@op, so yeah...religion and politics often go hand in hand.
No where is that more obvious than in theocracies, like many Muslim states, or countries that mention god in their money.

Sports is another activity that leads to blind following and is connected with brands... With advertising gluing all the bits into one huge tapestry of influence over the lowly humans that are born and live out their lives attached to a governing body... All down to geographical luck at birth.

(July 3, 2017 at 3:11 pm)KerimF Wrote:

(July 2, 2017 at 7:24 pm)chimp3 Wrote: [1]: Darwin kept his theory secret until near his death. It was not received well by the elite. Einstein toiled in obscurity until experiments revealed his genius. Public money / taxes now fund science in the U.S. The days of patronage by elites and monarchs are long gone.

[2] : Rules? can you be more specific?

You are right the way you understood my word 'Elite'.
I chose this word (Elite in case of non-religious) to refer to the top decisions makers in the world, speaking politically and scientifically as well.
Politics that was started in the form of religions is the oldest art known by men by which a few persons can control legitimately the rest of their society with minimum problems. Today, the political artists (producers and directors working behind the scenes, also their great actors called politicians) use religions as a cover up of their diabolic plans; the best one, so far, is their international endless daily series known as 'War on Terror'. We all witnessed how in less than 24 hours the previous bogyman 'Communists' was replaced by 'Terrorists'. This was possible when both the American and Russian Elite agreed, under the table of course, to divide the main resources of the world between them. And the men on power of every other country were instructed to present themselves as ally to America or Russia, but not both. And they are promised to protect their positions if they play well in the series 'War on Terror'. So, one country after another, the unbeatable/unreachable terrorists are allowed to be raised locally or be imported from abroad so that they can spread the 9/11 terror against the powerless men on bottom, civilians.
On the other hand, the terrorist crimes against millions of people (we are just at the beginning of the World Terror War against civilians, as the American and Russian administrations keep telling) are now fully justified after sacrificing, in daylight and as high as possible in order for the entire world to witness, just a few thousands of innocent citizens in NYC (since no one in the world dares even to imagine attacking America, mainly a silly attack against its civilians). In other words, believing that the heroes of the 9/11 terror are psychopaths and the actual uncounted number of terrorist groups (actually forming a huge army prepared from 2002 to 2010) are trained, supported and funded (to the point they are threatening the two greatest nations!) by psychopaths too, won't differ a lot from believing that the human race started by Adam & Eve. As the latter story has its defenders in millions, it is natural that the story of the new incredible psychopaths has also its great defenders (theists and atheists, I guess).

---

(July 3, 2017 at 5:23 am)Die Atheistin Wrote: Religion is a tool meant to get political power.

In other words, they are twins when a nation has both.
Today's Chinese are likely the most rational people. They are supposed to be guided by one ruling system; an earthly one.

  Have you any idea about the discrepancy between female and male live births in China? About partial birth abortions, if the offspring is female? Go look it up, for your own edification. You are clueless. And Islam is even more retarded. Go take care of your own country before you come around and chide people in other countries for their "sins". If you actually go and research this information, you can come back and beg our forgiveness for posting your shit where it isn't due. Ye cats, what a tool. nb (not that you would understand that) nothing you will say here is going to make one whit of difference in what we think. Go out into your own country and do some good, instead of wasting your (and our) time with this shit. SHOO! SHOO fly!

(July 2, 2017 at 9:39 am)KerimF Wrote: [1]
A typical theist doesn’t mind believing in miracles, said religious if approved by certain religious people, privileged by the high class.
A typical atheist doesn’t mind believing an idea, beyond his personal experience, if said scientific and approved by certain scientists, privileged by the high class.
 
[2]
A typical theist doesn’t mind obeying rules if said inspired by a god and approved by certain religious people, privileged by the high class.
A typical atheist doesn’t mind obeying rules if said inspired by certain great ancestors (who are usually supposed representing ideals for the human race) and approved by privileged Elite.
 
Even from these two points, one may conclude that while a typical theist is made ready to accept being a follower/supporter of a certain heavenly ruling system, an atheist prefers to be a follower, if not a supporter too, of an earthly ruling system he used to know.
 
In the ‘real’ world (far from the great speeches, religious or political and as I see it), the role of religions (of various heavenly ruling systems) and politics (of various earthly ruling systems) are much alike. In both camps, minds of the faithful believers/followers are driven cleverly to where they are supposed to be. For example on one hand, a person is made ready to risk his life for a god. On the other hand, a person is made ready to risk his life for a flag (actually, the ideals it represents).

