On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:18:01 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 14:33:47 -0400, Kirk Gordon
wrote:

You can believe whatever myths and stories you like; but don't
pretend that you're doing anything else, unless you're prepared to learn
what "proof" really is, and how it works, and then to use it to prove
the existence of superghosts in the sky.

KG

Heh....

http://www.rense.com/general32/del.htm

Found those "WMDs" yet?

Chuckle....

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/thread/3151

Few clues there.

Gunner
--
Cliff

"shu" wrote in
:

for the record I scored as an expatriate

also, I think the test is crap anyway, it's got some bias towards what
the left seems to *think* of the right, but is sterotyped.

Shu,

Take the test again and answer the opposite of what you answered. It's
pretty amusing.

Bing

In article ,
Cliff wrote:

IOW NOT a gun-toting crazy living in a bunker atop the San Andreas
and eating kibble?

on the california coast?
i thought he said his bunker was near bakersfield
or fresno

i suppose if your bunker consists of an airstream trailer
with plywood over the windows
it can be anywhere

Which ones were those? I was quite in favor of the Vietnam war, a
Democrats war.

??
HUH?

they always forget about eisenhower


note that again for someone how complains bitterly about partisanship
gunner compulsively notes party affiliation

arf meow arf - dogs and cats living together

the erisian constancy - though chaos is transformed
but never lost to sea - grey ordered ranks are swarmed

Cliff wrote:

The idea that an atheist (or anybody else) needs to "prove" some
kind of non-existence is one of the most ridiculous and destructive
non-ideas that's ever polluted human minds.

Proof is affirmative. It only works on things that actually do
exist. To attempt to twist it around and prove a negative - ANY
negative, is to admit that you don't have a clue about what proof is,
about how logic works, or about which end of you is your head and which
is your ass.


Some might "argue" ....

Obviously, the world is full of people who'd argue. But when they
start using words like "proof", then I think they should be held
responsible for knowing what those words mean. Strabo clearly doesn't.

Incidentally, in the second of Gunner's cites, the supposed
"propoenent" of logic is as incompetent as the person he's arguing with.
He says, for example, that you can't prove Santa Claus is non-existent
"since you cannot know the holiday reality of every person on the planet
or their chimney status". This person doesn't know anything about
proof, either. Even if I DID know the status of every chimney, that's
not the same as knowing that I've included every possible chimney there
is. And how would I PROVE that'd I'd left no chimney unchecked? No
answer. This person has confused statistics, or common versions of
proof, with the real thing.

One of the worst things that can happen to any good idea is for
idiots to start liking it. Their methods of "defending" what's right
often do more harm than good.

KG

Gunner wrote:

"Hawke" wrote:

..... any objective analysis of your postings clearly demonstrates that you do indeed
have extreme right wing conservative views, you are authoritarian, and are a
total martinet.

Another mindless drone fatally flawed assumption. Gads man..you prove
my claim with ever line you post. How could I, a rabid survivalist, be
an authoritarian and a martinet? Evern my Nym indicates the opposite.

Your handlers at the DNC have you playing a rather silly role in an
attempt to discredit legitimate conservatives.

Gio

Heh...for the most part..the Libs are utterly clueless. Which is
regularly demonstrated by their posts on politics, and why the publics
shift to electing Republican politicians is so completely
misunderstood by them. They babble on and on about Bush being Selected
not elected..yet totally ignore the fact that Congress now has a
significant Republican Majority after 40 yrs of Dem control and more
and more Governors and state politicians are being elected
Republicans.

