Happy Atheist Forum

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7681914.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7681914.stm)

I'm staggered but infinitely happy that this will be happening in my country. It is the first stepping-stone to a more rational society, i'm sure

Oh, if ONLY we could do something like that in America.  But no bus company would approve it because the buses would be vandalized within a day (if not less).  You are lucky over there.  

If that happened here Id definitely be a part of it
maybe donate money

That's awesome, wish they had a campaign like that here.  "This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think - and thinking is anathema to religion." -Dawkins  

I think they should have those above church doors.  

Quote from: "rlrose328"Oh, if ONLY we could do something like that in America.  But no bus company would approve it because the buses would be vandalized within a day (if not less).  You are lucky over there.  

Yeah, it's too bad we live in a country full of f*ckwits.

...sorry, I've wanted to use that word all day. This seemed like the easiest route.

I just heard about this myself. I applaud our friends on the other side of the pond for getting organized and putting this campaign together. I've been talking about this topic on another forum I'm on, and even the people who say they're atheists are kind of against it because it's "unfair to those who believe in God." I think they missed the whole point of the campaign, lol.

Quote from: "karadan"http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7681914.stm

I'm staggered but infinitely happy that this will be happening in my country. It is the first stepping-stone to a more rational society, i'm sure :)

I love to listen to some lyrics in songs and one of my favourites are the words of UB40's "Don't Let It Pass You By":

QuoteThere's no-one coming with that freedom train
There's nowhere you can go where you feel no pain
Take the blinkers off your eyes
The power's in your hand
Stop waiting for your ticket to the promised land

Don't let it pass you by, don't let it pass you by
Don't let it pass you by

There ain't no heaven and there ain't no hell
Except the one we're in and you know to well
There's no-one waiting on, waiting on a higher high
Don't let the only world you're ever gonna live in pass you by

Don't let it pass you by, don't let it pass you by
Don't let it pass you by

Kyu

Quote"This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think - and thinking is anathema to religion."

Oh really? Just because you don't agree with the type of thinking being done, or the conclusions that religions draw, doesn't mean that the above quote is accurate at all, in fact it's plain stupid. What I think should have been said is that

in some religions, thinking that leads to conclusions contrary to dogma is discouraged, etc.

but to generalize in such a manner across the board does a disservice to the cause and message that you're trying to get across. I see, reading the associated press release, that every religious reference is Christian --  not all faiths have the same concept of God. Not all faiths discourage thinking.

I offer this opinion from a dedicated member of a religion which absolutely encourages critical thinking.

Quote from: "karakara"

Quote"This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think - and thinking is anathema to religion."

Oh really? Just because you don't agree with the type of thinking being done, or the conclusions that religions draw, doesn't mean that the above quote is accurate at all, in fact it's plain stupid. What I think should have been said is that

in some religions, thinking that leads to conclusions contrary to dogma is discouraged, etc.

but to generalize in such a manner across the board does a disservice to the cause and message that you're trying to get across. I see, reading the associated press release, that every religious reference is Christian --  not all faiths have the same concept of God. Not all faiths discourage thinking.

I offer this opinion from a dedicated member of a religion which absolutely encourages critical thinking.

But all religions have one basic generalisation - a god/deity/creator/supreme being. All religions worship this in some way. I don't see how the slogan "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life"  is inaccurate from an atheistic point of view. In fact i feel it is totally apt and should really have read "There's definitely no God. Now quit worrying about something which doesn't exist."

OK Karadan,

Back when I was an atheist, in a situation such as this I'd probably throw
out a Carl Sagan quote such as "Extroardinary claims require extraordinary
Evidence", or something of the sort. Since the existence of God
can be neither proven or disproved, why don't you try to defend your
assertion that "There's definitely no God. Now quit worrying about something which doesn't exist."
I was talking about the Dawkins quote. You can put whatever you want
on your buses, I couldn't care less, but Dawkin's assertion and his
painting all faiths with the same brush is what I took exception to.

Your statement is eqaually rediculous, and doesn't warrant a serious response.

Quote from: "karakara"Since the existence of God can be neither proven or disproved

The existence of an invisible flying purple people eater purple can neither be proven or disproven ... would you accept as a working hypothesis that it might exist and that we should all act with that in mind and be forced to justify our stance with respect to the claim?

Kyu

I won't get nasty, but simply observe that your analogy is an extremely poor one at best. You should hook up with Jolly Sapper on for a crash course in 'Relevant Analogies: 101".

Sat Nam

Quote from: "karakara"OK Karadan,

Back when I was an atheist, in a situation such as this I'd probably throw
out a Carl Sagan quote such as "Extroardinary claims require extraordinary
Evidence", or something of the sort. Since the existence of God
can be neither proven or disproved, why don't you try to defend your
assertion that "There's definitely no God. Now quit worrying about something which doesn't exist."
I was talking about the Dawkins quote. You can put whatever you want
on your buses, I couldn't care less, but Dawkin's assertion and his
painting all faiths with the same brush is what I took exception to.

Your statement is eqaually rediculous, and doesn't warrant a serious response.

Getting people to debate on this subject was the aim. I'm sure you aren't the only one who has taken exception to its statement.

I do not need to defend my assertion that there is no god. I'm typing on an atheist website. That should be all the evidence you need to support my claim for the school of thought i subscribe to. In my opinion, anyone who believes in a higher power is deluded. Full stop. Whether the tenet of your faith calls for individualistic thinking or not doesn't really stop the fact that it is still based upon a ficticious deity and therefore, a delusion.

I don't see why my statement is ridiculous. As far as i'm concerned, i'm right. I have reason and sanity on my side, too.

Besides, if your religion absolutely encourages critical thinking then why can't you entertain the possibility that your are wrong about god? If you don't think my statement warrants a serious response then you aren't thinking critically at all. You are steadfast in an unshakeable belief system which is not open to critical analysis.

What a bunch of shit. Pardon my French.

QuoteI do not need to defend my assertion that there is no god. I'm typing on an atheist website. That should be all the evidence you need to support my claim for the school of thought i subscribe to.

Yes, it's an 'Atheist' website, but it's also the 'Religion' section, so unless you're well versed in in this vast topic, you're talking out of your ass. Your 1 dimensional thinking and arguments are what I'd expect from an 11 year old. Just because you make some assertion based on something that you know nothing about doesn't make it so.

You're entitled to your opinion, but not all opinions carry equal weight. I'll let you have the last word and if you want, you can even declare 'victory', but I'm not getting anything substantive out of your thinking. Enjoy the hard on you get from your stupid bus billboard, or whatever, I suppose a little kid would get the same thrill if they saw an ad of someone picking their nose plastered on a bus.. wow, so many people will disapprove, so naughty, hey, they can't do that... enjoy your thrill.

Sat Nam

QuoteThe existence of an invisible flying purple people eater purple can neither be proven or disproven ... would you accept as a working hypothesis that it might exist and that we should all act with that in mind and be forced to justify our stance with respect to the claim?

A common point made against Christianity...however this assumes that the Christian argument is made in isolation. That is not the case. There are evidences in various aspects of the world that lead some of us to our faith in Christianity. If you want we could start a discussion on that subject, it is a valid question.

Quote from: "karakara"What a bunch of shit. Pardon my French.

QuoteI do not need to defend my assertion that there is no god. I'm typing on an atheist website. That should be all the evidence you need to support my claim for the school of thought i subscribe to.

Yes, it's an 'Atheist' website, but it's also the 'Religion' section, so unless you're well versed in in this vast topic, you're talking out of your ass. Your 1 dimensional thinking and arguments are what I'd expect from an 11 year old. Just because you make some assertion based on something that you know nothing about doesn't make it so.

You're entitled to your opinion, but not all opinions carry equal weight. I'll let you have the last word and if you want, you can even declare 'victory', but I'm not getting anything substantive out of your thinking. Enjoy the hard on you get from your stupid bus billboard, or whatever, I suppose a little kid would get the same thrill if they saw an ad of someone picking their nose plastered on a bus.. wow, so many people will disapprove, so naughty, hey, they can't do that... enjoy your thrill.

Sat Nam

I've touched a nerve, obviously.

I like the way you glide over my statement:

Besides, if your religion absolutely encourages critical thinking then why can't you entertain the possibility that your are wrong about god? If you don't think my statement warrants a serious response then you aren't thinking critically at all. You are steadfast in an unshakeable belief system which is not open to critical analysis.

Maybe you are pissed off because i found a weakness in your theory? A weakness being, that if you try to conceive a universe without god, the entire foundation of your deity-based belief system comes crashing down around you. My belief system has no such tentative instability, well, unless the second coming happened tomorrow. In that case i'd have to stand corrected

And yes, i am entitled to my opinion and in that opinion i declare that god definitely does not exist. Deal with it.

I'd prefer not to have the last word. I'd like to carry this on. I'd like you to prove to me that your religion is COMPLETELY open to critical analysis including the debate on whether god even exists or not. If you cannot entertain this then your original statement is null and void and your argument poignantly moot.[

That being said Karadan, how did matter come into existence?

Quote from: "Titan"That being said Karadan, how did matter come into existence?

I can answer that one:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages107.fotki.com%2Fv546%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2FBigBangfamilyguy-vi.gif&hash=a87d9545efe4049f506152ee4c1b5d806af01552)

Quote from: "Titan"That being said Karadan, how did matter come into existence?

To really understand the answer to that question you'd have to be able to think in nine dimensions. I'm quite partial to the multiple consecutive sequential universe theory, though.

That being said, the big bang is the best hypothesis for the conditions directly after the beginning of the universe. As to how it happened, well, it is always happening. A hyper-dimensional cosmic fireball continuously giving birth to all manner of universes. We see it as a singular event because we live and percieve our universe through three dimensions. This limits our ability to understand the big bang principle and it cannot really be understood without radical brain chemistry alteration.

That is a theory, of course.

I find the slogan "There is probably no God" also rather silly. It is just like saying "There is probably no Santa Claus" or "Evolution might be right". Couldn't they've come up with a better slogan?

Quote from: "karakara"I won't get nasty, but simply observe that your analogy is an extremely poor one at best.

Why? Exactly what makes my analogy a poor one? Justify your assertion.

Kyu

Without pointing any fingers, I would like to remind those participating in this thread that rule one calls for treating others with respect.

Quote from: "Tom62"I find the slogan "There is probably no God" also rather silly. It is just like saying "There is probably no Santa Claus" or "Evolution might be right". Couldn't they've come up with a better slogan?

I think that by saying "probably" it is more likely to appeal to a wider audience possibly   getting them to think about the statment rather than brush it off as atheist closed mindedness.

karadan,

You win, you win, HOORAY for karadan!!! And your prize is: an empty soul and a life devoid of the beauty and ecstasy of the spiritual and
mystical experience. But this is your choice.. but.. you have free will. Minds and hearts can change. In fact, if you're really smart and your make the effort to find you true spiritual calling, and friend, it's out there just waiting for you.. you'll find it.

Friend, this thread is spiraling into the realm of the absurd.. it's just the polar dynamic set up by our positions. I've read some of your other post, pls. read mine to see where I'm coming from.

I'll leave you with this, the opening verse of my holy book, Siri Guru Granth Sahib, it's called 'Mool Mantra', and in a nutshell, it's all anyone needs to know about Sikhism. Sung by an angel on earth, Snatam Kaur Khalsa, pride of Sikhs everywhere. I recite this every morning before I get up, and I sing this, as well as many other shabads, during worship. The feeling it gives me is indescribable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3zUYK4YU8M (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3zUYK4YU8M)

See you on some other thread, hopefully more upbeat.

