Customer Discussions > Religion forum

I REALLY wish that Atheists would just give it a rest...

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 301-325 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 7, 2012 6:57:15 PM PST
Dr H says:
------
Stan Furman sez:
You did imply that being a solipsist is kind of wrong...
======
I never did any such thing. I implied -- pretty much stated, actually -- that it was pretty /useless/. But I never said it was "wrong".

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 7, 2012 7:21:35 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 7, 2012 7:22:29 PM PST
Stan Furman says:
To Dr H:

<<Stuffing a duck into a tuxedo doesn't turn it into a penguin.>>

Right. So?

<<I never did any such thing. I implied -- pretty much stated, actually -- that it was pretty /useless/. But I never said it was "wrong".>>

Clowns are not useless :)

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 8, 2012 9:34:53 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on May 18, 2012 8:35:45 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 8, 2012 11:08:36 AM PST
Dr H says:
------
Stan Furman sez:
Clowns are not useless :)
======
Oh no?

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/10/fbi-gang-insane-clown-posse/

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 8, 2012 11:15:41 AM PST
Dr H says:
------
Puck sez:
It is not so hard to believe, although it might be hard to accept, that the good ol' U.S. of A. is probably at or past its peak and is on the way down, following the example of other nations. There is no reason to expect that the generations that inherited this nation will do better at preserving it than the generations that inherited other nations, who, like us, no doubt thought, "It can't happen to us. Others, but not us." There is no reason to believe that the U.S. of A. will be able to buck history and be champ forever.
======
Perhaps.

I think the dream is still worth pursuing. But I think we need to be well aware that it always was a dream, and has never yet quite become the reality.

We can do better, but first we have to stop deluding ourselves that nothing needs fixing.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 8, 2012 12:38:11 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 8, 2012 12:40:00 PM PST
quert says:
Great post, Dr.H. You've given me a lot to consider.

To be made aware that we are subject to invasive procedures here on our own turf, by our own countrymen is unnerving. Things like thermal imaging and electronic locating is hard to take, and I must admit, as a relatively law-abiding citizen, I downplay the possibility in my own life.

But, that's not to say I'm not aware of the insidious ways that certain demographic groups are targeted, for example. I live in Arizona where SB 1070 has raised a lot of hackles. Once racial profiling is legislated we are liable to descend the slippery slope of just exactly what is it that makes a particular person suspect.

I was a child in the 50's, so was relatively unaware of the circus act that was Joe McCarthy, but in hindsight this quasi-rational type of 'investigation' serves as a basis for my distaste for all knee-jerk reactionary opinionation and any sort of legal recourse that is spawned by it.

As a rule, I tend to be a relatively complacent person, and realize that I'm prone to optimism bias. Life is just easier when we are cocooned. Yet, apparently all I need is a occasional reminder that, even though I still hold to the American *ideal* of fairness and personal autonomy, there really is a repressive element underlying the fabric of our society.

My Dad used to say give `em an inch and they'll take a mile. Seems relevant in any era.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 8, 2012 12:52:45 PM PST
quert says:
"Each one rose on the backs of earlier generations and declined due to the neglect and complacency of later ones. It is natural that the young push the old aside. But the young do not have the same vision as their parents."

Puck, you may well be right. I just finished rewatching HBO's John Adams series, and realize that the founders of this country had a very different slant on what it meant to be American then we do in modern times. The world itself, in becoming smaller due to technology, has forced us to re-focus our vision from the original goals and we've created a new American persona.

Your post asks, "Where do we see ourselves headed?" Good question.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 8, 2012 1:03:39 PM PST
99 per cent of all species that ever existed no longer do. Its esitmated only about 3,000 homo sapiens left africa 100,000 years ago and god did not care to send a message to help out for 90,000 years and then in an absent minded way sent it to some remote desert tribe. If he cared China might have been a better bet at least they could read back then. If Species are not important nations are less so. I think Italy is a better country now than when Rome ruled. USA was a great step forward from the model of monarchies but today the religious seem to want to pull it down with its anti science agenda. Humanity lurches forward in a hap hazard way.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 8, 2012 2:18:55 PM PST
Dr H says:
------
quert sez:
Great post, Dr.H. You've given me a lot to consider.
======
Thanks.