In other words, religions and politics complement each other, so that the most powerful/rich families in every region in the world can legitimately be served by the men on bottom who can choose freely to be theist or atheist.

I am so fucking sick of being lumped in with others just because we happen to share the relatively meaningless term 'atheist'. It's completely empty and devoid of meaning in all respects except to one simple question, and even slight nuances of that same question don't always pertain to it.

As a rational skeptic (and secular humanist, which are both far, far more relevant labels, so please consider differentiating if you want to be taken seriously rather than making somewhat insulting generalizations), I don't give a flying FUCK what any scientist or authority has to say, I give a shit what the goddamned evidence has to say. The identity of any discoverer or experimenter is irrelevant, if they can't demonstrate any claim to be reasonable or plausible, I'll suspend judgment rather than accepting it. As a chemistry major I've studied the subject and the claims it makes do stand up to scrutiny. But I'm not going to expect anyone to believe me if I don't go into detail or make demonstrations to back the claim up, but if they care to ask I'm more than willing to do that because I don't WANT people to be credulous idiots and just take anyone's word for anything. Even if I was a Ph.D I wouldn't answer anyone's questions without asking them if they'd done any studying on the subject first because it's better to become familiarized with the evidence first before speaking to an actual person about it.

Obeying rules only applies if it makes sense; laws can be immoral and that's where things like protests and civil disobedience, or even direct political action like running for office come in to play. If one feels strongly enough about something, regardless of their religious affiliation or lack thereof, they should be able to do that and more if they want and have the freedom (both time- and resource-wise, and being in an environment where that kind of activity won't be violently silenced.) I don't consider any ancestors to be 'great' because the identity of the originator of an idea is irrelevant. The content of the ideas or concepts is what matters and we discard those which don't work or make practical sense. Even now, we bastardize what good ideas there are (the type of democracy we have in the U.S. where the people choose one leader and the leaders choose the opposing candidate, is a perfect example). The elite tend to be the polar opposite of the masses, i.e. rich and conservative, alienating them from actual human values and encouraging and enforcing a striated class system that is to their benefit and distracts the lower classes from who their real enemies are.

You put zero thought into this and probably are just parroting what someone else farted out (which, in some cases, the identity of the speaker can be a somewhat useful factor, if they're a complete FUCKING IDIOT, for example, you'd probably want to just dismiss what they say out of hand...but hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day). So thanks for the insults and the opportunity (slim as it may be) to educate you. Please actually do something with it and not let it go to waste.

(July 3, 2017 at 10:26 am)mh.brewer Wrote: Why do all theists think atheist = science?

Atheists (in their minds) attack their religion by not being relgious. Science (in their minds) attacks their religion by showing that their god(s) doesn't control stuff like their holy books say.

---

(July 3, 2017 at 2:17 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 3, 2017 at 11:27 am)JackRussell Wrote: Yes, and by me telling somebody I am an atheist it's often funny to see the many things they will then assume about me and my other beliefs. My atheism jut tells you I don't believe in gods, it doesn't tell you squat about anything else I believe, disbelieve or my worldview or any ideology I may or may not hold. That all requires a whole host of further discussion the is too often assumed.

But when somebody say, tells me they are  Christian, I am quite happy to take them at their word and discuss beliefs, the funny times is when you meet another one who tells you that what the first one had said means they are not a really a Christian. Does anybody have a reliable "Credible Member of their Faith" detector?

There is such a detector. It's called the NT. If it isn't in there, it is not important in the definition of a Christian.

A book which tells you "do X" then turns around and tells you to do the exact opposite is not a reliable guide to anything.

In the gospels Yeshua bar Yosef tells you you have to obey every jewish law (because he was, if he existed, a proto ultra orthodox Jew), but by Saul of Tarsus, you are told the Jewish laws have to be ignored. So your "perfect detector" is a self confessed muddled pile of bullshit.

(July 4, 2017 at 1:34 am)Tazzycorn Wrote:

(July 3, 2017 at 10:26 am)mh.brewer Wrote: Why do all theists think atheist = science?

Atheists (in their minds) attack their religion by not being relgious. Science (in their minds) attacks their religion by showing that their god(s) doesn't control stuff like their holy books say.

---

(July 3, 2017 at 2:17 pm)SteveII Wrote: There is such a detector. It's called the NT. If it isn't in there, it is not important in the definition of a Christian.

A book which tells you "do X" then turns around and tells you to do the exact opposite is not a reliable guide to anything.