That's a great video, karakara.  Some incredible imagery to go with a song to match.  Albeit, I didn't understand most of it, but it was pleasing to listen to.  But in regards to what you posted, I think a lot of religious folks get the impression that atheists aren't happy to be alive, or that they don't see the beauty in things.  I can't speak for everyone, but I'm ridiculously happy to be here, atoms arranged in such an unlikely fashion.  My existence, or the existence of beautiful mountain vista wasn't preordained or promised from the beginning.  As someone has a forum signature saying, "I want to be a human being, not a human doing," and that's how I see it.  Everything is glorious and worth remark, and I try to take nothing for granted.  Not seeing anything supernatural at work doesn't make my existence feel hollow, though it did at first.  Scientists and atheists typically use language that doesn't reflect how they feel about something, but that should never be taken to mean they don't feel.   I don't think I can keep excitement out of my voice as I explain my current understanding of how we got here to other interested people, but hearing concrete scientific terms rather than ones that culturally inspire (miracle) often leaves my audience without enthusiasm because their attention is being directed to how something happened, not how great it is (to me at least) that we're here to discuss it.  I think the impression of a lot of people is that atheists look at something remarkable and say, "It's all just matter and energy, why should I care?" when I say,"Woah!  Look at how that matter and energy is arranged!  How awesome!"  This reaction is not likely universal to all atheists, but then I doubt all religious or spiritual folks see beauty in everything, and I know we all take some stuff for granted.

Point is, I'm happy to be here, and I'm happy you're here, and I'm happy that we can have this conversation!
Here's hoping you stick around!  

Holy Cow PipeBox -- you're right, you're an Atheist.. as was I... but by your own words, you're spiritual. In fact, I highly, highly recommend you find a copy of "The Mystic Heart: Discovering a Universal Spirituality in the World's Religions".. by Wayne Teasdale. You sound like a Mystic who simply isn't aware of who or what you are.

If you don't mind, since I find your post interesting, I'll make a few comments:

QuoteThat's a great video, karakara. Some incredible imagery to go with a song to match. Albeit, I didn't understand most of it, but it was pleasing to listen to.

It's the Mool Mantra, uttered by our founding Guru (Guru = 'One who removes darkness from our eyes') Siri Guru Nanak Dev Sahib Ji.. aka 'Guru Nanak'.. after his revelation from God. All Sikhs recite this mantra before sunrise to begin the day. For brevity's sake I'll just say that, but to really understand the power of the concepts of Mool Mantra, you have to understand the history and times of Guru Nanak.. what he was saying was revolutionary. Thank you for even bothering to click the link ;-)

QuoteI think a lot of religious folks get the impression that atheists aren't happy to be alive, or that they don't see the beauty in things. I can't speak for everyone, but I'm ridiculously happy to be here, atoms arranged in such an unlikely fashion.

You are absolutely right, indeed. I was an atheist, and felt the same as you, as I did enjoy life and considered that I had had developed my own standards of conduct, decency, morality, etc., over the years.. I knew that I was a more moral person than many so-called 'religious' people, and no doubt, there are many members of this forum who are better Human Beings that many so-called 'religious' people.  I know you are right, as my faith teaches me that all Human Beings, far from being 'Fallen Creatures' as some othe faiths teach, believes the opposite. Guru Nanak was given the insight by God that all Human Beings posess his gift, the Light of Divinity in their (our) souls. We are divine entities by our nature and by God's Grace. Our greatest challenge as Human Beings is to realize and acknowledge this truth, and then once we understand the magnitude of our divine gift from God, how to live up to this awesome responsibility.

QuoteMy existence, or the existence of beautiful mountain vista wasn't preordained or promised from the beginning.

I believe you, again, are correct. God's symphony is being written every second. We have free will. As Sikh, I have to accept whatever science proves. Our faith has no conflict with science.. you'll never hear a Sikh making some claim that the Earth is only 5000 years old, that dinosaurs are a lie, etc. No conflict. In fact, Guru Nanak describes the Big Bang. 500 years ago. Compared to other religions cosmologies/cosmogenies, this is incredible. How did he know?

QuoteEverything is glorious and worth remark, and I try to take nothing for granted.

PipeBox, you mystic, you Zen you...

QuoteNot seeing anything supernatural at work doesn't make my existence feel hollow, though it did at first.

I can understand.. been there! Even without God, the universe is more amazing that we can imagine.. and we can imagine quite a bit.

QuoteScientists and atheists typically use language that doesn't reflect how they feel about something, but that should never be taken to mean they don't feel.

Ditto. Since scientists and atheists are, after all, Human(!), then by my own faith I acknowledge the divine spirit, divine light of their souls... they cannot fail to experience the same awe and beauty in life that I can.

QuoteI don't think I can keep excitement out of my voice as I explain my current understanding of how we got here to other interested people, but hearing concrete scientific terms rather than ones that culturally inspire (miracle) often leaves my audience without enthusiasm because their attention is being directed to how something happened, not how great it is (to me at least) that we're here to discuss it.

I'm chuckling, as I just wrote a post at Sikhnet that cautions against the misuse of 'miracles' as explanation, superstition, and about the human tendency to draw false conclusions.. correlation does not prove causation.. I can speak your language quite fluently, friend. Having said that, it's our belief that the Universe was created, and that this is the Original Miracle, and depending on your definition of 'miracle', you can say that everything is a miracle, or sub-miracles of the original miracle.. being spawned of a miracle..

You make good points, and I concede that atheists are the target of too much stereotyping.  After all, a-theist just means a person who does not subscribe to any particular theology..  it does not exclude an aspect of spirituality in the person. An 'Atheist' can indeed be 'Spiritual but Not Religious'..

Please get that book, I think you'll see your own thoughts and experiences on almost every page.

Sat Nam.

Sorry it's taken me so long to reply!

I'll definitely look around for that book, hopefully it'll be at Books-A-Million so that way I can give it a scan before buying.  

As to my spirituality, I'd say I'm almost as spiritual as your typical pantheist.  But I don't class myself one because I don't trust myself to keep to a standard.  But I can't, at this point, intellectually endorse Sikhism.  It takes that leap of faith that there is a Creator God, and that humans have the ability to make contact with it.   And I would not be able to take a knee in any religion without constantly questioning it.  And that isn't a good way of living, in my humble opinion, perpetually in doubt.  Since leaving Christianity I've become to skeptical of supernatural beliefs to just pick a new one based on its many merits (even acceptance of science and not looking down on others, which are huge selling points).  I also could never hold my tongue if others were discussing religions, it's not in my ability to give religions I find morally or intellectually bankrupt a free pass.  So if I ran into a Fundamentalist Christian, I'd not be able to keep my mouth shut if they couldn't do the same with theirs.   :)

Apologies if this scatterbrained, I'm still sleepy.

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "karakara"I won't get nasty, but simply observe that your analogy is an extremely poor one at best.

Why? Exactly what makes my analogy a poor one? Justify your assertion.

Karakara ... I'm still waiting for you to justify your assertion.

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "karakara"I won't get nasty, but simply observe that your analogy is an extremely poor one at best.

Why? Exactly what makes my analogy a poor one? Justify your assertion.

Karakara ... I'm still waiting for you to justify your assertion.

Kyu

me too.

Friend,

I owe you an apology for first saying that I wouldn't get nasty, then I got nasty. I'll take that demerit and stay after school.. bad day.

As far as 'justifying my assertion' .. I don't feel the need, it should be self-evident. Some things are simply self-evident.

Sat Nam

Quote from: "karakara"Friend,

I owe you an apology for first saying that I wouldn't get nasty, then I got nasty. I'll take that demerit and stay after school.. bad day.

As far as 'justifying my assertion' .. I don't feel the need, it should be self-evident. Some things are simply self-evident.

Sat Nam

Indeed.

My apologies for goading you. I'm not really a confrontationist so if i sounded like i was being disrespectful, i apologise. That certainly is not my agenda.

Quote from: "karakara"Some things are simply self-evident.

No it isn't ... please justify your assertion.

Kyu

Kyuuketsuki Ji (Ji is a term of respect that we add after people's names in Panjabi)

Lol, How did I know that you wouldn't be able to resist chiming in?

Well, I'll have plenty of time for 'justifying my assertions', but even so, from our polar opposite perspectives, we'd probably just be talking past each other.

But -- hey,a pimple on your ass is ... a pimple on your ass. Self-Evident.

Sat Nam,

Quote from: "karakara"But -- hey,a pimple on your ass is ... a pimple on your ass. Self-Evident.

Not when it's Methicilin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus and just looks like a pimple. That stuff'll kill ya. (I should know. I was quarantined in the hospital because of it.)

Quote from: "karakara"hey,a pimple on your ass is ... a pimple on your ass. Self-Evident.

Stop avoiding the point and justify the assertion as requested please.

Kyu

Kyu Ji,

Last time I checked, this was the Religion section of this  forum. Were I to post what I did in any other section, then
I'm on 'your turf', so to speak. My purpose for posting anything here.. although I occssionally lapse and break my own rules..
is to educate and provide information, not to subject myself to cross-examination by Atheists.  I'm not on trial. For that matter, if you've read some of my earlier posts you know that I'm a former Atheist and was quite skilled myself at baiting and debating 'religious people' in the past.. before I found God.

 Kyu, I know the game here too well, and I just don't play by your rules as you define them... as I used to define them.  I know from my own past that in my 'Atheist' days, I could always win any argument with religious people.. but the game was rigged, the rules skewed. And as I can clearly see today, for all of my hollow debate 'victories', I proved nothing..  I won't convince you of anything, nor will you of me. We have different world view, different perspectives, and different experiences, or lack thereof.

Sat Nam

Quote from: "karakara"Some Waffle

Stop avoiding the point and justify the assertion as requested please.

Kyu

Folks, this is the Religion section. I don't see how further goading and repeating the same question will go anywhere. Sometimes you have to agree to disagree.

Quote from: "McQ"Folks, this is the Religion section. I don't see how further goading and repeating the same question will go anywhere. Sometimes you have to agree to disagree.

With respect McQ I strongly disagree ... this is (as far as I know) a forum in which people discuss and debate issues and if the someone involved in such a debate (which karakara is and so am I) and won't deal with the point given then I believe it is valid to repeat the unanswered point until that person either deals with it or withdraws the assertion made.

Karakara made an assertion that what I said was self-evidently wrong so, until such point as she justifies it or withdraws it I believe I have the right to continue to ask her to do so.  

Kyu

Kyu Ji,

It's 'he' .. I'm a little to hairy for a 'she'.

With all due respect, my answer is my answer. I just ain't playing by your rules, been there, done that. Please get over it. Declare victory if it makes you feel
any better, or if you have some psychological need for 'closure'. I'm also trying to bring an obvious 'human element' to counter your.. well, 'sterile' tone.

Sat Nam

Quote from: "karakara"With all due respect, my answer is my answer. I just ain't playing by your rules, been there, done that. Please get over it. Declare victory if it makes you feel
any better, or if you have some psychological need for 'closure'. I'm also trying to bring an obvious 'human element' to counter your.. well, 'sterile' tone.

No ... unless you are prepared to state that you are ignoring the basic rules of debate, explain your assertion or withdraw it I will not get over it.

You are the interloper here.

Kyu

Kyu,

Well hell Pal, yes, I'm ignoring basic rules of debate, as I've repeatedly said, I don't play by your rules. Your rules don't apply to some aspects of spirituality. They're inadequate. So I'm the interloper in this case, fair and good. If you want a forum that mandates structured rules of debate, go start your own. As long as I'm given license to post, argue, assert, respond, expound, bloviate, etc., freestyle -- playing it by ear, as I seem fit, I'll do it, as Frank Sinatra says, 'My Way'. From this point on in this particular thread, I feel compelled to ignore your pestering.

Quote from: "karakara"Kyu,

Well hell Pal, yes, I'm ignoring basic rules of debate, as I've repeatedly said, I don't play by your rules. Your rules don't apply to some aspects of spirituality. They're inadequate. So I'm the interloper in this case, fair and good. If you want a forum that mandates structured rules of debate, go start your own. As long as I'm given license to post, argue, assert, respond, expound, bloviate, etc., freestyle -- playing it by ear, as I seem fit, I'll do it, as Frank Sinatra says, 'My Way'. From this point on in this particular thread, I feel compelled to ignore your pestering.

And I reserve the right to continue "pestering" you for it.

QuoteKarakara:
Since the existence of God can be neither proven or disproved

Kyuuketsuki:
The existence of an invisible flying purple people eater purple can neither be proven or disproven ... would you accept as a working hypothesis that it might exist and that we should all act with that in mind and be forced to justify our stance with respect to the claim?

