


And pray tell WTF that has to
do with Atheism?! You can't
lump everyone you and your
religion sees as 'godless' as
a part of the 'atheist
agenda'. Jesus, man . .


They don't
try and spend tax money on monuments to their belief system. They don't
even appear to be an organized group (there are no churches or other
specific meeting places for them).

There are plenty of denominations in the "church of atheism". The
only thing they really have in common is an anti-Judeo/Christian
philosphy.

Again, please give an example.


ACLU, PFAW (People For the American Way... guess they had to
capitalize the "For" to keep from being "PAW").


These organizations do not
have an Atheist agenda. They
have a human rights agenda.
One of my rights is also
freedom /from/ religion. I
think you would be singing a
different tune if the nation
were 50% Muslim and the rights
in question were yours.


How am I being forced to comply
again? I'm just minding my business (from a religious perspective) and
trying to point out when someone else's beliefs are trying to steamroll
mine or anyone else's.

Look at the schools - the ACLU and others are trying to expunge
virtually any hint of anything related to religion from the classroom
and the textbooks. You can't even include rational scientific
discussion about evolution or the creation of the universe in the
textbooks because acknowledging some of the unknowns might open
someone's mind to the possibility that it was actually just more than
a coincidence.

The only neutral religion is no religion. It is of course a part of our
history, and ought be taught in that context. But no other! There is no
way to do a survey of religion or satisfactorily accomplish anything
meaningful that would be acceptable to all denominations.


I'm certainly NOT in favor of teaching "religion" in anything but an
historical context.


Okay then.


Evolution cannot be taught beside faith-based belief because creationism
is NOT SCIENCE. You cannot have 'rational scientific discussion' about
it, because there is no 'rational scientific' aspect to creationism. If
you want to include it in philosophy or creative writing, so be it.
Otherwise, you cannot teach it in the same classroom as evolution.


You'll note (perhaps you already did, but ignored it?) that I said
nothing at all about "creationism". I am talking about the inability
to even mention that the current science of creation and evolution are
far from "settled", and that it's only GOOD science to discuss these
shortcomings and missing bits. We still laugh about those who
dogmatically clung to the flat earth concept because they felt it
supported their theology... many educators are doing precisely the
same today, passing off theory as fact, rather than engaging our
students with the mysteries of what we don't know (perhaps some of
them would be tempted to make it their life's work to take us to the
next great breakthrough, assuming they are actually taught that
they're still there to be found).

You said 'creation of the
universe.' You also suggest
that the pointing out of
missing links in evolution
might lead to the conclusion
that it wasn't 'just a
coincidence'. That smacks of a
hidden religious agenda,
whether you admit it or not.

Creationism nuts keep trying
to sneak in that back door . .
find some 'data' and we can talk.



Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Mark Hickey wrote:
cc wrote:


Mark Hickey wrote:

cc wrote:


Only in the very loosest definition of religion does atheism count as a
religion. (#4 in the webster dictionary as a 'system of beliefs' - right
after scrupulous conformity, and not present in most others). It is
generally associated in all cases with a belief in the supernatural. So
the most accurate description of atheism is the LACK of religion.

You're twisting the definition - in NO definition is a "belief in the
supernatural required", and in most it's not even mentioned. I don't
see ANY way that atheism doesn't fit perfectly the second definition
(in my Websters): "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices
generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects".

In my Webster, the first
definition includes the term
'superhuman agency',


"Includes" but you leave out the fact that it's as part of a
"especially when" clause.


along
with describing ritual
observances and a code for
conduct. Atheism has NONE of
these criteria. There is no
'set of beliefs.'


Each group has its own. The ACLU has theirs, NAMBLA has theirs.


There is the
/absence/ of belief in god or
gods. The 'supernatural' came

from every other dictionary

source I found.


But obviously you never found a single one that REQUIRES a
supernatural connection to qualify as a religion, or you would have
posted it. A bit disingenuous, don'tcha think?


As I mention
below, you are lumping
everyone that doesn't fall
into one of the denominational
categories as 'atheist'.


No I'm not. Can't even imagine where you get that.

See below.



There
are also many shades of
disbelief, for example those
that are just unsure or don't
believe in the form of modern
religion. Are they all part of
the atheist agenda too?


Look up "agnostic" in your dictionary.