------
My Dad used to say give `em an inch and they'll take a mile. Seems relevant in any era.
======
Very true. Although cast in contemporary terms that would probably be 'give 'em a centimeter and they'll take a kilometer.' :-)

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 8, 2012 2:19:40 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 8, 2012 3:00:48 PM PST
A customer says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 9, 2012 9:16:44 AM PST
Bubba says:
The biggest problem is that most 12-step programs include something called a "higher power". Hard to get off of a higher power when you have to rely on a higher power to get off of a higher power.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2012 12:07:42 AM PST
Jesus4us says:
lbj: USA was a great step forward from the model of monarchies but today the religious seem to want to pull it down with its anti science agenda.

spl: I think you're paranoid, and making mountains out of molehills. The religious don't want to pull down the country with an anti-science agenda. That's just silly! We have tons of science and technology all around us! The reason we will go down hill is because we won't work for 31 cents an hour like those that make cell phones for the Foxconn Corporation in China. There is no way a business should not take advantage of that kind of cheap labor unless it required very skilled workers that China doesn't offer. Yet. You atheist scientist types just astound me at how ridiculous some of your views are. Anti-science agenda of the churches is just pure fantasy.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2012 12:19:52 AM PST
AxeGrrl says:
Bubba wrote: "The biggest problem is that most 12-step programs include something called a "higher power". Hard to get off of a higher power when you have to rely on a higher power to get off of a higher power."
~~~~

Ah Bubba, that sooooo reminds me of the old Cheech and Chong bit......

"I was all messed up on drugs, 'till I found the Lord. Now, I' m all messed up on the Lord!"

:)

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2012 5:24:27 AM PST
well they want to deny evolution, and climate change, not that matters much its too late. it is true kids are not signing up for science and engineering like they used to rather do media studies

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2012 5:24:39 AM PST
S. Schoby says:
Dr H says:
------
Puck sez:
It is not so hard to believe, although it might be hard to accept, that the good ol' U.S. of A. is probably at or past its peak and is on the way down, following the example of other nations. There is no reason to expect that the generations that inherited this nation will do better at preserving it than the generations that inherited other nations, who, like us, no doubt thought, "It can't happen to us. Others, but not us." There is no reason to believe that the U.S. of A. will be able to buck history and be champ forever.
======
Perhaps.

I think the dream is still worth pursuing. But I think we need to be well aware that it always was a dream, and has never yet quite become the reality.

We can do better, but first we have to stop deluding ourselves that nothing needs fixing.

SS: there are those who see only the bad and those who see what the bad can do.
Some will say "Look at the way this nation has been going all down hill it will never get any better"

Then there is "I see the bad and I see the good and what the bad does that interferes with the good."

The dream dies when the dream stops, the bad rules when we allow it to rule.

Sometimes I come cross some others of my own generation and many do say that the way everything has changed it's as if they are now living on a different planet.

When asked what has changed so much most will answer that it has become better not worst.

You do have those who will only see what they can not stand the existence of but this is far rarer to hear.

We used to have a laws forbidding interracial marriage, this is now greatly more tolerated and accepted.

We used to have laws that if a person acted homosexual they could be forcibly sent to a mental hospital.
Even openly beaten and this beating considered as self defense.

Women were viewed as un-fit to hold certain jobs.
It was once illegal for a race to live in an area of another race.

Some will think the world and the nation are worst off now then before, yet the dream has never died and the dream can come true once the dream is realized that dream is not just about you it is a dream about us all.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2012 5:53:11 AM PST
Mr. Krinkle says:
spl: I think you're paranoid, and making mountains out of molehills. The religious don't want to pull down the country with an anti-science agenda. That's just silly! We have tons of science and technology all around us! The reason we will go down hill is because we won't work for 31 cents an hour like those that make cell phones for the Foxconn Corporation in China. There is no way a business should not take advantage of that kind of cheap labor unless it required very skilled workers that China doesn't offer. Yet. You atheist scientist types just astound me at how ridiculous some of your views are. Anti-science agenda of the churches is just pure fantasy.

K: Should a business also take advantage of legal slavery in a country as a form of labor, if it is available, to increase profits?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2012 6:47:28 AM PST
S. Schoby says:
So many believe that the sole reason why something that was once made here is now being made overseas because of the lower wage costs.
This is simply not true, it is a piece of the puzzle for why some leave, and it is not the sole reason.

Many do leave for other motives, such as they can now build products with little to no requirement for them using safe materials in that production, can now pollute with little to no requirements for safe disposal.
They can now work people for longer hours, without paying any forms of un-employment, overtime and or social security.

In short they can produce a product anyway they desire with no responsibly for what harm said product can have upon people or the environment.