Karakara:
I won't get nasty, but simply observe that your analogy is an extremely poor one at best.

Kyuuketsuki:
Why? Exactly what makes my analogy a poor one? Justify your assertion.

Kyuuketsuki:
Karakara ... I'm still waiting for you to justify your assertion.

Karakara:
As far as 'justifying my assertion' .. I don't feel the need, it should be self-evident. Some things are simply self-evident.

Kyuuketsuki:
No it isn't ... please justify your assertion

Karakara:
Well, I'll have plenty of time for 'justifying my assertions', but even so, from our polar opposite perspectives, we'd probably just be talking past each other. But -- hey,a pimple on your ass is ... a pimple on your ass. Self-Evident.

Kyuuketsuki:
Stop avoiding the point and justify the assertion as requested please.

Karakara:
Kyu, I know the game here too well, and I just don't play by your rules as you define them... as I used to define them. I know from my own past that in my 'Atheist' days, I could always win any argument with religious people.. but the game was rigged, the rules skewed. And as I can clearly see today, for all of my hollow debate 'victories', I proved nothing.. I won't convince you of anything, nor will you of me. We have different world view, different perspectives, and different experiences, or lack thereof.

Kyuuketsuki:
Stop avoiding the point and justify the assertion as requested please.

Karakara:
With all due respect, my answer is my answer. I just ain't playing by your rules, been there, done that. Please get over it. Declare victory if it makes you feel
any better, or if you have some psychological need for 'closure'. I'm also trying to bring an obvious 'human element' to counter your.. well, 'sterile' tone.

Kyuuketsuki:
No ... unless you are prepared to state that you are ignoring the basic rules of debate, explain your assertion or withdraw it I will not get over it. You are the interloper here.

Karakara:
Well hell Pal, yes, I'm ignoring basic rules of debate, as I've repeatedly said, I don't play by your rules. Your rules don't apply to some aspects of spirituality. They're inadequate. So I'm the interloper in this case, fair and good. If you want a forum that mandates structured rules of debate, go start your own. As long as I'm given license to post, argue, assert, respond, expound, bloviate, etc., freestyle -- playing it by ear, as I seem fit, I'll do it, as Frank Sinatra says, 'My Way'. From this point on in this particular thread, I feel compelled to ignore your pestering.

Kyuuketsuki:

Now once again, please can explain your earlier assertion that my analogy was a poor one? Failing that will you please withdraw it?

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "karakara"With all due respect, my answer is my answer. I just ain't playing by your rules, been there, done that. Please get over it. Declare victory if it makes you feel
any better, or if you have some psychological need for 'closure'. I'm also trying to bring an obvious 'human element' to counter your.. well, 'sterile' tone.

No ... unless you are prepared to state that you are ignoring the basic rules of debate, explain your assertion or withdraw it I will not get over it.

You are the interloper here.

Kyu

Kyu, when I last looked, karakara was a member in good standing here just as much as you are. He is not an interloper. Although this is an atheist forum, all people are welcome as members. Additionally, whether or not you agree with me or not on my assertion that sometimes you just have to agree to disagree, that's the truth. Sometimes you do. If you want to ignore that advice, you are free to as you are not breaking any forum rules of course, but the adage of "win the battle and lose the war" comes to mind here. You gain nothing by your current course of action, but stand to gain credibility by taking a higher road and allowing another individual his opinion.

Quote from: "McQ"Kyu, when I last looked, karakara was a member in good standing here just as much as you are. He is not an interloper. Although this is an atheist forum, all people are welcome as members. Additionally, whether or not you agree with me or not on my assertion that sometimes you just have to agree to disagree, that's the truth. Sometimes you do. If you want to ignore that advice, you are free to as you are not breaking any forum rules of course, but the adage of "win the battle and lose the war" comes to mind here. You gain nothing by your current course of action, but stand to gain credibility by taking a higher road and allowing another individual his opinion.

Actually I do gain something ... I continue to demonstrate that Karakra is not observing the generally understood conventions of debate, that makes her look bad and, if the truth be known, I'm entirely happy with that.

Kyu

Psst, Kyu, him, you'd be making him look bad.  But I did honestly think he was a she, too, the name structure lead me astray.   ;)

OK, I'll go hide under a rock now.

Hmm, i just realised my name begins with 'Kara' too... Hope people here don't think i'm a girl. Not that that's a bad thing, just that i like to avoid misconceptions where possible

Seems like the bus campaign is in the US also now  

http://ozatheist.wordpress.com/2008/11/13/atheist-bus-campaign-comes-to-america/

Quote from: "NoFearNoLimits"Seems like the bus campaign is in the US also now  

http://ozatheist.wordpress.com/2008/11/13/atheist-bus-campaign-comes-to-america/

Ouch! I can see there being trouble over it there!!!

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "NoFearNoLimits"Seems like the bus campaign is in the US also now  

http://ozatheist.wordpress.com/2008/11/13/atheist-bus-campaign-comes-to-america/

Ouch! I can see there being trouble over it there!!!

Kyu

Wow!!

That is badass. I'll be watching that story closely.

Well found.

The American buses are going to get graffiti all over them.

Quote from: "Lila"The American buses are going to get graffiti all over them.

They really should just put images blank canvases on all the other buses and say, "PLACE YOUR ART HERE".  

Quote from: "Lila"The American buses are going to get graffiti all over them.

And yet the christians over there claim moral high ground... is vandalizing buses considered beneficial for society? Isn't it a crime?

There are probably only a handful of places in the U.S. where such nonsense will be tolerated -- I say 'nonsense', because you're not promoting intelligent discourse, but simply being provocative.. so expect a visceral reaction.

I can see Berkeley, CA and maybe San Franscisco enthusiastically embracing these banners.. you'll have to find not only ultra-liberal enclaves, but those which also control local governments. For example, I live in the 5 College Area of Western Massachusetts, all of which have a reputation for being located in fairly liberal communities, but even so, there are enough powerful religious community leaders such that this would have zero chance of avoiding conflict.. the banners would be torn off, or the public transit system would be ordered to remove them.

Christianity might be on the decline in the U.K.. .for that matter, I wonder how many Muslims would tolerate this.. but in the U.S., they're still quite energized.. not to mention our Jewish, Muslim, etc., leaders who just will not be able to abide this.  

And if the banners ride around town on buses in Berkeley, who cares?? You won't see this in New York City...

Quote from: "karakara"There are probably only a handful of places in the U.S. where such nonsense will be tolerated -- I say 'nonsense', because you're not promoting intelligent discourse, but simply being provocative

How so? Elaborate please...

Quote.. there are enough powerful religious community leaders such that this would have zero chance of avoiding conflict.. the banners would be torn off, or the public transit system would be ordered to remove them...not to mention our Jewish, Muslim, etc., leaders who just will not be able to abide this.  

Why not? Christians abide Jews openly denying that Jesus was the son of God, Muslims abide the Christians claim that their religion is inherantly evil, and so on and so forth. Why should this be ANY different?

Seriously.  I think if Muslim and Christian and other assorted religious messages can travel around unassailed, then atheist messages can too.  Especially since this shouldn't even qualify as "nonsense," given it isn't presented as an attack but a message of community and well-wishes for the sake of them.

There's no way this deserves to be defaced, though some people will take the smallest things as threats to their faith.  If I can stay my hand and not vandalize church signs, surely those with the help of their gods can stay their hands from defacing public transports.

Quote from: "PipeBox"Seriously.  I think if Muslim and Christian and other assorted religious messages can travel around unassailed, then atheist messages can too. .

My point exactly! Well put

Quote from: "PipeBox"Seriously.  I think if Muslim and Christian and other assorted religious messages can travel around unassailed, then atheist messages can too.  Especially since this shouldn't even qualify as "nonsense," given it isn't presented as an attack but a message of community and well-wishes for the sake of them.

There's no way this deserves to be defaced, though some people will take the smallest things as threats to their faith.  If I can stay my hand and not vandalize church signs, surely those with the help of their gods can stay their hands from defacing public transports.

As I've said before,

QuotePerspective is Everything..

How do you think this will be perceived by religious people??? Of course, you yourselves see this as 'a message of community and well-wishes for
the sake of them..' are you deaf, blind and dumb as to how this will be perceived by the 'other side'? Your take on what this is about is irrelevant as far as how it is perceived by religious people. Just as if the situation were reversed in some way.. they would fail to take into account your world view as you see it...

Friend, why would you vandalize church signs?  I don't see this as an appropriate analogy. It's not like mainstream... anywhere... has ever been atheist and some church has sprung up, and is putting billboards on buses ... even that's not a good analogy.. I shouldn't even have to make one, this is so self-evident to anyone with even a shred of wherewithal  and empathy. As they see it, Religion everywhere is under attack.. whether this is accurate or not isn't the point, that's their perception.. so why not engage in dialog rather than some smug and superficially harmless gesture as the bus banners, which, having Dawkins' fingerprints all over them, have a huge agenda behind them.

I try to have empathy for the atheist side, as you know I was one.. easy for me. Empathy does not come naturally for many.. try to walk the mile in the other shoe...

Quote from: "Zarathustra"

Quote from: "PipeBox"Seriously.  I think if Muslim and Christian and other assorted religious messages can travel around unassailed, then atheist messages can too. .

My point exactly! Well put

OK Major Tom, but I expected a more... philosophical ... opinion from you.

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "McQ"Kyu, when I last looked, karakara was a member in good standing here just as much as you are. He is not an interloper. Although this is an atheist forum, all people are welcome as members. Additionally, whether or not you agree with me or not on my assertion that sometimes you just have to agree to disagree, that's the truth. Sometimes you do. If you want to ignore that advice, you are free to as you are not breaking any forum rules of course, but the adage of "win the battle and lose the war" comes to mind here. You gain nothing by your current course of action, but stand to gain credibility by taking a higher road and allowing another individual his opinion.

Actually I do gain something ... I continue to demonstrate that Karakra is not observing the generally understood conventions of debate, that makes her look bad and, if the truth be known, I'm entirely happy with that.

Kyu

Wow, you really dislike me. I must be doing something right.

Go ahead and believe that you're demonstrating something, I don't know what .... also, I'm a guy last time I checked.. a 'Kara' is a Sikh iron or steel bracelet , usually very large and heavy, often inscribed.. as are mine, with verses from our Holy Book, Siri Guru Granth Sahib.. and the Kara is mandatory to be worn by all Khalsa. Look up '5 Ks' , google it. Kara is also a common woman's name, I'm aware of this confusion.

How many times do I have to say man that we're in the R E L I G I O N  section of the forum??  I'm not on trial. I dont' play by your stinkin stacked 'generally understood conventions of debate', hell, I was on two debate teams myself, I have more than a passing familiarity with how the game is played.. read my lips pal, I AIN'T PLAYING BY YOUR RULES. Pls. get over it. You're just pissed off because I got under your skin and you've yet to get the better of me. Stop whining.. stop coming across as a numbingly predictable logic algorithm, .. I'll start calling you BOOLEAN-suki .. I'm not convinced you're human at all, in fact..  not only can machines be painfully antiseptic and cold, but they can be annoying..  which to date describes you pretty accurately, as far as I've seen.. and what do you know of truth??

Quote from: "karakara"Wow, you really dislike me. I must be doing something right.

Dislike you? No. Contemptuous of you? Oh most certainly.

As for the rest of the drivel in your post I will say nothing except to remind you that you made a claim and in any debate it is neither unreasonable or illogical to expect you to respond postively to a request to justify that claim. That you have not done so speaks volumes about you and fully explains why I will not waste my time and effort debating you.

Titan, OTOH, generally knows how to argue, raises challenging points in a fashion far beyond your ken and is a genuine please to debate with  so I will concentrate my efforts where they have value.

Kyu

Quote from: "karakara"

Quote from: "Zarathustra"

Quote from: "PipeBox"Seriously.  I think if Muslim and Christian and other assorted religious messages can travel around unassailed, then atheist messages can too. .