They (Libs) are both clueless and in denial

Gunner


I totally agree with that, and to further add, I suspect, (or possibly just
hope) that the repulican party itself will begin to split, atm there are far
to many Leftists in the repulican party,

right now for example i'm a bit unhappy with bush, not because he's too
conservative, but because he's too liberal, and I think a lot of Right
wingers are feeling that too

Unfortunatly if the repulican party splits, it'll mean that the democratic
party will win a few more elections, However the repulicans need to be sent
a strong message, a message that we want Limited govt. that we want lower
taxes, and we want to observe the orginal intent of the constitution, not
the miles and miles of crap interpertations and revisions that leftist
lawyers have been slowly shoving down our throats.. Simple things like the
2nd amendment, which is clear and explict, have been taken away from us, and
the 9th amendment, which has never been successfully argued in a modern
legal case, is also clear and explict, I want a party that understand that
the purpose of govt is not to control it's own people. or redistrubute
wealth(communism), or Provide social services, etc.

this is why i'm voting libetarian next election.. the repulicans would need
a very strong constitionalist canidate in order for me to vote for them. I
can think of a few.. but I doubt they'll run.. if not, i'm not voting for
them.. If enough people do this, it may mean a victory for the democrats,
however the message sent to the repulicans will be clear, that they have
turned too far to the left.

we *can* afford 4 years of Hilliary, so long as it points the repulicans
back in the right direction

***
shu

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:38:31 -0400, Kirk Gordon
wrote:



Cliff wrote:

The idea that an atheist (or anybody else) needs to "prove" some
kind of non-existence is one of the most ridiculous and destructive
non-ideas that's ever polluted human minds.

Proof is affirmative. It only works on things that actually do
exist. To attempt to twist it around and prove a negative - ANY
negative, is to admit that you don't have a clue about what proof is,
about how logic works, or about which end of you is your head and which
is your ass.


Some might "argue" ....

Obviously, the world is full of people who'd argue. But when they
start using words like "proof", then I think they should be held
responsible for knowing what those words mean. Strabo clearly doesn't.

Incidentally, in the second of Gunner's cites, the supposed
"propoenent" of logic is as incompetent as the person he's arguing with.
He says, for example, that you can't prove Santa Claus is non-existent
"since you cannot know the holiday reality of every person on the planet
or their chimney status". This person doesn't know anything about
proof, either. Even if I DID know the status of every chimney, that's
not the same as knowing that I've included every possible chimney there
is. And how would I PROVE that'd I'd left no chimney unchecked? No
answer. This person has confused statistics, or common versions of
proof, with the real thing.

One of the worst things that can happen to any good idea is for
idiots to start liking it. Their methods of "defending" what's right
often do more harm than good.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/sn-python.html

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm

For Gunner: http://watchingyou.com/woowoo.html
--
Cliff

"Jeff Dantzler" wrote in message
news:1125334548.100226@yasure...
In article you wrote:

"atheist" is inconsistent with libertarian.

You can be an agnostic and a libertarian but atheists claim
an unprovable knowledge (the non-existence of a god).

I disagree and look forward to you expanding on why your statement
is valid.

Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence
of gods. I don't have to claim that no god exists to be an atheist.

From lp.org:

"What is a Libertarian?

Libertarians believe that you have the right to live your life as you
wish, without the government interfering -- as long as you dont violate
the rights of others. Politically, this means Libertarians favor rolling
back the size and cost of government, and eliminating laws that stifle the
economy and control peoples personal choices."

Note no mention of "god" in the above statement. Libertarians could give
a **** whether you believe in god or not - that's your business!

I'll clarify my position a bit. By trade I am a biochemist, a scientist.
I believe in things because their existance has been demonstrated in
a rational fashion by myself or others.

I am a Libertarian before all else. My atheism grew out of my distaste for
folks who would push their beliefs upon some one else. Kind of like you
telling me I can't be an atheist and a Libertarian at the same time...

Jeff

A scientist that is an atheist, how novel is that? Turns out, not very.
According to the statistics scientists as a group are more likely to be
atheists than any other group. They are also the most highly educated group.
Conversely, the most ignorant and uneducated people are also the most likely
to believe in god, the stronger the belief in god the more ignorant and
uneducated they are. For example, when the Tsunami hit last year the most
primitive and ignorant people living on the most remote islands told
reporters that the Tsunami was caused by the spirit of the ocean being angry
with people so the wave was their punishment. That's just the kind of
thinking I expect from Gunner and friends. I'm sure he has a strong belief
in god too.