It is not all about the cost of labor; it has a lot to do with little or on interference or safety concerns.
In short placing profit above responsible business practices.

This all about labor is false and this anti unionism and is yet another wrong view that is thinking wrong in believing its all about labor.

Still more reasons is because of the need to be in a growing market for its products, it is not all about labor costs.

As far as religion being used to interfere with the private lives of people, look at those states where it has been used this way when a party gains total control over its state government. Alabama, Virginia, Wisconsin, Texas, Arizona to name just a few.

Motives for doing things often will use a belief system to cover the intent in that motive.
Intelligent design is one example, anti birth control being yet another, voter restrictions another as well.
The reasons we go down hill is because a few people can not tolerant how the hill is looking.

K: Should a business also take advantage of legal slavery in a country as a form of labor, if it is available, to increase profits?

Should un-ethical conduct be allowed to be so un-ethical? We see something cheap so we buy it and we do not see the harm in just wanting it cheap.
We complain when a product does not work right or harms our health and we do not realize we allowed it because we just wanted something for almost nothing.
The old saying "you can't have your cake and eat it to" someone has to grow what goes into the cake, someone has to put it together, someone has to bake it, all of this is not free.

Never mind the fact you didn't need the cake in the first place.

You can believe in a god or not, you can understand science or try to explain away its findings.
It all depends on what you chose to tolerate and your real motives for doing so.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2012 7:48:52 AM PST
Nick says:
StevePL writes: Anti-science agenda of the churches is just pure fantasy.

Nick: Really? Then why is it impossible to find a single anti-evolution Christian who actually even knows what the Theory of Evolution states? Add to that controversies on climate change, when conception occurs, homosexuality, the insistence that non-scientific ideas (such as "Intelligent Design") are taught in science classes as if they are science, etc and it seems there does exist an "anti-science" agenda. Perhaps you can modify it to an "anti-the-science-that-challenges-our-authority" agenda.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2012 11:12:50 AM PST
S. Schoby says:
The idea that a god has control over the actions of people and the events in their lives is a contradiction in its application.
How so?
God told me I am right and you are wrong? What makes a person think a god is only talking to them?

God said my religion is the true one. The other religion is saying the same thing, what makes each of theses religions think a god is only talking to them?

A god created everything but this thing in existence is wrong such as homosexuality and how relationships are not the way we want them is because a god is telling you they are wrong yet a god created it all?
Meanwhile those in those relationships are saying a god is telling them they are right?

If this god created everything is this person saying this god created something wrong and has placed this opinion above what a god did?, or is it in denial of the existence of it because it just plain can not stand it being here and people not behaving the way you want them to behave?

If a god could create something from nothing then a life form must therefore not share anything with any other species, it would just pop up into existence and this would have been noticed several times in the history of life.
There would be many species which share absolutely nothing in common or any possible linking of them.
Evolution simply would not exist and there would be nothing showing any possible links from one species to another.

If a god is in control of all life it would be insane to want to cause such confusion, insane to have people in constant battles over what they simply can not tolerate.
It would not need to teach any lessons to people by allowing something to be here just to show them how not to be if it were not all here?

A sane god simply would not have created the confusion in the first place.

Not a very good idea of a design, to design things so people could not tolerate it.

How can this un-ethical form of excused reasoning come to an end and a final realization that we are the ones doing all of this?

We could start by not using a god idea to justify what we do know as a fact an un-questionable reality about the human race.
One that is based upon what we really have been doing understanding the results it as done to us.

What do us example as an un-questionable really of the human race?
Racism, sexism, personal insecurity issues, jealous, greed is all over the history of the human race.
Fears of self exposure, submission to social peer pressures and self denial of our reasons hidden behind beliefs are known to existence and do exist.

Maybe this other idea of a god might help in removing the un-ethical immorality being excused behind a god idea.
I am an atheist and this is not about being against a person who might wish for a god or hope for a god, the point is about removing those excuses being denied behind a god idea.

We do not yet know exactly how the universe came into existence, we do research for discoveries of new things to expand our knowledge, and we all do this in our own ways.
Maybe not always for a search for a god but we do in other ways like finding a better rout home to not be in a lot of traffic or how we can build something or how to apply something in better ways.

So lets for the sake of argument say a god created the spark that helped create this universe. (The big bang)
It did not create or control everything that happens within this universe, it only created the possibly for all of life and existence to happen.

How it can evolve in this universe is entirely up to the possibly for it to happen.