My point exactly! Well put

OK Major Tom, but I expected a more... philosophical ... opinion from you.

Well THAT was respecful...Private Joe... dissing my comment for PipeBox, but not responding to my questions regarding your groundless assertions.
I was going to refute that, but I won't let the issue astray. Therefore I'll give you the chance to do the right and respectfulthing, and try to answer the original post:

Quote from: "Zarathustra"

Quote from: "karakara"There are probably only a handful of places in the U.S. where such nonsense will be tolerated -- I say 'nonsense', because you're not promoting intelligent discourse, but simply being provocative

How so? Elaborate please...

Quote.. there are enough powerful religious community leaders such that this would have zero chance of avoiding conflict.. the banners would be torn off, or the public transit system would be ordered to remove them...not to mention our Jewish, Muslim, etc., leaders who just will not be able to abide this.

Why not? Christians abide Jews openly denying that Jesus was the son of God, Muslims abide the Christians claim that their religion is inherantly evil, and so on and so forth. Why should this be ANY different?

Is that to much to ask? I'll provide you with all the...philosophy... you need in return.

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "karakara"Since the existence of God can be neither proven or disproved

The existence of an invisible flying purple people eater purple can neither be proven or disproven ... would you accept as a working hypothesis that it might exist and that we should all act with that in mind and be forced to justify our stance with respect to the claim?

Kyu

Let's not forget, this is the brainstorm that you seem to be so proud of -- I bet  you stayed up all night formulating, redrafting, etc. I'm thunderstruck at the brilliance of this analogy, why hadn't anyone ever thought of that before, Shazam, your brilliant analogy should act as a true epiphany for any dumb religious person.. wait.. a casual google search of "flying purple people eater"+god shows that atheist just love to spin some version of this nonsensical analogy. Must be some subconscious affinity for their childhood friend 'Barney the Purple Dinosaur' or something equally ludicrous.. but it has entertainment value, I suppose.

Your insultingly disrespectful, flippant and wholly irrelevant analogy is laughable for many reasons, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record myself, I'll restate: some things are self evident. Not truly need further explanation. A child can see that the purpose of that analogy is to mock, ridicule, insult, but mostly to condescendingly dismiss. I'll also reiterate why I don't feel  compelled to conform to your style of argumentation and debate.. to make it simple, when Mr. Kyu, for example, and I are speaking, we come from a radically different mindset, world view, perspective: his  arguments, expectations, rationalization, and logic are fine and necessary when speaking about, for example, any field of science. I would accept his 'rules 'in this case.. science in fact demands the process of The Scientific Method: Observation, Formulation of Hypothesis, Testing of said Hypothesis, Independent testing to prove replicatability, etc.

When we're talking about spirituality, and all that this inadequate umbrella label encompasses, the very nature of the experience or phenomenon(phenomena) is such that to apply the Scientific Method is not only impractical, but nearly impossible. Not totally... but extremely difficult, and in any case, that work simply has not thoroughly been done. Although I've given some thought to how this would be done, and there are ways if you really narrow your hypothesis to something that is actually 'testable' such as, for example, Vilayanur Ramachandran, I mention him as he's highly regarded by Richard Dawkins, so I imagine most of you should have seen his name at least in passing. For those not familiar, he's an extremely interesting Neuroscientist who's managed to inflame Muslims to the point that I fear for his life... I can image a 'Fatwah' being issued on him.. he's theorized that the neurological condition of 'Left Temporal Lobe Epilepsy' often leads to psychological states of spiritual, or 'mystical' trance, and a common experience of 'talking to God'.. or of 'reciting' the words of God or Angels....Now, he not pushing his own agenda, but he's not afraid to ruffle some feathers.. to actually publish his work took courage, and I have admiration for the guy. So, some phenomena or aspects of spirituality can, in fact, be hypothesized and put to some kind of test .. and from this knowledge base, over time, perhaps a better picture will emerge as to the nature of Man, God, Spirituality, etc.

 I'm all for this.. but as I say, 'Perspective is Everything'.. to the atheist, this would probably tend to  reinforce the belief that anything related to 'God' or religion can be broken down, analyzed, tested, then neatly labeled and filed away, case closed. To the 'believer', and I have to find this amusing.. the very same data might very possibly  reinforce his/her belief in God... How? I can't speak for adherents of the Abrahamic faiths, but to those of the Dharmic faiths, who believe that every atom of our being is unfused with God, that God lives and breaths in and through us, that we all possess the ability, through proven methods, of attaining union with God.. from practices of meditation, to more advance 'mystical' practices of experiencing God.. then there is no contradiction with anything that science can show. For example, a Hindu might look at Ramachandran's work and say 'Oh yes, so he is simply showing that in some altered states of cognition, whether self-induced, or brought about by some organic condition, the mind becomes fertile ground for the manifestation of God in the person's awareness..." Now, how to come up with a testable hypothesis to refute that conclusion by our Hindu friends? .. this can spiral and spiral forever, because the base belief systems of the scientist and of the believer are worlds apart... I find it remarkable that probably the  majority of the people on earth can live comfortably in both worlds.. some clear exceptions notwithstanding (fundamentalists of any stripe, etc.). Whether this points to the remarkable ability of Homo Sapiens to compartmentalize his beliefs, or to something else, I can't say.

Another point I'd make is that, depending on who's data or statistics you accept, somewhere in the order of 95-98 percent of the human population believes in a deity or deities.. or come from a culture with a supernatural cosmology, and accept as factual that God, by whatever definition, existed and exists. Not all beliefs and opinions carry equal weight, as I believe, but from such data we can draw the conclusion that acceptance of a spiritual aspect of existence is the Human Norm. I concede, even if 100% 'believed' does this make their belief correct. However, we do need to ask ourselves, if acceptance of spirituality is the 'norm', and it is, then why?? Many reasons, no doubt many having nothing to do with the spiritual, mystical experience itself.. societal pressure, etc. But what to make of the experiences, from time immemorial, recorded, REPLICABLE, by shamans, priests, and simple 'seekers' who claim to succeed in communion with God, with 'knowing' God... often in a trance state, sometimes with the help of hallucinogens, or through meditation, or by guidance of a Guru.. they report remarkably similar experiences. How to test?? How to apply the Scientific Method??  If testable, and the mystical experience truly be 'replicated' by just about anyone.. to experience union with God (however we define 'God')? Mystics and Gurus say unequivacally YES, they can take virtually anyone and train them to acheive 'God Consciousness'.. what to make of this? But for the athiest, my challenge is this: If you truly want to refute God and Religion, then why not have a select number of atheists 'volunteer' to undergo a discipleship of a master Guru who.. naturally, will pledge to teach them how to achieve 'God Awareness'... surely, some soft of hypothesis and testing might occur. And from these experiences, further refining.. perhaps, from a Hindu Master, to a Sikh master, then to a Sufi Master, then from a Chrisitan Mystic, then Kabbalah .. etc. This takes some courage.. it takes a hell of a lot more courage and open mind that posting to atheist forums all day with a dog-eared copy of Sam Harris or Dawkins as reference.

So, my main problem with the Flying Purple People Eater analogy of Kyu is it's insulting , flippant and dismissive tone. Kyu, you may have a logical and rational mind, and be schooled in disciplines of debate, etc., but you also seemed, from day one, to be on a 'search and destroy' mission against any religious type who dared show up on YOUR turf.. I've said some conciliatory and respectful things about atheists, as you might recall, especially to the tone of asserting their humanity and legitimacy of their beliefs.. which you probably won't see too many 'believers' showing up and doing! How about a modicum of respect in return, how about showing a more human side.. considering that I, for the most part, stay in my own 'sandbox' here in the 'RELIGION' section.

Too long winded, rambling, I apologize for that, but I also have a life.. gotta work.

I look forward to any response, no matter how insulting or disrespectful.

Sat Nam

Quote from: "karakara"I look forward to any response, no matter how insulting or disrespectful.

Here's one, quoting...yes yourself: Everything you wrote is nonsense...  I say 'nonsense', because you're not promoting intelligent discourse, but simply being provocative

Quote from: "karakara"I look forward to any response, no matter how insulting or disrespectful.

I'm still in shock that you have responded and hope to respond in full tonight.

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "karakara"I look forward to any response, no matter how insulting or disrespectful.

I'm still in shock that you have responded and hope to respond in full tonight.

Kyu

And I'm envyous, since he won't respond to my questions  

A reminder to all members that the topic of the thread of "Hooray for Atheism" is the advertising on buses. It is not about who can insult who better, or who thinks that someone isn't arguing correctly. I have already said that continuing this fight goes nowhere, and people are proving that to be true. If anyone has a personal issue with another member, please take it to PMs. If you want to continue to discuss and debate differences in religion, philosophy, or the human condition, please take it to the proper thread.

Quote from: "Zarathustra"

Quote from: "karakara"I look forward to any response, no matter how insulting or disrespectful.

Here's one, quoting...yes yourself: Everything you wrote is nonsense...  I say 'nonsense', because you're not promoting intelligent discourse, but simply being provocative

Well, as opposed to the 'intelligent discourse' I run into from Atheist with an attack dog mentality and overt hostility toward anything posted in this... yes, again... RELIGION section of the forum by self-described religious people?? You're entiteled to your opinion, for what it's worth. I haven't read any of your other posts outside of threads I've been involved in, but I should to get a feel for where you're coming from.

 I also have to ask myself, just what is the purpose of having a Religion section of an atheist forum.. which by definition, is all about religion and beliefs, non beliefs, etc.? I happen to think that when the designer of this forum put this together in the way that he/she did, it makes sense, and it's to his credit. There doesn't really need to be a RELIGION section in an atheist forum, but this caught my eye..  an overture to civil discourse as well as meeting place?? I'm not sure what the intent was, but I don't imagine it was to bait religious people into joining and posting, only to be subjected to ridicule and insult by other members. Not all 'religious' people will visit the forum, much less join and post, unless they're looking for a fight.. but the RELIGION section provides something a little different..  I've mostly confined myself to this section because of the nature of the messages that I'm trying to get across, not for the sole purpose of enaging Atheists in debate. That may be why you joined, but not why I joined.

So what's so provactive, relative to the provocation that I see targeted at anyone supporting a spiritual or religious view?? Don't I even get any credit for subjecting myself to attack on enemy turf?? I seem to have ruffled a lot of feathers here..

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "karakara"I look forward to any response, no matter how insulting or disrespectful.

I'm still in shock that you have responded and hope to respond in full tonight.

Kyu

I can't wait. I hope you understand the gist of my taking exception to your analogy. I think you can. I hope you can at least partially accept that when I say atheists and 'believer's 'talk past' each other, this is truly what is happening because of the immense chasm of world view that separate the two.  And if you can accept that, then my claim that your logic, debate, Scientific Method, etc., might be inadequate to fully explain spiritual and religious phenomena could have merit as well.  And what Zar I think sees as 'provocative', I'm not being, I'm being serious when I suggest that if Atheists want to formulate hypotheses and test claims of spiritual nature, then it might take some sort of radical experimentation such as putting Yogis, Gurus, and Mystics of various faiths to the test.. what's so provocative about that? If I can applaud Ramachandran for his work, then what's so provocative about such experiments? Show me atheist who will 'walk the walk' as well as they 'talk the talk', and have the courage to expose themselves to God, to the discovery of their own inner divinity. Who amoung you has this sort of courage.. to put your own world view to the test?

Pls. respond, I want to hear your opinion, if you can believe it.

Quote from: "McQ"A reminder to all members that the topic of the thread of "Hooray for Atheism" is the advertising on buses. It is not about who can insult who better, or who thinks that someone isn't arguing correctly. I have already said that continuing this fight goes nowhere, and people are proving that to be true. If anyone has a personal issue with another member, please take it to PMs. If you want to continue to discuss and debate differences in religion, philosophy, or the human condition, please take it to the proper thread.

Again, with respect McQ, threads drift and I wasn't the one who started that drift (dunno who was). As for insults,outside of referring to Karakara as an interloper and stating my contempt for him (justifiable at that time given his comments), I'm fairly sure I've pretty much stuck to the subject (the diverted subject that is).