But it's obvious this (non-bike related) thread has gone on long
enough when we can't even agree on what's actually printed (clearly
and unambiguously) in the dictionary, and we're down to parsing
individual words to try to make a point. So with that...

Happy trails!

Conveniently ignoring all
points below . .





I don't see this at all. You see, I'm not an Atheist (surprise!) but I
feel like I've never been forced to accept anything from them.

Turned on the TV lately? The values represented by most of the drivel
are certainly not those of any religion other than atheism. Think
about how often you see a Christian portrayed in a positive light on
your favorite shows. If half the shows were like "Seventh Heaven"
(sic?) you'd have a point.

Well, it's only fair that if television is full of those of faith - as a
large fraction of programming is - that they are fair game for poking
fun. The same can be said of any number of lifestyles, characteristics,
ages, races . . .


I dare say that if minorities were portrayed as harshly, there would
be hell (pardon the religious concept) to pay.

Oh, please. I hardly think
they're portrayed 'harshly'.
There are just as many overt
stereotypes for every class,
gender and race. One needn't
even look as far as Chappelle
Show to see that it goes
around. That said, it's not as
if there are not enough
zealots in the mainstream to
justify a few charicatures of
Pat Robertson here and there.



Let some nutcase shoot an abortion doctor and it's front page news for
weeks (and fodder for countless newsgroup discussions), while the REAL
work that's being done by the Christian community (feeding the poor,
rehabilitating criminals, supporting those going through tough times,
etc., etc., etc.) is virtually absent from public view in the news.

Most people do recognize that religion does great things for humanity.
While I am not religious and frown upon many of the divisive stances
taken by those of faith, I recognize that it does amazing things for
peoples all over the world. I have friends that religion has done great
things for, and see that a great deal of selfless action comes from
church-affiliated programs. On the other hand, many of these programs
are subversively used to recruit more for their faith - for example the
lepers required to attend mass to eat depicted in The Motorcycle Diaries
- which is in mind akin to pharma's 'humanitarian' actions.


There are as many different approaches to outreach as there are
churches (probably more - since most churches have multiple forms of
outreach to their community or to the world in general).


It does not excuse the trade
of the means for survival for
a pledge of faith. Ever hear
of a cult?


In addition,
the good that faith-based programs in no way 'cancels out' a murder by a
zealot such as that you mentioned.


I don't see any connection between the two though - there's not a
church in the land who would condone the action of a murderer. The
trigger-puller may consider himself doing the work of God, but that's
only true in the sense that it is for the Islamic radicals who'll
strap on a bomb belt and force their way into a Jewish wedding.
Except for the amount of condemnation from their respective churches,
that is. In either case, they're whack jobs who are missing the
entire point of their respective religion.


I agree. Unfortunately,
something about the message is
not getting through. What kind
of 'whack job' condones the
assassination of the leader of
Cuba on national television?
God forbid he lead the
religious right of America!


They don't come and knock on my door and try to convert me.

Check your inbox. No religion other than atheism could possibly come
up with the crap I get daily.

Are you kidding? Give me an example.


I probably get 30-40 pornographic emails a day.


And pray tell WTF that has to
do with Atheism?! You can't
lump everyone you and your
religion sees as 'godless' as
a part of the 'atheist
agenda'. Jesus, man . .


They don't
try and spend tax money on monuments to their belief system. They don't
even appear to be an organized group (there are no churches or other
specific meeting places for them).

There are plenty of denominations in the "church of atheism". The
only thing they really have in common is an anti-Judeo/Christian
philosphy.

Again, please give an example.


ACLU, PFAW (People For the American Way... guess they had to
capitalize the "For" to keep from being "PAW").


These organizations do not
have an Atheist agenda. They
have a human rights agenda.
One of my rights is also
freedom /from/ religion. I
think you would be singing a
different tune if the nation
were 50% Muslim and the rights
in question were yours.


How am I being forced to comply
again? I'm just minding my business (from a religious perspective) and
trying to point out when someone else's beliefs are trying to steamroll
mine or anyone else's.

Look at the schools - the ACLU and others are trying to expunge
virtually any hint of anything related to religion from the classroom
and the textbooks. You can't even include rational scientific
discussion about evolution or the creation of the universe in the
textbooks because acknowledging some of the unknowns might open
someone's mind to the possibility that it was actually just more than
a coincidence.

