Top 10 TV Shows

[Edwardo Piet]

I saw on youtube a "Bullshit!" with Penn and Teller that said how the bible was total bullshit. And the fastest way to become atheist is to "read the God damn bible".
So I'm not surprised Daystar was disappointed

[Kyuuketsuki]

I like most episodes of Bullshit! but the one they did about second hand smoking was really quite awful. I'm not sure if they were being paid by a cigarette company or if they just didn't like the attitude of some of the anti-smoker activists, but taking two reports and poking tiny holes in them is ridiculous when you look at all the other reports they didn't poke holes in.

Yes I was suspicious about that BUT the fact that their other stuff is so "on the mark" means I won't dismiss what they say yet ... at present, to my knowledge, the only case of someone dying from second had smoking is UK musician Roy Castle and that wasn't a scientifically validated study.

The risks of second hand smoking are well researched in the health industry, and it is the main reason why so many places are banning smoking indoors.

That's what I thought (can you point to some articles on that in sci journals)?) but a very clever friend of mine also says the same ... he's not always right but I've found his views should always be taken seriously (he's that kind of person).

Kyu

[leo-rcc]

What P&T should do is a revisit of some old episodes to make errata's where required. Like Mythbusters do when they got the science wrong.

---

My top 10:

1. Top gear
2. Robotwars (obviously since I was in it)
3. Battlebots
4. House MD
5. Matroesjka's
6. Cracker (UK version)
7. Criminal minds
8. Dr. Who
9. Little Britain (only for Tom Baker really)
10. Have I got news for you

[Daystar]

I rented a Bullshit DVD and it was a disapointment of sorts. I thought it would be great but it didn't work for me. Maybe my expectations were too high.

I'm not surprised you didn't like it after all they advance an inherently sceptical/rational POV which is pretty much what the rational atheist does.

Kyu

Bullshit. It was boring and shortsighted and only in that way representitive of Atheist religion.

---

What P&T should do is a revisit of some old episodes to make errata's where required. Like Mythbusters do when they got the science wrong.

---

My top 10:

1. Top gear
2. Robotwars (obviously since I was in it)
3. Battlebots
4. House MD
5. Matroesjka's
6. Cracker (UK version)
7. Criminal minds
8. Dr. Who
9. Little Britain (only for Tom Baker really)
10. Have I got news for you

Everybody likes House M.D.

---

I saw on youtube a "Bullshit!" with Penn and Teller that said how the bible was total bullshit. And the fastest way to become atheist is to "read the God damn bible".
So I'm not surprised Daystar was disappointed

The fastest way to become an atheist is to read the Bible, huh? You must be taking the long way. Back at ya!

[Kyuuketsuki]

Bullshit. It was boring and shortsighted and only in that way representitive of Atheist religion.

Atheist Religion? Let's deal with that shall we? Here's a little piece I wrote a while ago

What Is Atheism
By
The Editor: UK Atheist & Science E-Zine
Introduction
When debating creationists and those of a theistic bent I am often accused of being a man of faith, which is odd because I'm an atheist.

The argument (raised by theists) is that to believe there is no god requires as much (if not more) faith than it requires believing there is one. Sometimes the argument appears to be based around the claim that I (the atheist) must believe in something and (in my case) it is claimed that I positively disbelieve in a god or gods and that must be a position of faith.

If the theist view is correct and atheism was, indeed, a faith then atheists must also be hypocrites for attacking the views of other religions when theirs is a position of faith as well.

The purpose of this article is to define the various terms involved in the issue i.e. theist, agnostic, atheist, fideist and to defend the position of atheism as a non-faith based stance.

Terminology
In order to discuss atheism and the various alternative stances it is necessary to define exactly what these stances are. I have used a number of reference resources to support this.

Theism (1678) may be defined as a "belief in the existence of a god or gods" but more specifically as a "belief in the creation of the universe by one god".

Polytheism is defined fairly universally as a "belief in or worship of more than one god" (1613).

Fideism is defined as a "reliance on faith rather than reason in pursuit of religious truth" (1885)

Pantheism is a doctrine that identifies the universe with a god but Miriam-Webster Online goes on to further define it as "the worship of all gods of different creeds, cults, or peoples indifferently" and also equates it with religious tolerance (1732).

Agnosticism is a doctrine "that the existence of deity can neither be proved nor disproved" and in broad terms an agnostic is considered to be "one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the non-existence of God or a god".