I presume it would be an easy task for you to split the thread and make a new topic wouldn't it? Why not do that?

Kyu

First of all a recap of our "deliberations" to date in this thread.

QuoteKarakara:
Since the existence of God can be neither proven or disproved

Kyuuketsuki:
The existence of an invisible flying purple people eater purple can neither be proven or disproven ... would you accept as a working hypothesis that it might exist and that we should all act with that in mind and be forced to justify our stance with respect to the claim?

Karakara:
I won't get nasty, but simply observe that your analogy is an extremely poor one at best.

Kyuuketsuki:
Why? Exactly what makes my analogy a poor one? Justify your assertion.

Kyuuketsuki:
Karakara ... I'm still waiting for you to justify your assertion.

Karakara:
As far as 'justifying my assertion' .. I don't feel the need, it should be self-evident. Some things are simply self-evident.

Kyuuketsuki:
No it isn't ... please justify your assertion

Karakara:
Well, I'll have plenty of time for 'justifying my assertions', but even so, from our polar opposite perspectives, we'd probably just be talking past each other. But -- hey,a pimple on your ass is ... a pimple on your ass. Self-Evident.

Kyuuketsuki:
Stop avoiding the point and justify the assertion as requested please.

Karakara:
Kyu, I know the game here too well, and I just don't play by your rules as you define them... as I used to define them. I know from my own past that in my 'Atheist' days, I could always win any argument with religious people.. but the game was rigged, the rules skewed. And as I can clearly see today, for all of my hollow debate 'victories', I proved nothing.. I won't convince you of anything, nor will you of me. We have different world view, different perspectives, and different experiences, or lack thereof.

Kyuuketsuki:
Stop avoiding the point and justify the assertion as requested please.

Karakara:
With all due respect, my answer is my answer. I just ain't playing by your rules, been there, done that. Please get over it. Declare victory if it makes you feel
any better, or if you have some psychological need for 'closure'. I'm also trying to bring an obvious 'human element' to counter your.. well, 'sterile' tone.

Kyuuketsuki:
No ... unless you are prepared to state that you are ignoring the basic rules of debate, explain your assertion or withdraw it I will not get over it. You are the interloper here.

Karakara:
Well hell Pal, yes, I'm ignoring basic rules of debate, as I've repeatedly said, I don't play by your rules. Your rules don't apply to some aspects of spirituality. They're inadequate. So I'm the interloper in this case, fair and good. If you want a forum that mandates structured rules of debate, go start your own. As long as I'm given license to post, argue, assert, respond, expound, bloviate, etc., freestyle -- playing it by ear, as I seem fit, I'll do it, as Frank Sinatra says, 'My Way'. From this point on in this particular thread, I feel compelled to ignore your pestering.

Kyuuketsuki:
And I reserve the right to continue "pestering" you for it.

Now once again, please can explain your earlier assertion that my analogy was a poor one? Failing that will you please withdraw it?

Karakara:
Wow, you really dislike me. I must be doing something right.

How many times do I have to say man that we're in the R E L I G I O N section of the forum?? I'm not on trial. I dont' play by your stinkin stacked 'generally understood conventions of debate', hell, I was on two debate teams myself, I have more than a passing familiarity with how the game is played.. read my lips pal, I AIN'T PLAYING BY YOUR RULES. Pls. get over it. You're just pissed off because I got under your skin and you've yet to get the better of me. Stop whining.. stop coming across as a numbingly predictable logic algorithm, .. I'll start calling you BOOLEAN-suki .. I'm not convinced you're human at all, in fact.. not only can machines be painfully antiseptic and cold, but they can be annoying.. which to date describes you pretty accurately, as far as I've seen.. and what do you know of truth??

Kyuuketsuki:
Dislike you? No. Contemptuous of you? Oh most certainly.

As for the rest of the drivel in your post I will say nothing except to remind you that you made a claim and in any debate it is neither unreasonable or illogical to expect you to respond positively to a request to justify that claim. That you have not done so speaks volumes about you and fully explains why I will not waste my time and effort debating you.

OK ... to summarise, you made an assertion, I challenged that assertion with an analogy, you said that analogy was poor, I asked to justify that, you refused saying it was self-evident as to why the analogy was poor, I persisted and it went down hill from there.

Now to your reply.

Your first paragraph was just sarcasm. In your second paragraph you declare, without good reason, that my analogy was insultingly disrespectful, flippant and irrelevant following which you appear to divert to a vague attack on the scientific method as a reason to excuse you from normal debate etiquette. In the third paragraph you start in on something concerning spirituality being scientifically testable which may or may not be true but doesn't seem to be relevant to our earlier deliberations. I'm not at all sure what you were talking about in the fourth except that it, again had no relevance to the one thing we were (certainly I was) deliberating. Yu did much the same in the fifth. Finally in the sixth you come back to topic but simply appear to reiterate pretty much what you said in the second paragraph. In your follow up reply you, rather curiously, said you hoped I understood why you took exception to my analogy.

I have to say I am disappointed (though not entirely surprised) with your response because although you did "deal" with my analogy you did so purely on the emotive grounds that it was an insult of some kind (it wasn't but you can continue to believe that if you wish)? That it was somehow disrespectful? Why?  Because you believe in a god that no one can actually detect? Why would I respect that? Why, especially in an atheist forum, would you believe that such respect is warranted? Why would you even think I would care that your faith is not strong enough to deal with criticism? But the most important question is why do you think that my analogy of an equally invisible, indetectable being is irrelevant? That is essentially what my point was ... would it help if I refer to one of the many other atheist inventions such as the invisible pink unicorn or the celestial teapot?

So yes, the simple answer is yes I understand why you took exception to my analogy but I do not accept that your exception is valid and I utterly fail to see how any of the reply you give above deals with the issue of your avoidance of my analogy.

Like I say ... disappointing but not entirely surprising.

Kyu

p.s. BTW my analogy is nothing to do with Barney The Purple [expletive deleted] Dinosaur but actually refers to something considerably older than that freakish TV show.

OK Kyu, I'm just going to let most of that slide rather than engage you in endless, and probably pointless, back and forth.. I always invite anyone to suddenly declare victory. Go ahead  if you want.. matters not. Consistent with my previous observations that we're 'talking past each other', you won't be surprised that I disagree with much, but not all, of what you've just said.

But here's a notable exception I'll take to your rebuttal:

Quote"....That it was somehow disrespectful? Why? Because you believe in a god that no one can actually detect?"

Somehow disrespectful?? Come on. And as far as believing in a God that no one can actually detect, hell, speak for yourself. I've repeatedly alluded to the ways in which people have direct contact, or knowledge of God.. (and I haven't even gone into my own transformative encounter.. I won't cheapen the experience by exposing it to scrutiny, as it was profoundly personal, powerful and real.) but for some reason this just doesn't register on you radar..  you talk about me avoiding the issues. This is an issue relevant to my argument that you also conveniently gloss over. . For as long as people have been around up until today, there are those who have had direct knowledge of God.. although we can get into exactly what is mean by 'God' in different systems. And what is meant by 'knowledge'. But my point is, a direct experience with God is all the evidence that anyone needs. And to turn that one back on you, I'd say who are you to be so fervent in your dismissal of 'God' when not only , I believe I safely assume, you have never had a spiritual experience, but you're so sure of yourself and your world view that you believe there is no need for a personal, hands-on investigation. What might you be afraid of? I'm telling you, if you were to truly do what it takes to investigate your own latent spirituality and inner divinity, you might come to a radically different conclusion. But, assuming you were to have a mystical 'God' experience, would you even acknowledge it as such, or merely dismiss it as some sort of psychological phenomenon??

Some theists might fire back at you that your own inability to perceive the Divine or lack of such an experience would somehow indicate that there is some missing ingredient, or aspect, in your own life, or maybe a defect.. .  I wouldn't go there, but considering what is probably a willful refusal to investigate your own 'spiritual side', I'd have to ask, are you really qualified to attack and dismiss something of which you have no direct first hand experience? Isn't that rather like the Newtonian Physicist dismissing out of hand any possibility of the validity of Quantum Physics??? If a poor analogy, so be it, I won't get hyper defensive over an analogy...

I'll let other readers of this thread draw their own conclusions to my long post, which I'm betting might be considerably more open and sympathetic to my attempts to engage you, than your own.

Sat Nam

QuoteWhy would you even think I would care that your faith is not strong enough to deal with criticism?

Oh my, how could I let that one go? I don't recall you having criticized my faith... for that matter, I don't recall anyone here criticizing my faith.. so I don't take offense, since blanket, generalized criticism of 'religion, God, faith, spirituality', etc., etc., is truly meaningless. One point I've repeatedly tried to make and which apparently also either falls on deaf ears or is conveniently glossed over, is that 'God' and 'Faiths' are quite diverse. I've made the observation from reading up posts in other areas of this forum, to which I have actually seldom responded.. but to get a gist of what some of the more strident and vocal Atheists here are venting their wrath at, it seems overwhelmingly against Abrahamic Faiths, and all that goes along with those three. You seem at a loss to deal with Dharmic faiths, no doubt because the atheist movement originated in countries dominated by Abrahamic Faiths, primarily Christianity.

I've attempted, though very modestly.. even sub 'Dharmic Faiths 101' level, to plant a seed of doubt into some minds here over the tendency to generalize about God and all religions.. the fact that I'm uniformly ignored when doing this lends me to believe that you all are at a loss to take me on, on my own turf, so to speak..  where you don't have an adequate supply of canned answers at your fingertips...well, I can see the collective blood pressure rising now. I hope for no other reason than a collective desire on the part of some here to discredit me that you read up on Dharmic faiths, including Buddhism.. if so, then I win, no matter your arguments.. I will have expanded your awareness of the diversity of human spiritual practices and beliefs.. and hopefully nudged you out what I perceive in some as being stuck in a limited Abrahamic Paradigm of religious awareness.. Abrahamic Faiths are a huge part of religion in the modern world, but there is a lot more, and many of your arguments and preconceptions about religion don't apply, imho.

Quote from: "karakara"Friend, why would you vandalize church signs?  I don't see this as an appropriate analogy.

It's to illustrate a point. Nothing more.

The idea that these messages on buses will somehow hurt the souls of religious folk is, in my opinion, laughable. You want to talk about walking a mile in someone else's shoes? You were an atheist, karakara. You understand the level of Christian hegemony and privilege in the western world. We walk in those shoes every day. We have no alternative. We live in Rome, and are, much to our chagrin, pretty much doing as the Romans do just to get along.

If someone's faith is shaken to the core because they see a sign on a bus that reads "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." then, well, I'd say they were about ready to lose that faith regardless of the campaign.

You know me; I always like to try it out with other aspects of life and see if it still holds up: what would the equivalent be for gender, race, class? There is no equivalent. "There probably is no God" says nothing about religious people in and of themselves, whereas replacing it with a message aimed toward one of those other demographics would.

The whole idea behind this is to shock, it's to expose people to something they may not have thought before. Will some people be insulted and angry? Of course. Unfortunately for them, there's no law that says they have the right to not be offended.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "karakara"Friend, why would you vandalize church signs?  I don't see this as an appropriate analogy.

It's to illustrate a point. Nothing more.

The idea that these messages on buses will somehow hurt the souls of religious folk is, in my opinion, laughable. You want to talk about walking a mile in someone else's shoes? You were an atheist, karakara. You understand the level of Christian hegemony and privilege in the western world. We walk in those shoes every day. We have no alternative. We live in Rome, and are, much to our chagrin, pretty much doing as the Romans do just to get along.

If someone's faith is shaken to the core because they see a sign on a bus that reads "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." then, well, I'd say they were about ready to lose that faith regardless of the campaign.

You know me; I always like to try it out with other aspects of life and see if it still holds up: what would the equivalent be for gender, race, class? There is no equivalent. "There probably is no God" says nothing about religious people in and of themselves, whereas replacing it with a message aimed toward one of those other demographics would.

The whole idea behind this is to shock, it's to expose people to something they may not have thought before. Will some people be insulted and angry? Of course. Unfortunately for them, there's no law that says they have the right to not be offended.