The only neutral religion is no religion. It is of course a part of our
history, and ought be taught in that context. But no other! There is no
way to do a survey of religion or satisfactorily accomplish anything
meaningful that would be acceptable to all denominations.


I'm certainly NOT in favor of teaching "religion" in anything but an
historical context.


Okay then.


Evolution cannot be taught beside faith-based belief because creationism
is NOT SCIENCE. You cannot have 'rational scientific discussion' about
it, because there is no 'rational scientific' aspect to creationism. If
you want to include it in philosophy or creative writing, so be it.
Otherwise, you cannot teach it in the same classroom as evolution.


You'll note (perhaps you already did, but ignored it?) that I said
nothing at all about "creationism". I am talking about the inability
to even mention that the current science of creation and evolution are
far from "settled", and that it's only GOOD science to discuss these
shortcomings and missing bits. We still laugh about those who
dogmatically clung to the flat earth concept because they felt it
supported their theology... many educators are doing precisely the
same today, passing off theory as fact, rather than engaging our
students with the mysteries of what we don't know (perhaps some of
them would be tempted to make it their life's work to take us to the
next great breakthrough, assuming they are actually taught that
they're still there to be found).

You said 'creation of the
universe.' You also suggest
that the pointing out of
missing links in evolution
might lead to the conclusion
that it wasn't 'just a
coincidence'. That smacks of a
hidden religious agenda,
whether you admit it or not.

Creationism nuts keep trying
to sneak in that back door . .
find some 'data' and we can talk.



Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Mark Hickey wrote:
MattB wrote:


Mark Hickey wrote:


I'm all for that. But the atheist religion requires 100% adherence to
its beliefs in the public realm, even though the practitioners are a
minority of the population (imagine if society had somehow chosen
another religion like Ismam or Judaism, and tried to force 100%
compliance).

I don't see this at all. You see, I'm not an Atheist (surprise!) but I
feel like I've never been forced to accept anything from them.


Turned on the TV lately? The values represented by most of the drivel
are certainly not those of any religion other than atheism. Think
about how often you see a Christian portrayed in a positive light on
your favorite shows. If half the shows were like "Seventh Heaven"
(sic?) you'd have a point.


I haven't really watched TV much lately. Oh, except that Elvis Costello
(with Ben Gibbard, Fiona Apple, and Billie Joe Armstrong) and Classic
VH1 concert the other night. That was good. Is he an Atheist? I don't
know and I don't care. He doesn't preach or push his agenda on me and I
like it that way.

I'm guessing the values portrayed in the mainstream crap on TV aren't
very good examples and that's why we generally only watch some
(non-mainstream) sports, some music, and nature and kids programming on
PBS.

But I just don;t believe there's an Atheist agenda being pushed. I'm
pretty sure you're the only one who thinks that and the rest of us
aren't buying it. On the other hand there is a clear Christian agenda to
convert people. We don;t need to be converted, saved, or harassed while
trying to just mind our own business.

Let some nutcase shoot an abortion doctor and it's front page news for
weeks (and fodder for countless newsgroup discussions), while the REAL
work that's being done by the Christian community (feeding the poor,
rehabilitating criminals, supporting those going through tough times,
etc., etc., etc.) is virtually absent from public view in the news.


This isn't a big conspiracy, the news reports what ever is the most
sensational thing going on at the moment. If Atheists were blowing
things up or causing some big scandal then that would make the news.
Lots of people Christian, Atheist, Jewish, and even Muslim do good
things for their fellow man every day and none of that makes the press
either. Unfortunately the news-watching public has demonstrated that
"good news" isn't good news.


They don't come and knock on my door and try to convert me.


Check your inbox. No religion other than atheism could possibly come
up with the crap I get daily.


I have never seen a single spam trying to convert me to Atheism or any
"Atheist causes" (whatever those would be - it's more of a lack of cause
than a cause). I have gotten some Christian spam trying to get me to go
some site that I never visited. But most of the spam I see has a very
clear agenda: to take my money. Whether it's via a scam, stock "tip",
pharmacy, or porn site. Their agenda is to make money at my expense.
This isn't an Atheist agenda or any other organized group (for the most
part) it's just people trying to make a buck.


They don't
try and spend tax money on monuments to their belief system. They don't
even appear to be an organized group (there are no churches or other
specific meeting places for them).