Atheism (most critically as far as this article is concerned) is defined as a "belief that there is no god" (Collins), "a doctrine that denies the existence of deity" (Encarta) and "a disbelief in the existence of deity" (Miriam-Webster, 1546)

Still on the subject of terminology it is part of the English language that the use of an "a" in front of a word reverses the sense of the word, for instance the phrase "typical behaviour" refers to behaviour that is expected whereas "atypical behaviour" refers to behaviour that is not typical. "Biogenesis" refers to the generation of life from existing life and "abiogenesis" refers to the generation of life from where there was previously none. Someone who is "moral " is understood to be an individual who adheres to an acceptable set of standards, whose behaviour is understood to be good and correct, an "amoral" person is one who does not do so (and not merely because it suits them to do so, such an individual would be defined as "immoral"). Effectively the preceding "a" simply means "without" so in the examples above the words "atypical", "abiogenesis" and "amoral" can be understood to mean "without adhering to (or not exhibiting) the expected behaviour", "life arising without life already being present" and "without morals" respectively.

In the context of this article a "theist" is someone who believes in a god or gods and, in common with how the preceding "a" is similar cases within the English language, "atheist" therefore can be understood to simply mean "without god or gods" (or denies the existence of god or gods).

Atheism is therefore, by definition, the absence of theism and any individual who cannot say "I believe in a deity or god or religion" is an atheist, the term atheist can therefore be seen to completely encompass (include) the term agnosticism (Barnett).

Discussion
One of the key points to understand about atheism is that is not defined as believing there is no god, it is defined as "not believing there is a god" ... the first position is (as it says) a belief, the second simply a lack of belief.

An atheist is a person who does not believe that any gods exist (Carrier, 1996)

Most monotheistic religions will claim that their god is all-seeing, all-knowing & all-powerful and yet, when asked if we have free will answer yes, but if that god is all-seeing and all-knowing etc. then it must be able to see the future and therefore we cannot have free will because whatever will happen is preordained and so we have a contradiction. Monotheistic gods & their scriptures tend to be brimming with such contradictory characteristics and because of this a relatively rational atheist who lacks belief may safely say that he does not accept the existence of (does not believe in current descriptions of) a given god without forcing his or her worldview to become a belief, the rejection is made on purely rational grounds. If one were to say to someone who claimed to be able to fly and following repeated (rejected as one might expect) demands for a demonstration that he did not believe that he was able to fly then that statement would be the product of reason and not of faith. It is the same when an intelligent and rational atheist does the same WRT god.

If this kind of theist argument were taken to its logical conclusion then all possible argument on all topics is inherently untenable. If the only counter to someone arguing that there is life on Saturn is someone else shouting that there can be no life on Saturn then what does one call a person who would state that there is no evidence yet either for or against life on Saturn but that the proposition is an interesting one?

An atheist (using the Saturn analogy) is someone who has stated that there is no evidence for life on Saturn and that therefore it is up to the believer in Saturnine biology to provide some, otherwise the debate cannot begin. It is interesting that a number of extra-terrestrial life theorists often use creationist-style arguments to support their views, particularly credulity. After carrying out some meaningless calculation to work out how many planets are likely to exist and suggesting that that makes the likelihood of life on some of them overwhelming, anyone questioning their assumptions is immediately branded arrogant for thinking that we are in some way 'special'. Ultimately a calculation of probability alone is insufficient evidence to make such a claim & observed experimental evidence is required.

Of course this reasoning can also apply to interfaith issues ... a Christian does not believe in Allah (though many more reasonable individuals might consider the Christian & Islamic gods to be one and the same) any more than they accept the existence of Zeus or Odin and likewise a Muslim will not believe in the Christian god.

Religion tends to be characterised by a number of features or necessities, which are summarised as follows:

<B>The Characteristics Of Religion</B>

Format: Characteristics [Required to be an atheist]

* A belief in a non-demonstrable deity or deities [No]
* The necessity of prayer/worship/ceremony [No]
* Places of worship [No]
* Holy books & scriptures [No]
* Religious authorities (priests, rabbi etc.) [No]
* Supernatural beliefs (e.g. angels, demons) [No]
* Acceptance of the miraculous [No]
* Belief in an afterlife (e.g. heaven or hell) [No]
* Holy wars (crusades, jihad's etc.) [No]
* Post life reward & punishment (heaven/hell) [No]
* Lifestyle restrictions (dress, diet, marriage etc.) [No]
* Belief without evidence (faith as a virtue) [No]
* Belief in spite of the evidence (anti-science) [No]
* Supernatural origins (of life, the universe) [No]
* Fundamentalism (extremists, murder, dark ages) [No]
* The need to convert (doorstep preachers etc.) [No]
* Belief in a eternal soul (life/forgiveness after death) [No]
* Viewing others as sinful, unclean or heretical [No]
* Sole claim to being a given god's chosen [No]
* Comfort factor (that others go to better place) [No]
* Externally applied morality (moral code is self-governed) [No]

Although not all religions have each feature, every religion will possess a significant (high rather than low) number of these characteristics but it can be clearly seen that atheism requests or requires none of them.