I don't think this bus banner will 'hurt souls' or will shaken anyone's faith.. I was telling you how religious people will perceive it.

I know about shock, and it's effectiveness: I'm a member of PETA, now I don't pull the stunts on the street that they used to be infamous for, but I do contribute money because on some issue, a shock effect is the only means of getting people's attention. I do understand. I don't condone everything they do either, but on the balance, they do succeed in what they hope to accomplish, albeit slowly.

You think you are somehow affected by the 'hegemony' of Christianity?? Image me, a Sikh, going to work with a TURBAN every day.. talk about  getting the 'evil eye'.. well, I must be a Muslim Terrorist.. better call Homeland Security... fact that Sikhism in it's militant form as a reaction against Islamic Terrorism in India, raised armies, and fought many bloody battles with Muslims, I guess is irrelevant.. that if not for Sikhs, all of India would be Islamic today...  that Sikhs are widely acknowledged as the most 'Christian Like' of the Dharmic faiths gets me no points either... now  we're participating in interfaith dialoge.. what's the alternative?

Quote from: "karakara"talk about  getting the 'evil eye'.. well, I must be a Muslim Terrorist.. better call Homeland Security...

Atheists are feared and hated more than Muslims.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "karakara"talk about  getting the 'evil eye'.. well, I must be a Muslim Terrorist.. better call Homeland Security...

Atheists are feared and hated more than Muslims.

Is that a fact? I thought Atheists were largely ignored until they start pulling stunts like 'dissing' religious people with banners on buses ...

Quote from: "karakara"Is that a fact?

It is, indeed.

Downey, A.  (2007.) The Godless Freshman. Free Inquiry. August/Sept 2007. p. 56-57

Duriez, B.  (2004.)  Are religious people nicer people? Taking a closer look at the religion-empathy relationship.  Mental Health, Religion & Culture. 7(3), 249-254.

Edgell, P.,  Gerteis, J., and Hartmann, D.  (2006.)  Atheists As "Other": Moral Boundaries and Cultural Membership in American Society.  American Sociological Review.  71(2), 211-234.

Hout, M. & Fischer, C.  (2002.)  Why More Americans Have No Religious Preference: Politics and Generations.  American Sociological Review. 67(2), 165-190.

Rowatt, W. C., Franklin L. M.  (2004.) "Christian Orthodoxy, Religious Fundamentalism, and Right-Wing Authoritarianism as Predictors of Implicit Racial Prejudice." International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 14(2), 125-138.

And, just for good measure, a link to the Association of Religion Data Archives, specifically the QuickStats about US attitudes toward religion and spirituality: http://www.thearda.com/quickstats/qsdir.asp

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "karakara"Is that a fact?

It is, indeed.

Downey, A.  (2007.) The Godless Freshman. Free Inquiry. August/Sept 2007. p. 56-57

Duriez, B.  (2004.)  Are religious people nicer people? Taking a closer look at the religion-empathy relationship.  Mental Health, Religion & Culture. 7(3), 249-254.

Edgell, P.,  Gerteis, J., and Hartmann, D.  (2006.)  Atheists As "Other": Moral Boundaries and Cultural Membership in American Society.  American Sociological Review.  71(2), 211-234.

Hout, M. & Fischer, C.  (2002.)  Why More Americans Have No Religious Preference: Politics and Generations.  American Sociological Review. 67(2), 165-190.

Rowatt, W. C., Franklin L. M.  (2004.) "Christian Orthodoxy, Religious Fundamentalism, and Right-Wing Authoritarianism as Predictors of Implicit Racial Prejudice." International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 14(2), 125-138.

And, just for good measure, a link to the Association of Religion Data Archives, specifically the QuickStats about US attitudes toward religion and spirituality: http://www.thearda.com/quickstats/qsdir.asp

There is a lot of hostility toward atheists, no doubt, to the point of violence.. very regrettable. And having admitted that, I don't think putting provocative banners on buses will do anything other than aggravate the situation. I don't see it as productive. Real education is productive. Unless you're talking about 'Fundamentalists', who by definition are not open to any beliefs outside of those they believe through their 'extreme' interpretations of their faiths..  well we are, at the animal level, cliquish/clannish and territorial primates who do not naturally feel comfortable around people who don't outwardly look, act and believe as we do.. isn't it better to engage individuals in meaningful conversation and in doing show them your 'humanity', rather than poke a stick.. admittedly, BACK in their eyes.. be, as an Atheist, a better 'Christian', than the 'Christian' (or person of any other faith) who treats you in an unChristian-like fashion.. is all I'd say. I don't see how that could fail to open some eyes and change some hearts.

Sat Nam

Well, at least we're back to buses.  

And Kyu...I know very well that I can split the thread. Please don't misinterpret my message. The ones in red are sort of like saying, "Stop screwing around and get back on track." You can do that just as easily. The point, which you are consistently ignoring, is that you are treating this thread as your own personal forum for inflating an argument that has no business even being discussed. As I said, take it to PMs, or start a thread of your own that is relevant to it.

karakara is correct in his statements regarding this thread and this entire section. It is the Religion section.

Stick to the buses, gang. Last time I'll bring it up nicely.

Back to the buses again, although I must admit that I found the "battle of the wills" pretty interesting. I agree with karakara that the impact of the text on the buses could be negative.  Education and good deeds are more important helpful than a slogan. But like the others already mentioned in their posts, it is a difficult job to accomplish. Many Christians think that we are an angry bunch of people. The postings that I and some others make against theists here in this forum prove that.  In "real" life I'm not so much different than most theists (fundamental theists excluded of course). I like to help people out, try to do the right things, love my family, etc. To be honest instead of quarreling with, in my opinion, very decent theists that we've seen recently here on this forum, I rather have a drink with them. Sh#t, I'm side tracking again   .

Well anywhoo, i think it is ok to put an atheist slogan on a bus. There are plenty of posters around promoting god so i don't see why we can't do the same. I doubt the atheist slogans will feature as many scenes of someone being tortured either.

That's the last i'll say on the matter

Quote from: "karakara"OK Kyu, I'm just going to let most of that slide rather than engage you in endless, and probably pointless, back and forth.. I always invite anyone to suddenly declare victory. Go ahead  if you want.. matters not. Consistent with my previous observations that we're 'talking past each other', you won't be surprised that I disagree with much, but not all, of what you've just said.

I don't think "we" are talking past each other, I think you are simply avoiding the point I made though I will grant that your last posts were some kind of attempt to do so, they just missed.

On the subject of respect I repeat you have to convince me that your views are worthy of respect before I actually give it ... respect is earned! Let me try another analogy ... if you were a racist (and I'm reasonably confident you aren't) would you expect me to respect that view? Even if you held strongly to a belief that you were in some way superior to other races? Of course you wouldn't, no reasonable person would. That's the point I was making there ... respect (especially in an arena such as this) needs to be earned.

As for experience of god, what of it? I was born and brought up a Catholic ... I worshipped the gods (or god) of Cathol, I believed the whole shebang. I know what it is to believe, I completely bought into the thing but I'm better now.

Yes I did criticize your religion ... by use of my invisible flying purple people eater analogy so my question as to why you'd think I'd care about your faith not being strong enough was entirely valid.

Yes my posts are directed largely against the Abrahamic faiths (specifically Christianity) because it's what I know ... other faiths don't escape but I target them less quite simply through lack of experience (and to be fair, interest).

Kyu

Quote from: "McQ"And Kyu...I know very well that I can split the thread. Please don't misinterpret my message. The ones in red are sort of like saying, "Stop screwing around and get back on track." You can do that just as easily. The point, which you are consistently ignoring, is that you are treating this thread as your own personal forum for inflating an argument that has no business even being discussed. As I said, take it to PMs, or start a thread of your own that is relevant to it.

And I repeat McQ that I DID NOT divert the thread I simply followed where it was going and subsequently attempted to get someone to adhere to the generally accepted standards of debate. Nor am I using this as my personal forum!

I will however abandon this thread entirely and will put Karakara on my ignore list.

Kyu

QuoteI don't think "we" are talking past each other, I think you are simply avoiding the point I made though I will grant that your last posts were some kind of attempt to do so, they just missed.

Yes, that must be it.. it's never you.

QuoteOn the subject of respect I repeat you have to convince me that your views are worthy of respect before I actually give it ... respect is earned! Let me try another analogy ... if you were a racist (and I'm reasonably confident you aren't) would you expect me to respect that view? Even if you held strongly to a belief that you were in some way superior to other races? Of course you wouldn't, no reasonable person would. That's the point I was making there ... respect (especially in an arena such as this) needs to be earned.

Respect needs to earned.. and until such time, if ever, as you deem something 'respect-worth', you show.. contempt.  

QuoteAs for experience of god, what of it? I was born and brought up a Catholic ... I worshipped the gods (or god) of Cathol, I believed the whole shebang. I know what it is to believe, I completely bought into the thing but I'm better now.

So we're not talking past each other, eh?? Again, you have dismissively glossed over a key point that I made..so what of your Catholic upbringing.. has nothing to do with the type of 'God Knowledge', or 'God Experience, God Actualization', etc., that I've been talking about. Sorry, that experience doesn't quality. Nice try, back to your modus operandi of 'condescendingly dismissing' that which you insufficiently knowledgeable of to effectively respond to.

QuoteYes I did criticize your religion ... by use of my invisible flying purple people eater analogy so my question as to why you'd think I'd care about your faith not being strong enough was entirely valid.

Well fine then. Very consistent with your attitude of contempt for everyone and everything.. say, are you a Narcissist?

QuoteYes my posts are directed largely against the Abrahamic faiths (specifically Christianity) because it's what I know ... other faiths don't escape but I target them less quite simply through lack of experience (and to be fair, interest).

In other words, when you decide to engage me, you don't know what the hell I'm talking about, so how can you possibly respond?


Kyu[/quote]

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "McQ"And Kyu
I will however abandon this thread entirely and will put Karakara on my ignore list.

Kyu

Now who's running away from whom? I wonder if it's even possible for you to get off your cynical, condescending High Horse .. or should I say

Quote"ivory towers"

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2198 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2198)    (first paragraph, last sentence)

QuoteFrom Wikipedia: "Ivory Towers"

From the 19th century it has been, originally ironically, used to designate a world or atmosphere where intellectuals engage in pursuits that are disconnected from the practical concerns of everyday life. As such, it usually has a pejorative connotation, denoting a willful disconnect from the everyday world; esoteric, over-specialized, or even useless research; and academic elitism, if not outright condescension by those inhabiting the ivory tower. In American English usage it ordinarily denotes the academic world of colleges and universities, particularly scholars of the humanities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivory_tower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivory_tower)

... just admit that you're at a loss to intelligently respond to most of what I'm talking about because I've thrown you a curve or two .. it's OK, you're only human.

You know, I made more than one overture to you for civility, or at least a truce, but no -- your ego, arrogance and attitude of contempt made that impossible. You're NEVER wrong, even when you're wrong.. and when you don't have an answer.. you dismiss the challenge and run away. I'd say you're the one who's losing credibility here..

Happy hunting, you zealot -- good luck with your 'Search and Destroy' mission against religion and religious people.

Quote from: "karakara"

Quote from: "Zarathustra"

Quote from: "karakara"I look forward to any response, no matter how insulting or disrespectful.

Here's one, quoting...yes yourself: Everything you wrote is nonsense...  I say 'nonsense', because you're not promoting intelligent discourse, but simply being provocative

Well, as opposed to the 'intelligent discourse' I run into from Atheist with an attack dog mentality and overt hostility toward anything posted in this.

My statement simply referred to the fact, that you keep insulting me, but don't respond to my legitimate questions...? "Intelligent discourse", denotes that you actually RESPOND...but you continue to choose not to. Which made me throw out a groundless asssertion matching yours (even quoting it).

QuoteDon't I even get any credit for subjecting myself to attack on enemy turf?? I seem to have ruffled a lot of feathers here..

Yes, you do.  
Although I think you would have a more beneficial experience here, if you didn't percieve us to be your "enemies"...