There are plenty of denominations in the "church of atheism". The
only thing they really have in common is an anti-Judeo/Christian
philosphy.


Not anti-Judeo/Christian, just not supporting their belief systems.
There's a big difference there. While some Atheists are anti-religion, I
truly believe most just want to be left alone to their own value systems.


How am I being forced to comply
again? I'm just minding my business (from a religious perspective) and
trying to point out when someone else's beliefs are trying to steamroll
mine or anyone else's.


Look at the schools - the ACLU and others are trying to expunge
virtually any hint of anything related to religion from the classroom
and the textbooks. You can't even include rational scientific
discussion about evolution or the creation of the universe in the
textbooks because acknowledging some of the unknowns might open
someone's mind to the possibility that it was actually just more than
a coincidence.


I've attended both public and Catholic schools. In the public school we
did have great rational discussions on anything people could come up
with good supporting evidence for. Just because the physical evidence
only proves evolution to about 99.9999% doesn't make it incorrect. It
makes it the best theory we have to explain how things are because there
is the most evidence to support it. If more evidence came to light that
supported another theory then science classes would support that theory
as the best one. That's how science works.
In Catholic school I was a "trouble maker" because I asked questions
about things I was just supposed to have faith in and accept as true
because someone told me to. I wanted evidence and was told some stories
that may or may not be true (some of them very nice stories BTW). I
still see no evidence and therefore I'm still not convinced.

Yeah, that rambled, but I hope it gave you at least a few things to
think about.


Yes. Thinking is something we should all do more. Go forth and think!

Matt

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

MattB wrote:

Maybe you would have just kept quiet, but I suspect maybe you wouldn't have.

I had no idea who she was, but on the MTBR forum they were acting like
she was a celebrity. So I figured I'd better look her up. The rest is
history.

Matt (mostly just intolerant to intolerance - oh and really bad music)

You make a good point. Sorry I over-reacted. I'm much nicer in
person...

I did not realize you were making your call based solely on the
picture, and art is totally subjective. I happen to prefer my wife's
profile, but some think she looks too skinny and athletic. Others like
'em big and round. fbg's making the world go round and all that...

This gal, I know her a little bit, and she's bright, funny,
courageous, gracious, (very pretty in person), but also outspoken and
committed to standing up and making changes for what she believes in.

CDB

Bill Sornson wrote:
Corvus Corvax wrote:

As far as Brandi goes, my wife took a look at her web site, and all
she had to say was "Man, that girl is compensating for some kind of
really serious kink."

Women know.

Why so judgmental? Ah, more making fun of people; forgot.

I don't think that not wanting 8-year-old kids looking at pictures in "The
Joy of Sex" (gay OR straight) in the library without parental permission or
approval means that she (or anyone for that matter) is a prude.

I don't agree with many of her political positions (none of which I'd even
known about unless Pete pushed her website), but I hardly think she's
"dangerous". She's a conservative Christian activist; so what?

I think it's great that she rides (despite that ancient helmet); good for
her.

Bill "much (threaded) ado about nothing" S.

Blame me for that ancient helmet. I keep a bunch of old skanky loaners
in the back of my rig, and unfortunately, that goofball helmet was the
only one that fit her. The other more decent one went to her friend
who was visiting from WA DC. The dude with the beard.

CDB

Paladin wrote:
MattB wrote:

Maybe you would have just kept quiet, but I suspect maybe you wouldn't have.

I had no idea who she was, but on the MTBR forum they were acting like
she was a celebrity. So I figured I'd better look her up. The rest is
history.

Matt (mostly just intolerant to intolerance - oh and really bad music)


You make a good point. Sorry I over-reacted. I'm much nicer in
person...


This seems believable. I might even make you prove it some day.

I did not realize you were making your call based solely on the
picture, and art is totally subjective. I happen to prefer my wife's
profile, but some think she looks too skinny and athletic. Others like
'em big and round. fbg's making the world go round and all that...


Well, it was the picture + what I found when I looked her up. But if we
all like the same women you guys would all be jealous because I got the
best one!

This gal, I know her a little bit, and she's bright, funny,
courageous, gracious, (very pretty in person), but also outspoken and
committed to standing up and making changes for what she believes in.


Which in theory sounds like a great set of traits. Actually that sounds
a bit like my wife. They are just at odds with the things they'd like to
see changed.

CDB


Matt