Hawke

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 14:51:42 -0700, mariposas rand mair fheal
greykitten tomys des anges wrote:

In article ,
Cliff wrote:

IOW NOT a gun-toting crazy living in a bunker atop the San Andreas
and eating kibble?

on the california coast?
i thought he said his bunker was near bakersfield
or fresno


http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho.../10963839.html
[
Geologist Burt Slemmons, a member of the Nevada Earthquake
Safety Council and professor emeritus at the University of Nevada,
Reno, estimates the Las Vegas Valley faults move about one-tenth of a
millimeter per year. In contrast, California's notorious San Andreas
Fault slips northwest at a much faster pace, 38 millimeters per year
near Taft.
]
--
Cliff

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 16:40:16 -0600, Gio Medici
wrote:

Gunner wrote:

"Hawke" wrote:

..... any objective analysis of your postings clearly demonstrates that you do indeed
have extreme right wing conservative views, you are authoritarian, and are a
total martinet.

Another mindless drone fatally flawed assumption. Gads man..you prove
my claim with ever line you post. How could I, a rabid survivalist, be
an authoritarian and a martinet? Evern my Nym indicates the opposite.

Your handlers at the DNC have you playing a rather silly role in an
attempt to discredit legitimate conservatives.

Gio

Shhhh .... He's doing a really fine job.
--
Cliff

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 06:20:15 GMT, Strabo
wrote:

No indication of rational scientific materialists here.

They were just a bit too early, IIRC.
And had to get away with it G.
--
Cliff

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 06:55:09 GMT, Strabo
wrote:

No, of course one can't prove a negative. That's the trap
of atheism.

Perhaps not.
Now many nonsense statements can be created?
Need one "disprove" any of them? They are mostly
ill-defined to begin with ...
--
Cliff

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 00:16:29 -0700, "Hawke"
wrote:

For example, when the Tsunami hit last year the most
primitive and ignorant people living on the most remote islands told
reporters that the Tsunami was caused by the spirit of the ocean being angry
with people so the wave was their punishment. That's just the kind of
thinking I expect from Gunner and friends. I'm sure he has a strong belief
in god too.

Hawke

Im Buddhist. So once again the Mind numbed Leftist Drone gets it all
wrong. You ever going to get any of your grand claims right????

"Your not here for the hunting, are you?"

Snicker

Gunner

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 06:20:15 GMT, Strabo
wrote:


The atheist doesn't *know* either. The apparent comfort level
of the atheist may indicate a greater degree of cognitive
dissonance.

atheism..just another faith based religion.


Gunner

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 09:52:12 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 00:16:29 -0700, "Hawke"
wrote:

For example, when the Tsunami hit last year the most
primitive and ignorant people living on the most remote islands told
reporters that the Tsunami was caused by the spirit of the ocean being angry
with people so the wave was their punishment. That's just the kind of
thinking I expect from Gunner and friends. I'm sure he has a strong belief
in god too.

Hawke

Im Buddhist. So once again the Mind numbed Leftist Drone gets it all
wrong.

Nope. You are a Monarchist.
We've had this discussion before.

Long live King shrubbie, right?
--
Cliff

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 09:54:17 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 06:20:15 GMT, Strabo
wrote:


The atheist doesn't *know* either. The apparent comfort level
of the atheist may indicate a greater degree of cognitive
dissonance.

atheism..just another faith based religion.

Nope.

Gunnerism: One cowboy.
--
Cliff

Im Buddhist. So once again the Mind numbed Leftist Drone gets it all
wrong.

Nope. You are a Monarchist.
We've had this discussion before.

he gets his buddhism from a fish called wanda

people who dont want to be constrained by christianity morality
but dont want to be called godless atheist
often call themselves buddhists

it gives them the pretence of religion
without any morality except satisfying their own gluttony

arf meow arf - dogs and cats living together

the erisian constancy - though chaos is transformed
but never lost to sea - grey ordered ranks are swarmed

*sigh*

let me put this another way
without getting into semantics..