Zara, Zara... has an endearing ring to it, don't you think? .. rather like 'karakara'...

QuoteMy statement simply referred to the fact, that you keep insulting me, but don't respond to my legitimate questions...? "Intelligent discourse", denotes that you actually RESPOND...but you continue to choose not to. Which made me throw out a groundless asssertion matching yours (even quoting it).

Keep? I can think of only one 'insult', and that not intentional, but an ill attempt at humour that didn't hit it's mark, but that fact that it was perceived as an insult.. and I believe already apologized for.. should have atoned for that incident.. what else did I do? If you ever choose to peruse through, say, a random sample of my posts, I think you'll see plenty of 'discourse'.. whether it's intelligent or not isn't for me to say ;-)

But specifics aside, your point well taken. If anything, I'm not one to haggle over 'tit for tat' .. that really doesn't lead anywhere unless one both gets some perverse thrill from 'besting' an 'enemy' , and having 'bested'  by your own rules...and posting a ridiculous tutorial for those who have limited experience in debate, argumentation, etc., as in here: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2198 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2198)    on the subject of this post by Kyu, I find it insightful, as I had not discovered it until I went looking around, and I see that Kyu broke some of his own rules with me, which I'd be happy to point out with him except that I'm  on his 'ignore' list.  In fact, I take exception to the tone of that post, as well as to his overall tone from my first encounter with him. I'm feeling better by the minute for immediately recognizing him for what he was, and openly declaring that I would not play by his rules. I would like to tell him that attitudes of hostility, disrespect and naked contempt won't get you very far in the real world.. I suggest he read.. for starters, Dale Carnegie's classic: How To Win Friends And Influence People.. had he use the 'Carnegie Approach' or something similar, I surely would have played by his rules as much as possible.

But talk about looking for 'enemies'... what's the name of this forum!!! I thought I was going to meet some 'HAPPY ATHIESTS'...  and I think I have met a few cheerful examples.. but some people just bring out the worst in you. Do you agree Zara on that last observation?

Zar, I don't think you'll meet a 'religious type' here who has less of a desire to be your enemy.. it's totally against my faith, and my own beliefs that predate my acceptance wholly of Sikhism and God.

Also, and generally so: I'm usually checking in at two or more forums, often from work, and I read, fire off a response, and do it as fast as I can.. sometimes I don't even have time to edit..or rethink something.. I don't have unlimited time to endlessly ponder these issues, but rather give an impromptu, off-the-cuff remark.. this is less than ideal, but better than nothing.

Quote from: "karakara"Keep? I can think of only one 'insult', and that not intentional, but an ill attempt at humour that didn't hit it's mark, but that fact that it was perceived as an insult.. .. what else did I do? If you ever choose to peruse through, say, a random sample of my posts, I think you'll see plenty of 'discourse'.. whether it's intelligent or not isn't for me to say ;-)

Well to me it's insulting, when someone disregards my half of the discourse , only to comment (humorous or not) on what I have to say to a completely different individual. And since you kept on disregarding my questions, even after your attempt at humor, I found this insulting as well. As I stated earlier, I think that when you actually do engage in discourse, it comes across as intelligent. My point was, that when one is not ready to substantiate ones claims, it is hardly considered a discourse. All I ask, is that when you assert something (or adress other people's assertions) - that you're willing to back it up by dialogue. I mean what else could be the point of a site like this? As you wrote yourself:

QuoteI read, fire off a response, and do it as fast as I can.. sometimes I don't even have time to edit..or rethink something..

Fair enough, that's the case for most of us. The problem was, that you didn't answer me, but dissed a remark that wasn't ment for you. I'd rather have a response to the posts that matter - even if it is not well thought through.  :)

- Zara

QuoteI say 'nonsense', because you're not promoting intelligent discourse, but simply being provocative.. so expect a visceral reaction

Karakara, how is it that atheist posting their message is provocative, but religious messages that appear EVERYWHERE aren't? I don't understand this argument from the religious. It seems to me that a message from a religious person or institution tells me directly (and I say this because I am a non-believer, and that is who the messages are aimed at) that I am going to "hell" for what I DON'T believe is rather provocative.

Do you disagree?

Thanks to all for getting this going back towards the original topic. I'll ask that we keep it going that way and save any other issues from here on for PMs or a different thread.

Quote from: "Zarathustra"

Quote from: "karakara"Keep? I can think of only one 'insult', and that not intentional, but an ill attempt at humour that didn't hit it's mark, but that fact that it was perceived as an insult.. .. what else did I do? If you ever choose to peruse through, say, a random sample of my posts, I think you'll see plenty of 'discourse'.. whether it's intelligent or not isn't for me to say ;-)

Well to me it's insulting, when someone disregards my half of the discourse , only to comment (humorous or not) on what I have to say to a completely different individual. And since you kept on disregarding my questions, even after your attempt at humor, I found this insulting as well. As I stated earlier, I think that when you actually do engage in discourse, it comes across as intelligent. My point was, that when one is not ready to substantiate ones claims, it is hardly considered a discourse. All I ask, is that when you assert something (or adress other people's assertions) - that you're willing to back it up by dialogue. I mean what else could be the point of a site like this? As you wrote yourself:

QuoteI read, fire off a response, and do it as fast as I can.. sometimes I don't even have time to edit..or rethink something..

Fair enough, that's the case for most of us. The problem was, that you didn't answer me, but dissed a remark that wasn't ment for you. I'd rather have a response to the posts that matter - even if it is not well thought through.  :)
I have to get back to work... I think this particular topic is a case of ' We'll see '. I have no way of knowing if my gut intuition about the bus ads is correct, it remains to be seen.

Sat Nam, Waheguru!

- Zara

Quote from: "oldschooldoc"

QuoteI say 'nonsense', because you're not promoting intelligent discourse, but simply being provocative.. so expect a visceral reaction

Karakara, how is it that atheist posting their message is provocative, but religious messages that appear EVERYWHERE aren't? I don't understand this argument from the religious. It seems to me that a message from a religious person or institution tells me directly (and I say this because I am a non-believer, and that is who the messages are aimed at) that I am going to "hell" for what I DON'T believe is rather provocative.

Do you disagree?

Yes, it can be called provocative.. but I think actually, it's more reactionary than provocative. It's a reaction that's fear-based. Sounds like a Fundamentalist Christian. As if they're any worse than any Fundamentalist of any religion. Zealots.. well, I've run into an Atheist zealot or two myself..  I understand where you're coming from. But to answer your first questions, no, religious messages appearing 'everywhere' are not provocative...  since as I've discussed in previous threads, something on the order of high 95+% of the Human Race, from as far back as we have any evidence, has professed belief in deities, religions...  so belief in God is the Human Norm by any objective measure. So of course you're seeing religious messages everywhere, it's the Human Norm. That's what humans do as a normal part of society and culture. So, being the contrary tiny minority... regardless of whether you're (collectively) right or wrong, raises eyebrows..   the subject is complex and cannot really be argued on this level..

Quote from: "karakara"Now you're sounding like a crybaby ;-) .. << yes, a joke.. I bet it didn't go over too well for the millisecond it took to get to my disclaimer.

You're right... hope that you're not pursuing a career doing stand up comedy   ;) Leaving aside that all cognitive research shows, that subsequent beliefs initially branches down from what we percieve. That's a different discussion all together.
But if I just accept your premise. Then tell me the following: My cognitive algorithm is - among other things - my philosophical education. Every day on my way to school, I passed this church. On the front - in HUGE golden letters - it said/says: "the Lord and Jesus is the truth!" This is not even a temporary campaign, but a permanent one. (And not the only one by far.)
Now my problem is this: As a philosopher I concern myself a lot about the theory of knowledge. I'm very interested in understanding and researching, how we define concepts such as "knowledge" and "truth". So to me, the statement on the church is a frontal assault!
Thus I made the analogy! I abide religious messages 1000 times every day, that tells me my worldview is wrong!. Why can't the religious abide the atheist one?

QuoteIt's not nonsense.. and it is. Not nonsense to you, but nonsense to those who perceive it as such. Zar, I'm sure you can see where I'm going.

Exactly! I percieve "the Lord is the truth" to be nonsensical. Do you see my point now: - Why is it that I shall abide nonsense anytime, but they are "offended"?

QuoteI have no way of knowing if my gut intuition about the bus ads is correct, it remains to be seen.

Do you still think so, after this post?

General view (not only adressing Kara): My peronal opinion on the subject above is this: I think that deep down, most religious people have a little voice. A voice of reason. This voice continuosly whispers to them: "This religious concept of mine is not coheering with everything else. New scientific discovery usually means that another part of my religion is wrong. I might be wrong in my thinking that there is a god!" - Now this little inner skeptic, scares the shit out of them. ("I'll end up in hell, because of these thoughts".) So they choose, not only to ignore this voice, but to stifle this voice of conscience/rationality. A campaign likes this, makes it VERY hard to stifle their inner voice. That's why they get so angry! If they were so sure of the truth, why would it bother them so much?
I even think that the louder your inner voice is, the louder you speak (or worse as in the case of this subject; act) to the contrary in public debate. It's the only way to avoid listening! - Now this is MY gut intuition! But then again, I'm European and hence in a very secular mode of thinking.

QuoteThat's what humans do as a normal part of society and culture. So, being the contrary tiny minority... regardless of whether you're (collectively) right or wrong, raises eyebrows.. the subject is complex and cannot really be argued on this level..

Thank you for the quote. This is what has gone wrong exactly. At some point in the distant past (recent past if you use universal timescale as opposed to human perception of time) a small child living in a cave asked his/her large-browed parents where rain came from (insert any other seemingly 'miraculous' event, as it would have seemed at that point). Their answer? Well, they didn't have one, so they made up a nice bed time story about a 'rain god'. Well, this story, and many others originating from questions without answers, were perpetuated and changed as a result of a millions-of-years-long game of telephone. The version of the story being told now? There is an almighty, single being who not only created us, but controls every aspect of human life. Now, thanks to human complacency and lack of science in the past, religion is perceived as normal.

What atheism, in the name of science and reason, is trying to do is open peoples' minds and help them to shed superstition to make room for what is real. I know, I know, you were an atheist and I'm being biased in saying what is real. My point is that (yes after all this rambling, I finally have a point) just because our message is not the mainstream and a 'normal part of society and culture' does instantly make it provocative. Maybe if the message on the bus said 'If you believe in god, you are f*cking dimwit' then yes it would indeed be provocative. I agree with Zarathustra in his assertion that

QuoteThis is not a campaign, against any organized religion. It's a campaign for the people, offering the chance to think things through!

Don't demean it as provocative because you don't agree. And, just to preempt any attack on my calling religious messages provocative, I would like to say THEY ARE. I don't tell religious people that bad things are going to happen to them because of their beliefs.

Quote from: "Zarathustra"

Quote from: "karakara"Now you're sounding like a crybaby ;-) .. << yes, a joke.. I bet it didn't go over too well for the millisecond it took to get to my disclaimer.

Zarathustra: You're right... hope that you're not pursuing a career doing stand up comedy   ;) Leaving aside that all cognitive research shows, that subsequent beliefs initially branches down from what we percieve. That's a different discussion all together. karakara: yes it is, I think you're actually paraphrasing me, it was my point entirely...

But if I just accept your premise. Then tell me the following: My cognitive algorithm is - among other things - my philosophical education.
karakara: Indeed, among other things. In the grand totality of what makes you, you, your 'philosophical education' , I'd wager, is only a small percentage... the whole 'nature-nurture', and the belief of many psychologists that it's not one or the other, but both that make us what and who we are.. but this is your chosen label, as I choose 'Sikh'. I accept this much...

 Every day on my way to school, I passed this church. On the front - in HUGE golden letters - it said/says: "the Lord and Jesus is the truth!" This is not even a temporary campaign, but a permanent one. (And not the only one by far.)
karakara: I see them myself., they're everywhere.. whether the message is 'Truth', 'Saves', 'Loves', etc. Doesn't shake my own faith or lead to a crisis one bit, this is just 'Christians being Christians'.