Life is in control when it has the possibly to be in control to exist within this universe.
It can evolve or be destroyed by what might happen to it from other natural forces within this universe.

We do to each other what we do; we are in control of our actions when we have control over our actions.
All of life in not put here to like or dislike it is all simply here, we can learn of it and exist with it or we can hate it and not accept the reality of it.

No god is in control of love or hate or tolerance or intolerance we are.

The mind is not a hat rack it is to be used to think to realize a reality, we can learn or we can refuse to learn we and we alone can do this.

If there is no god and the universe came into being by some other means, we still are responsibly for our actions, we still can learn or remain filled with excuses and false reasoning's to un-ethically refuse to learn.

Some may think this is some non-sense being spoken in some strange un-known language some others might think it over agree or disagree the choice just like all those other things we do is completely our choice.

You can accept or at least tolerate a person wishing for a hope of a god believing in a god and not using this hope or belief in harmful ways to others or you can be entirely intolerant of anything not in agreement with you.

You can use a god to excuse an action or be responsible for that action, just as all those other things it's entirely our choice.

You can say a god is telling you something and this god is only speaking to you to tell the other persons they are wrong and could never be talking to the other persons or you can just admit you are disagreeing with each other.

You can say nothing could ever evolve or the chances of it happening allowed it to evolve.
You can explore or you can close the mind down in a refusal to understand.
We do this, only an insane use of a god idea would allow such confusion.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2012 12:32:48 PM PST
Jesus4us says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2012 12:37:10 PM PST
Jesus4us says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2012 12:44:01 PM PST
Jesus4us says:
Nick: Really? Then why is it impossible to find a single anti-evolution Christian who actually even knows what the Theory of Evolution states? Add to that controversies on climate change, when conception occurs, homosexuality, the insistence that non-scientific ideas (such as "Intelligent Design") are taught in science classes as if they are science, etc and it seems there does exist an "anti-science" agenda. Perhaps you can modify it to an "anti-the-science-that-challenges-our-authority" agenda.

spl: these are all theoretical questions. Christians have no problems with cold hard facts. Science should stick to the facts. If there are good facts for global warming I'm sure that Christians will accept them. Intelligent Design is probably as good of a theory as some of the theories about evolution.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2012 12:46:15 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 10, 2012 12:57:21 PM PST
Mr. Krinkle says:
StevePL says:
K: Should a business also take advantage of legal slavery in a country as a form of labor, if it is available, to increase profits?

spl: Are we speaking from a moral sense, or a logical business sense?

K: Well, we can look at both. Would it be moral for a U.S. based business to outsource to a nation in which they could benefit from legal slavery? Would it make business sense? I, personally, say no to both, with some caveats for the second.

spl: Each business has it's own moral standards, and it would be up to them.

K: So, you are now advocating moral relativity. When did you sign on to moral relativity?

We began with you saying: "There is no way a business should not take advantage of that kind of cheap labor unless it required very skilled workers that China doesn't offer."

So, as I began this exchange, it was not about what the business in question had for moral standards, but what StevePL thought was prudent and advisable as far as business practice goes. You said a business, in no way, should fail to take advantage of the Chinese labor force. So, my question still stands, and it is not to any particular business, but to you.

If, as you say, a business should not fail to take advantage of the Chinese labor force, should a business also not fail to take advantage of a hypothetical slave labor force in a nation where such is legal and readily available?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2012 12:56:57 PM PST
Mr. Krinkle says:
spl: these are all theoretical questions. Christians have no problems with cold hard facts. Science should stick to the facts.

K: If science stuck only to "facts" you would have nothing but actual observation. Theories offer explanations for all the facts, and provide useful and testable predictions. Theories are what science is all about, as theories make use of the known facts.

Steve: If there are good facts for global warming I'm sure that Christians will accept them. Intelligent Design is probably as good of a theory as some of the theories about evolution.

K: There are good facts for global warming, and there are abundant facts of evolution. There are zero facts, and zero scientific theories for Intelligent Design.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2012 1:09:35 PM PST
Nick says:
spl writes: they don't want to deny the facts of evolution.

Nick: Yes, conservative Christians constantly deny the facts of evolution. It is incredible how deliberately they deny the facts of evolution.

***
StevePL writes: That would be ridiculous, wouldn't it? But the theories they dream up, well, that's different.

Nick: A problem is conservative Christians don't understand what "theory" means when used in science. But that is partly a result of the anti-science attitude so many of them have.
Discussion locked

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  242
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Feb 28, 2012
Latest post:  Sep 21, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 10 customers

Search Customer Discussions