To me, there is no god, in much the same way there is no Flying Spaghetti
Monster
http://www.venganza.org/
to me both are equally invalid "theories", and both are inventions of man
it isn't "open minded" to believe in the Possibility of a flying spaghetti
monster, as much as it is "Foolish."
If a flying spaghetti monster Suddenly appears before me and waves (or
noodles) then i'll reconsidor my stand. The same goes for god.


whether you call that agnosticism or atheism is upto you,
personally I think it is as close to atheism as all get


**********
shu

In rec.crafts.metalworking Strabo wrote:

[JD]
Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence
of gods. I don't have to claim that no god exists to be an atheist.

No, you certainly don't have to but that's what you're doing
when you associate with 'atheist'.

You then freely admit that I can be an atheist without claiming the
non-existence of god.

Read my post to 'shu'.

I did. I'm not convinced.

An atheist means more than an *absence of belief* in a god;
the atheist states that he *knows* there is no god.

A-theist = Without theism. My life exists in a state without
any gods or religion. These are human constructs much like the
tooth fairy. I do not need to claim the non-existence of god to
be an atheist--I simply need to be without god.

Sounds like you are an agnostic. An honest postion.

No. To me agnostics are confused fence-sitters--as some one else
put it: perhaps not quite ready to be known as godless infidels.

That's true though libertarians must have a strong sense
of principle and morality otherwise minimal self-government
won't work. Hence the relevance of religion or spirituality.

Religion and/or spirituality are irrelevant. You are begining
to sound like my parents when they forced me to attend church
as a youth because they could not imagine where I would get a
set or "morals" if not from the spiritual guidance that religion
offers. I am a moral man without religion.

I do believe in intrisic "rights" but disagree that this must
require me to be religious.

Libertarianism is not simply a political party, it's a way of
life.

This I agree with. We'll just have to agree to disagree
on the rest.

Jeff

Gunner wrote:


Im Buddhist. So once again the Mind numbed Leftist Drone gets it all
wrong. You ever going to get any of your grand claims right????

"Your not here for the hunting, are you?"

Tell us again how many karma points you get for shooting Bambi?

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 09:51:27 -0500, "shu" wrote:

there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster

Who told you THAT one?
--
Cliff

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 15:29:53 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 09:51:27 -0500, "shu" wrote:

there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster

Who told you THAT one?

Oops ... snipped the link .....

http://www.venganza.org/

That's better G.
--
Cliff

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 17:33:40 -0000, Jeff Dantzler
wrote:

An atheist means more than an *absence of belief* in a god;
the atheist states that he *knows* there is no god.

A-theist = Without theism. My life exists in a state without
any gods or religion. These are human constructs much like the
tooth fairy. I do not need to claim the non-existence of god to
be an atheist--I simply need to be without god.

[
atheist
(noun) : one who denies the existence of God
]

To a Baptist a Luthern is an atheist probably,
as the Luthern denies what the Baptist claims
to be a "god".

What about the snakes? Are they REALLY needed?

"In the end, all wars are holy wars. No side fails to claim God as
backing them." -- St. Thomas Aquinas
--
Cliff

For example, when the Tsunami hit last year the most
primitive and ignorant people living on the most remote islands told
reporters that the Tsunami was caused by the spirit of the ocean being
angry
with people so the wave was their punishment. That's just the kind of
thinking I expect from Gunner and friends. I'm sure he has a strong
belief
in god too.

Hawke

Im Buddhist. So once again the Mind numbed Leftist Drone gets it all
wrong. You ever going to get any of your grand claims right????

"Your not here for the hunting, are you?"

Snicker

Gunner

A Buddhist war monger who hunts? I smell some bull****. Why is it that what
Gunner says isn't believeable? How are things in fantasyland? Is that where
they hid the WMDs?