Now my problem is this: As a philosopher I concern myself a lot about the theory of knowledge. I'm very interested in understanding and researching, how we define concepts such as "knowledge" and "truth". So to me, the statement on the church is a frontal assault!
karakara: This is in fact a better analogy that some I've seen recently. But.. not a perfect analogy.. maybe there is no perfect analogy though. The bus banner is a shot at all people of faith.. this sign on the church is simply Christians boasting, making a claim about their 'Savior', which you can accept of just as easily dismiss..


Thus I made the analogy! I abide religious messages 1000 times every day, that tells me my worldview is wrong!. Why can't the religious abide the atheist one?
karakara: There's nothing new under the sun, as they say, about religions, cults, etc., making claims. In doing so, they're making some assertion, usually one of the things they're most proud of, or what they believe sets them apart, about their deity or faith, belief: They're making a statement about themselves and their faith. The bus banner was saying nothing about the Atheist philosophy or 'movement', such as 'Come join is for rational discussion and thought-provoking conversation at the Atheist Lodge... etc.,', but it was a targeted at all people of faith. There's the difference. You can abide assorted religious messages (in the context here.. public messages, signs, etc.) because for the most part they're just bombastic assertions of their own slogans.. it's not like you see churches putting up billboards saying Jews are damned to hell and the Muslim's Prophet was a Pedophile.. although you do see this and a lot more on the web..  and you've pretty much been conditioned to simply ignore them you're whole life, as they're part of the backdrop of any cityscape, etc. For the most part, their intent is not at provocation.

Quotekarakara wrote:
It's not nonsense.. and it is. Not nonsense to you, but nonsense to those who perceive it as such. Zar, I'm sure you can see where I'm going.

Exactly! I percieve "the Lord is the truth" to be nonsensical. Do you see my point now: - Why is it that I shall abide nonsense anytime, but they are "offended"?
karakara: I do see your point, but again, I think your analogy isn't exactly on target, if close. I think I made my point above.. I hope you're not hyper-sensitive-defensive about the sanctity of your 'analogy' as at least one other so-called 'Happy Atheist' is here.. I'm not dissing your analogy, I just think it still leaves room for debate.

Quotekarakara wrote:
I have no way of knowing if my gut intuition about the bus ads is correct, it remains to be seen.

Do you still think so, after this post?
karakara: Yes, I'll wait and see.. that's playing it safe.. and I'm not so cock-sure of myself as to say so.

General view (not only adressing Kara): My peronal opinion on the subject above is this: I think that deep down, most religious people have a little voice. A voice of reason. This voice continuosly whispers to them: "This religious concept of mine is not coheering with everything else. New scientific discovery usually means that another part of my religion is wrong. I might be wrong in my thinking that there is a god!" - Now this little inner skeptic, scares the shit out of them. ("I'll end up in hell, because of these thoughts".) So they choose, not only to ignore this voice, but to stifle this voice of conscience/rationality. A campaign likes this, makes it VERY hard to stifle their inner voice. That's why they get so angry! If they were so sure of the truth, why would it bother them so much?
I even think that the louder your inner voice is, the louder you speak (or worse as in the case of this subject; act) to the contrary in public debate. It's the only way to avoid listening! - Now this is MY gut intuition! But then again, I'm European and hence in a very secular mode of thinking.

Well, we all are entitled to our personal views, and we all have 'em.  I'll address this later, back to work.

Sat Nam, Waheguru!

karakara

QuoteZarathustra wrote: Now my problem is this: As a philosopher I concern myself a lot about the theory of knowledge. I'm very interested in understanding and researching, how we define concepts such as "knowledge" and "truth".[/b]

Now, this is truly substantive and significant, one of the most substantive and revealing utterances I've seen posted by anyone on either side of the fence since I've joined the company of you 'Happy Atheists'......and at the risk of quoting you out of context (i.e., context of the bus banners and our respective analogies) I bring it up here because it can stand on it's own, regardless of context. This is the sign of a mind with which I must, if not agree on everything, then at least take seriously. This is a 'grounded mind', and a term I use as it was a favorite of my ....  Philosophy Professor(!, and how ironic...) in college.. grounded on many levels, but as we were speaking of cognitive algorithms as determining factors in 'world views', etc., then again, near the top and as one of the foundations for this algorithm is the concern for truth, what constitutes truth, absolute and relative truth, Reality, what constitutes 'knowledge' vs. 'belief', etc. For a mind which considers these issues as paramount to the validity of one's own outlook.. ever  seeking the nature of truth and reality, I believe this leads to an elevated sense of not only the ability to ascertain aspects of truth in everyday life, but also the ability to know oneself better, to 'evolve' on many levels. We associate the phrase 'Know Thyself' primarily with the Oracle of Delphi.. fascinating subject in and of itself, but significant that this mandate was purportedly inscribed above the door, or gate.. symbolic or factual, (now I segue), so it also is in the mystical traditions of the great Faiths, such as Hinduism, Sikhism, and our Sufi friends... as prerequisite (or mandate)for achieving a higher knowledge.. when seeking 'Enlightenment' or taking the steps that bring one closer to God.. or penetrating the barrier (gate) of darkness and emerging into the light.. a prerequisite, as our Gurus will tell us, is to 'get our minds straight'.. and this has much to do with pondering the nature of Truth, Knowledge, Reality ... serious contemplation and reflection on these all-important concepts. Once the 'mind is right' and we have a solid understanding of Truth, Knowledge, and Reality.. and how it reflects Reality.. as Reality is, not as how we fantasize or desire it to be... are we finally ready at least in this respect to pass through a Gate .. now, 'Knowing Ourselves',  to be qualified to 'Know God'.

Sat Nam ("Truth is my Identity")  -- This is a Sikh name for God. Literally 'The True Name'
Waheguru! ("Wonderful Lord, Almightly God")

Quote from: "oldschooldoc"

QuoteThat's what humans do as a normal part of society and culture. So, being the contrary tiny minority... regardless of whether you're (collectively) right or wrong, raises eyebrows.. the subject is complex and cannot really be argued on this level..

Thank you for the quote. This is what has gone wrong exactly. At some point in the distant past (recent past if you use universal timescale as opposed to human perception of time) a small child living in a cave asked his/her large-browed parents where rain came from (insert any other seemingly 'miraculous' event, as it would have seemed at that point). Their answer? Well, they didn't have one, so they made up a nice bed time story about a 'rain god'. Well, this story, and many others originating from questions without answers, were perpetuated and changed as a result of a millions-of-years-long game of telephone. The version of the story being told now? There is an almighty, single being who not only created us, but controls every aspect of human life. Now, thanks to human complacency and lack of science in the past, religion is perceived as normal.

What atheism, in the name of science and reason, is trying to do is open peoples' minds and help them to shed superstition to make room for what is real. I know, I know, you were an atheist and I'm being biased in saying what is real. My point is that (yes after all this rambling, I finally have a point) just because our message is not the mainstream and a 'normal part of society and culture' does instantly make it provocative. Maybe if the message on the bus said 'If you believe in god, you are f*cking dimwit' then yes it would indeed be provocative. I agree with Zarathustra in his assertion that

QuoteThis is not a campaign, against any organized religion. It's a campaign for the people, offering the chance to think things through!

Don't demean it as provocative because you don't agree. And, just to preempt any attack on my calling religious messages provocative, I would like to say THEY ARE. I don't tell religious people that bad things are going to happen to them because of their beliefs.

How remarkable, back to back synopses of the core concepts which formulate your respective ideas about religion.. well, I guess I shouldn't be too surprised, you guys are 'Happy Atheists' and it's your forum, so these confession do tend to come out. I'd like to get back to both.. if only time wasn't such a factor.. I must go.. but thanks both, this is both revealing and insightful, and that's what we're looking for in understanding, to gain insight.

Sat Nam, from a 'Happy Sikh!'

Waheguru!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mleu2J7 ... re=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mleu2J7luI&feature=related)

Quote from: "karakara"but this is your chosen label, as I choose 'Sikh'. I accept this much...

You're wrong! Unless your job is being a sikh!! - Since I have a formal education in philosophy, there is a distinct difference. So it's no more labelling myself than calling a plumber, a plumber.

 

QuoteI do see your point, but again, I think your analogy isn't exactly on target, if close. I think I made my point above.. I hope you're not hyper-sensitive-defensive about the sanctity of your 'analogy' as at least one other so-called 'Happy Atheist' is here.. I'm not dissing your analogy, I just think it still leaves room for debate.

It might. I'd just like you to make clear how the analogy is off point? I'm still not sure? Freedom of speech is a two-way street you know...

QuoteThe bus banner is a shot at all people of faith.. this sign on the church is simply Christians boasting, making a claim about their 'Savior', which you can accept of just as easily dismiss..

I strongly disagree. They also define the word "truth" in a very wrong sense! And I restate my assertion: It is not an attack against people of faith. Your refusal of that was based on a strawman: You implied that I ment that in a condescending manner... I didn't! So back to work  :P  We all do

Kara please don't twist the meaning, without validation:

Quote from: "karakara"

QuoteZarathustra wrote: Now my problem is this: As a philosopher I concern myself a lot about the theory of knowledge. I'm very interested in understanding and researching, how we define concepts such as "knowledge" and "truth".[/b]

Now, this is truly substantive and significant, one of the most substantive and revealing utterances I've seen posted by anyone on either side of the fence since I've joined the company of you 'Happy Atheists'......and at the risk of quoting you out of context (i.e., context of the bus banners and our respective analogies) I bring it up here because it can stand on it's own, regardless of context. This is the sign of a mind with which I must, if not agree on everything, then at least take seriously.

Now here comes your flawed assumption, that will lead to an irrational jump:

QuoteThis is a 'grounded mind', and a term I use as it was a favorite of my ....  Philosophy Professor(!, and how ironic...) in college.. grounded on many levels, but as we were speaking of cognitive algorithms as determining factors in 'world views', etc., then again, near the top and as one of the foundations for this algorithm is the concern for truth, what constitutes truth, absolute and relative truth, Reality, what constitutes 'knowledge' vs. 'belief', etc. For a mind which considers these issues as paramount to the validity of one's own outlook.. ever  seeking the nature of truth and reality,

BEWARE KAR, THIS IS WHERE YOU SUDDENLY MAKE THE STEP FROM THE RATIONAL TO THE IRRATIONAL (i.e. your own personal faith or belief) -->

QuoteI believe this leads to an elevated sense of not only the ability to ascertain aspects of truth in everyday life, but also the ability to know oneself better, to 'evolve' on many levels. We associate the phrase 'Know Thyself' primarily with the Oracle of Delphi.. fascinating subject in and of itself, but significant that this mandate was purportedly inscribed above the door, or gate.. symbolic or factual, (now I segue), so it also is in the mystical traditions of the great Faiths, such as Hinduism, Sikhism, and our Sufi friends... as prerequisite (or mandate)for achieving a higher knowledge.. when seeking 'Enlightenment' or taking the steps that bring one closer to God.. or penetrating the barrier (gate) of darkness and emerging into the light.. a prerequisite, as our Gurus will tell us, is to 'get our minds straight'.. and this has much to do with pondering the nature of Truth, Knowledge, Reality ... serious contemplation and reflection on these all-important concepts. Once the 'mind is right' and we have a solid understanding of Truth, Knowledge, and Reality.. and how it reflects Reality.. as Reality is, not as how we fantasize or desire it to be... are we finally ready at least in this respect to pass through a Gate .. now, 'Knowing Ourselves',  to be qualified to 'Know God'.

Was it a one term philosophy course? Covering all the history of philosophy perhaps? Did you even go near any theory of knowledge? You haven't reffered to any existing defintion of "truth" or "belief" that I have encountered in my six years at university.
Maybe this is why you think a jump to the mystical is coherent with those concepts. If this is not the case.... Then please explain how you get them working together.
I think you should start another thread though, since it is WAY of topic!

I know I'm a bit late to jump into this, but I find this despicable. How could anyone support such an outright buffoonish censorship of an opinion. I know it's just buses, but that's completely unfair. It just twists my stomach up when I see things like this.