In the gospels Yeshua bar Yosef tells you you have to obey every jewish law (because he was, if he existed, a proto ultra orthodox Jew), but by Saul of Tarsus, you are told the Jewish laws have to be ignored. So your "perfect detector" is a self confessed muddled pile of bullshit.

No, that is not what it says at all. There are chapters and chapters about the purpose of the OT law. These fit right in with Jesus' "I have not come for abolish the law but to fulfill it". Your contradiction is imagined and just keeps gets propagated by people who don't understand the context and methods of systematic theology.

Well, we know that it was the law to stone dirty girls, because Jesus had to step in with the "First among you" speech. If it was God's will that such girls be stoned, then why would he step in?

Answer: because people made the Bible, and people at different times care about different things. An eternal God, on the other hand, isn't supposed to be that wishy-washy.

(July 4, 2017 at 7:50 am)SteveII Wrote:

(July 4, 2017 at 1:34 am)Tazzycorn Wrote: Atheists (in their minds) attack their religion by not being relgious. Science (in their minds) attacks their religion by showing that their god(s) doesn't control stuff like their holy books say.

---

A book which tells you "do X" then turns around and tells you to do the exact opposite is not a reliable guide to anything.

In the gospels Yeshua bar Yosef tells you you have to obey every jewish law (because he was, if he existed, a proto ultra orthodox Jew), but by Saul of Tarsus, you are told the Jewish laws have to be ignored. So your "perfect detector" is a self confessed muddled pile of bullshit.

No, that is not what it says at all. There are chapters and chapters about the purpose of the OT law. These fit right in with Jesus' "I have not come for abolish the law but to fulfill it". Your contradiction is imagined and just keeps gets propagated by people who don't understand the context and methods of systematic theology.

Yeah, let's ignore the fact that your perfect god is such a miserable failure at communicating clearly with his creation that even after he sends his 'final' prophet, he still royally fucked up trying to make his people understand his message. You lose at every fucking turn, dude. Give it up already. It's pathetic.

(July 3, 2017 at 8:43 am)YouOnlyLiveTwice Wrote: There's nothing "high-class" about using scientific metrics proving something. That is an objective, empirical way of proving something that can be commonly observed by the rest of us. Science has never been about a separate elite class; their claims are always open to valid dispute from anyone and are only considered proven if they can be reached through objective observation available to anyone.

On the other hand, there is something intrinsically "high-class" about religious metrics, which often involve personal internal revelations which are common only to a select few and appear to be arbitrarily absent from those who don't share the same faith. If a belief in the faith is required to gain one access to evidence of any sort as to the existence of God or the veracity of the religion's claims, then there's a select "high-class" involved — those not of the faith are excluded from the possibility of attaining relevant evidence. That is not the case with science, where the evidence is always open for all to see and nobody is excluded from observing or disputing scientific processes.

The difference between the "earthly" and "heavenly" ruling realms is that the former is able to proven through universally empirical means, while the latter is a claim forwarded by ancient scriptures and traditions completely devoid of any universal or empirical basis.

I wish you are right and the scientific 'high-class' doesn't exist, practically speaking.

Don't you recall how Galileo was treated for presenting his new scientific discoveries?
One may say that this example doesn't hold because the scientists in his time were rather religious and he liked to prove what was against their teachings.

About 10 years ago, I wrote an article about the real story of the beginning of AIDS and for which reason almost all systems in the world were instructed to contribute in its propaganda, at all levels and in the same period(s) of time. When a journalist, a friend of mine, read it, he was surprised how it was clear and rational while showing many hidden truths of what is known universally as AIDS. He decided to print it on a local paper. But after a few days, he came back to tell me that this article, if printed, would upset, to a great extent, the religious elite of all known religions, local and abroad. Naturally, we decided to keep its info for ourselves and for those we personally care of. But, also behind the approved stories of AIDS, claimed being true and real, there are powerful/rich families around the world, not necessarily religious, that are ready, anytime and at any cost, to silence any voice which can reveal openly what AIDS is about really.

Also, about 40 years ago, my MS thesis in data/signal communications was about a solution which proved the opposite of what all universities (faculties in communications) in the world teach their undergraduates, even in these days. I even used it, in the 80's, in my short-range private RF links to make the transmitted voice signals secure (since, at that time, there was no receiver to demodulate my signals; even today, such a receiver is costly and complex if it exists). But my simple reliable solution has to die with me because it is not easy for me, from where I live, to contact a member of the world's scientific 'high-class' who is also interested in exploring a new topology which, as claimed worldwide, cannot exist.