Hawke

Jeff Dantzler wrote:
In rec.crafts.metalworking Strabo wrote:
An atheist means more than an *absence of belief* in a god;
the atheist states that he *knows* there is no god.

A-theist = Without theism. My life exists in a state without
any gods or religion. These are human constructs much like the
tooth fairy. I do not need to claim the non-existence of god to
be an atheist--I simply need to be without god.

Sounds like you are an agnostic. An honest postion.

No. To me agnostics are confused fence-sitters--as some one else
put it: perhaps not quite ready to be known as godless infidels.

"Capital A" Atheists assert definitively that there is no god. "Small a"
atheists simply live their lives without a belief in god. Similarly,
"capital A" Agnostics assert there is no logical way of knowing if a god
exists or not where as the "small a" variety are those that waffle,
unsure and unwilling to take a stand one way or another. An
intellectually honest Christian should also be an Agnostic, since there
is no way of providing definitive logical proof one way or another and
in the final analysis it must be a matter of faith.



That's true though libertarians must have a strong sense
of principle and morality otherwise minimal self-government
won't work. Hence the relevance of religion or spirituality.

This is same logic the RC church used in the third world backing
leftists because communism cannot work without a good religious
foundation. Poppycock. Government needs religion like a fish needs a
bicycle.

--
jeff
No, not that one. The other one.

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 21:07:29 GMT, jeff
wrote:

"Capital A" Atheists assert definitively that there is no god. "Small a"
atheists simply live their lives without a belief in god. Similarly,
"capital A" Agnostics assert there is no logical way of knowing if a god
exists or not where as the "small a" variety are those that waffle,
unsure and unwilling to take a stand one way or another.

Atheists?
--
Cliff

Strabo wrote:
In OT - A test for Gunner & Stu & crew on Mon, 29 Aug 2005
14:33:47 -0400, by Kirk Gordon, we read:

Here's a simple test: Can you prove that there's not a 16 foot
tall, purple, fire breathing dragon standing right behind you, right
this minute, about to bite your ass off? No, you can't. Looking behind
you doen't work. The dragon might have moved as you turned your head.
Or it might be an invisible dragon. Reaching out to feel around for it
won't work, either. Dragons are very quick and clever. (Prove that
they're not!) Did you look all over the room, under the desk, and
behind the file cabinet? That's not proof of anything. It only means
that you didn't find the dragon. It doesn't prove anything about
whether the dragon actually exists.

No, of course one can't prove a negative. That's the trap
of atheism. The atheist denies the existence while implying
evidence of same. On the other hand the agnostic says that he
doesn't know.

So you're in the same trap with respect to that dragon, right? You
can't disprove its existence; but you're afraid just to accept that it
doesn't exist. That's agnosticism.

KG

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 23:45:22 GMT, Strabo
wrote:

I am a moral man without religion.

Perhaps. Morality does not require religion but
principles and consistent morality does require a
nature that seems to elude you.

"Morality" is from religion.

HTH
--
Cliff

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 09:20:53 GMT, Strabo
wrote:

In OT - A test for Gunner & Stu & crew on Wed, 31 Aug 2005
00:39:25 -0400, by Cliff, we read:

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 23:45:22 GMT, Strabo
wrote:

I am a moral man without religion.

Perhaps. Morality does not require religion but
principles and consistent morality does require a
nature that seems to elude you.

"Morality" is from religion.

True but there is a primary source.

Religion is a formalized system of behavior, expectations
and values. This system expresses a moral code.

But morality may also derive from one's culture. Culture
is the keeper of the necessary principles, customs and
traditions for success within the society.

A religion is not concocted in a vacuum. It
will reflect the originator's cultural values.
A religion is only successful when it is accepted
by the society at large.

So, the moral code of a religion and that of the
culture in which it is practiced, are typically
the same.

So is it "moral" to eat gramps?
--
Cliff

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 09:31:15 GMT, Strabo
wrote:

I'm not trying to prove or disprove. That's your thing.
I'm only talking about word meanings.

If you state that there is no god, then you are implying
that you know this to be true, and you are an atheist.

If you state that you DO NOT know, then you take no
position as to true or false, and you are an agnostic.

Strabo,
For any of that to make any sense at all you must
first define "god" VBG.
--
Cliff

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 23:45:22 GMT, Strabo
wrote:

I am a moral man without religion.

Perhaps. Morality does not require religion but
principles and consistent morality does require a
nature that seems to elude you.

"Morality" is from religion.

Morality is derived from religion, but can exist separate from it.

HTH

HTHToo

--
Jeff
It is preferential to refrain from the utilization of sesquipedalian
verbiage in the circumstance that your intellectualization can be verbalized
using compararatively simplistic lexicographical entitities.

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 09:20:53 GMT, Strabo
wrote:

In OT - A test for Gunner & Stu & crew on Wed, 31 Aug 2005
00:39:25 -0400, by Cliff, we read:

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 23:45:22 GMT, Strabo
wrote:

I am a moral man without religion.

Perhaps. Morality does not require religion but
principles and consistent morality does require a
nature that seems to elude you.

"Morality" is from religion.

True but there is a primary source.

Religion is a formalized system of behavior, expectations
and values. This system expresses a moral code.

But morality may also derive from one's culture. Culture
is the keeper of the necessary principles, customs and
traditions for success within the society.

A religion is not concocted in a vacuum. It
will reflect the originator's cultural values.
A religion is only successful when it is accepted
by the society at large.

So, the moral code of a religion and that of the
culture in which it is practiced, are typically
the same.

So is it "moral" to eat gramps?

Yes, but not with milk.

The tastiest part?

Gramps' nuts cereal.
(groan if you must)

--
Jeff
It is preferential to refrain from the utilization of sesquipedalian
verbiage in the circumstance that your intellectualization can be verbalized
using compararatively simplistic lexicographical entitities.

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 20:01:59 +0100, Guido wrote:

Gunner wrote:


Im Buddhist. So once again the Mind numbed Leftist Drone gets it all
wrong. You ever going to get any of your grand claims right????

"Your not here for the hunting, are you?"

Tell us again how many karma points you get for shooting Bambi?

Bambi was a cartoon figure painted on celluloid cells. Didn't you get
the memo?

You seem to have some really weird ideas about Buddhism.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 12:50:06 -0700, "Hawke"
wrote:


For example, when the Tsunami hit last year the most
primitive and ignorant people living on the most remote islands told
reporters that the Tsunami was caused by the spirit of the ocean being
angry
with people so the wave was their punishment. That's just the kind of
thinking I expect from Gunner and friends. I'm sure he has a strong
belief
in god too.

Hawke

Im Buddhist. So once again the Mind numbed Leftist Drone gets it all
wrong. You ever going to get any of your grand claims right????

"Your not here for the hunting, are you?"

Snicker

Gunner

A Buddhist war monger who hunts? I smell some bull****. Why is it that what
Gunner says isn't believeable? How are things in fantasyland? Is that where
they hid the WMDs?

Hawke


The bull**** you smell..well..perhaps if you bathed a bit more
often...

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

In rec.crafts.metalworking Strabo wrote:

Its clear that you're not confused. You must shout
to the world that you are a godless infidel.

Perhaps. Morality does not require religion but
principles and consistent morality does require a
nature that seems to elude you. You are much more
concerned that no one mistake you as religious.

Let us not forget that originally, you stated:

" "atheist" is inconsistent with libertarian.

You can be an agnostic and a libertarian but atheists claim
an unprovable knowledge (the non-existence of a god)."

and I disagreed asserting that I am both.


I don't need to discuss (or shout) my "religion" with any one
and normally I don't. It simply came up in the discussion.

This has turned from a semantical argument to something more
personal.

At this point I will bow out and be done with it.