This is why, I personally don't see a big difference among those who are in charge of today's religions, politics and even science. But this is just me.

Kerim

(July 4, 2017 at 2:32 pm)KerimF Wrote:

(July 3, 2017 at 8:43 am)YouOnlyLiveTwice Wrote: There's nothing "high-class" about using scientific metrics proving something. That is an objective, empirical way of proving something that can be commonly observed by the rest of us. Science has never been about a separate elite class; their claims are always open to valid dispute from anyone and are only considered proven if they can be reached through objective observation available to anyone.

On the other hand, there is something intrinsically "high-class" about religious metrics, which often involve personal internal revelations which are common only to a select few and appear to be arbitrarily absent from those who don't share the same faith. If a belief in the faith is required to gain one access to evidence of any sort as to the existence of God or the veracity of the religion's claims, then there's a select "high-class" involved — those not of the faith are excluded from the possibility of attaining relevant evidence. That is not the case with science, where the evidence is always open for all to see and nobody is excluded from observing or disputing scientific processes.

The difference between the "earthly" and "heavenly" ruling realms is that the former is able to proven through universally empirical means, while the latter is a claim forwarded by ancient scriptures and traditions completely devoid of any universal or empirical basis.

I wish you are right and the scientific 'high-class' doesn't exist, practically speaking.

Don't you recall how Galileo was treated for presenting his new scientific discoveries?
One may say that this example doesn't hold because the scientists in his time were rather religious and he liked to prove what was against their teachings.

About 10 years ago, I wrote an article about the real story of the beginning of AIDS and for which reason almost all systems in the world were instructed to contribute in its propaganda, at all levels and in the same period(s) of time. When a journalist, a friend of mine, read it, he was surprised how it was clear and rational while showing many hidden truths of what is known universally as AIDS. He decided to print it on a local paper. But after a few days, he came back to tell me that this article, if printed, would upset, to a great extent, the religious elite of all known religions, local and abroad. Naturally, we decided to keep its info for ourselves and for those we personally care of. But, also behind the approved stories of AIDS, claimed being true and real, there are powerful/rich families around the world, not necessarily religious, that are ready, anytime and at any cost, to silence any voice which can reveal openly what AIDS is about really.

Also, about 40 years ago, my MS thesis in data/signal communications was about a solution which proved the opposite of what all universities (faculties in communications) in the world teach their undergraduates, even in these days. I even used it, in the 80's, in my short-range private RF links to make the transmitted voice signals secure (since, at that time, there was no receiver to demodulate my signals; even today, such a receiver is costly and complex if it exists). But my simple reliable solution has to die with me because it is not easy for me, from where I live, to contact a member of the world's scientific 'high-class' who is also interested in exploring a new topology which, as claimed worldwide, cannot exist.

This is why, I personally don't see a big difference among those who are in charge of today's religions, politics and even science. But this is just me.

Kerim

I'm a scientist. There is no scientific "elite" or "high class." If you couldn't get your ms thesis published through peer review, it's probably because it was bullshit


Cheers
TheBeardedDude

(July 3, 2017 at 9:50 am)TheBeardedDude Wrote: Typical atheist: doesn't believe in a god

That's it. Fin. That's the end of the description of a typical atheist.

I don't look to "certain scientists" for my beliefs. Nor do I only believe things directly from science. Nor do I follow rules because of who created them. Nor do I follow rules because they are "approved by privileged elite."

I think for myself and reason through ideas and look for reasons to believe them. If I can find none (or no logical or rational reasons), then I tend to disbelieve them


Cheers
TheBeardedDude

Please tell me; do you think all atheists are likely rational and independent as you are?

By the way and I don't expect you to believe what I will say, I am a theist based solely on reason because I can't have a blind faith, even if I want to
But I usually had faith first in axioms (also in science) in order to check later, by applying them, if they are valid and useful in my life or not.

Naturally, the Will/Power which is behind my existence and I perceive in my being, happens to be totally different of all gods you might hear of; the gods that are accepted by certain communities in the world. In fact, the image of this Will/Power cannot be adopted/approved by any system/organization in the world. It may be discovered by free independent individuals only (if one felt the need to do it). And each of these individuals can take advantage of all what he would be able to discover from this image to better know his being and the real world he lives in. For instance, I couldn't meet yet one of these individuals but at least one person happened to agree with me openly on all what I discovered in this respect. Otherwise I would see myself as a real weird being

Anyway, it is always not a prerequisite for a human being to know how and why he exists in order for him to live a normal life and be completely satisfied with the way his being is made.

Kerim