Jeff

For example, when the Tsunami hit last year the most
primitive and ignorant people living on the most remote islands told
reporters that the Tsunami was caused by the spirit of the ocean being
angry
with people so the wave was their punishment. That's just the kind of
thinking I expect from Gunner and friends. I'm sure he has a strong
belief
in god too.

Hawke

Im Buddhist. So once again the Mind numbed Leftist Drone gets it all
wrong. You ever going to get any of your grand claims right????

"Your not here for the hunting, are you?"

Snicker

Gunner

A Buddhist war monger who hunts? I smell some bull****. Why is it that
what
Gunner says isn't believeable? How are things in fantasyland? Is that
where
they hid the WMDs?

Hawke


The bull**** you smell..well..perhaps if you bathed a bit more
often...

Gunner

No, I know where it's coming from...your posts. But perhaps what I should do
when reading them is what the veterans at the VFW did when listening to a
Bush speech recently. Wear flaps over their ears that said "bull****
protector" on them.

Hawke

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

Atheists?

What do you call someone that doesn't know if there is such a thing as God
or not, but is actively anti religion? Is there a word for that? Areligious?

Hawke

Morality is derived from religion, but can exist separate from it.

No, that's not quite right. Morality existed before the coming of any
organized religion. It is an intrinsic trait in man so it always existed
apart from religion. Religions have just appropriated it to increase their
power and control the masses.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

Atheists?

What do you call someone that doesn't know if there is such a thing as God
or not, but is actively anti religion? Is there a word for that?
Areligious?


An Agnostic Asshole

A scientist that is an atheist, how novel is that? Turns out, not very.
According to the statistics scientists as a group are more likely to be
atheists than any other group. They are also the most highly educated
group.
Conversely, the most ignorant and uneducated people are also the most
likely
to believe in god, the stronger the belief in god the more ignorant and
uneducated they are. For example, when the Tsunami hit last year the most
primitive and ignorant people living on the most remote islands told
reporters that the Tsunami was caused by the spirit of the ocean being
angry
with people so the wave was their punishment. That's just the kind of
thinking I expect from Gunner and friends. I'm sure he has a strong
belief
in god too.

The most recent survey that I recall found scientists about
split between belief and non-belief. I recall it to be
something like 60/40 against. In any event, a belief in
a universal creator of some sort does not prevent the
application of scientific methods.

There are however two inherent problems with this and
similar surveys...

1. "Scientist" is seldom defined or held to specific
parameters.

2. "Educated" is also seldom defined or held to specific
parameters.

Historically and I think academically, education assumes
a significant and formal immersion in the liberal arts and not
simply an advanced degree or the amount of time one spends in a
technical training. Yet it has become commonplace to use
"education", particularly as it pertains to science, as a
superlative, a symbol of superiority.

So, who are the surveyors speaking to? What exactly are
they measuring? Are they walking into a university
science lab and assuming that everyone there in a white
coat is the same? Do they interview field geologists
for oil companies, or dentists?

Is a PhD in theoretical physics better educated than a
BA? Certainly much would depend on the type of school
and it's focus but all other factors being equal I'd
say not.

Your comments about the validity of statistics regarding who's a scientist
or what does "educated" mean are noteworthy. As is the case of any
statistical concept, it's only a means of presenting a true picture of the
world and it doesn't always do that well. Rather than looking at who's
educated or who's a scientist to determine the views those people have about
god, there is a much simpler way to approach the question. How about what do
the least educated, most ignorant, and backward, superstitious people think
about god, spirits, and the supernatural?

I think that it's common knowledge that with that kind of person a belief in
god and the supernatural is universally accepted. In fact, you'll have a
hard time finding an atheist in the bunch. Conversely, the relationship
between a belief in god or the supernatural and the level of a person's
education and intellect is an inverse one. Thus, the greater one's education
level and the higher a person's intellect the less likely they are to
believe in god. I think that's what I said in the first place, just in a
different way.

Hawke