Conclusion
From the above it is easy to see that atheism is not a religious position and is, in fact, a denial of every essential claim made by religions. Even "agnosticism" is covered by the term "atheist" because as an "agnostic" one is not accepting the dogmatic statement that a god or gods exists, i.e. the commonly used term "agnostic" equates to "weak atheist". From this it can be inferred that the commonly used term "atheist" usually equates to "strong atheist".

Atheism is not a religion, it is, quite simply, a denial of the claimed existence of gods and that those who refer to atheism as a religion (as creationists and literalists often do) are either unaware of exactly what an atheist is or too blinded by their own religious & bigoted views to define it objectively or correctly.

References
"Religion of Atheism" Adrian Barnett
"The Language Centre" Miriam-Webster Online
"Paperback Dictionary & Thesaurus" Collins
"Encarta Online Concise" MSN
"What is Atheism Really All About?" Richard Carrier, 1996

So in any realistic terms Daystar old bean atheism, despite your quite frankly incredibly stupid claim, is NOT a religion and only a complete moron would claim otherwise.

Oh, and BTW it is "representative" not "representitive" (even in the bastardised version of English you use)

Kyu

[bozo]

Homocide: Life On The Streets
House M.D.
Absolutely Fabulous
Talk Radio
Family Guy
Twilight Zone
Fawltey Towers
The Red Green Show
All In The Family
Aqua Teen Hunger Force

Daystar, i offer:

Fawlty Towers
Dass Boot
The Prisoner ( my all-time favourite )
I Claudius
Life on earth
Columbo
Rising Damp
The Young Ones
Steptoe and Son
The Invaders

[Daystar]

Homocide: Life On The Streets
House M.D.
Absolutely Fabulous
Talk Radio
Family Guy
Twilight Zone
Fawltey Towers
The Red Green Show
All In The Family
Aqua Teen Hunger Force

Daystar, i offer:

Fawlty Towers
Dass Boot
The Prisoner ( my all-time favourite )
I Claudius
Life on earth
Columbo
Rising Damp
The Young Ones
Steptoe and Son
The Invaders

I was hoping Fawlty Towers would get a vote other than mine. Thanks, Bozo.

[Edwardo Piet]

Atheism is absence of belief in God. No belief in God. And absence of belief is not religion.
Religions however actually are belief systems - they're not absence of belief.
Atheism is not a belief system. What do you believe in simply because you're an atheist? You don't believe in God. But thats absence of belief not belief.

[bozo]

Homocide: Life On The Streets
House M.D.
Absolutely Fabulous
Talk Radio
Family Guy
Twilight Zone
Fawltey Towers
The Red Green Show
All In The Family
Aqua Teen Hunger Force

Daystar, i offer:

Fawlty Towers
Dass Boot
The Prisoner ( my all-time favourite )
I Claudius
Life on earth
Columbo
Rising Damp
The Young Ones
Steptoe and Son
The Invaders

I was hoping Fawlty Towers would get a vote other than mine. Thanks, Bozo.

No probs Daystar, great show!
I missed one that I should have included.... The Boys From The Blackstuff.

[Daystar]

The argument (raised by theists) is that to believe there is no god requires as much (if not more) faith than it requires believing there is one. Sometimes the argument appears to be based around the claim that I (the atheist) must believe in something and (in my case) it is claimed that I positively disbelieve in a god or gods and that must be a position of faith.

Oh! You sinner!!

To me the religious aspect of it doesn't depend upon faith. It does have something to do with belief, but not entirely. It is more about the position taken due to a pardigm. Being an Atheist, to a militant atheist like yourself, is completely different than non-militant atheism in this respect.

It effects nearly every aspect of your life. You think and act like a religious person - only without a god.

If the theist view is correct and atheism was, indeed, a faith then atheists must also be hypocrites for attacking the views of other religions when theirs is a position of faith as well.

Well, hypocracy is comes from a Greek form of theatre where everything was magnified. Big costumes, big sounds, big everything. That sums up militant Atheism to me. Most atheist would think it a waste of time argueing fairy tales with believers. Not the militatant. It is an emotional, social and political reaction. Like Xianity.

The purpose of this article is to define the various terms involved in the issue i.e. theist, agnostic, atheist, fideist and to defend the position of atheism as a non-faith based stance.

Yeah. Clever. It took you longer than I thought it would. Doesn't matter what you call it, I don't even think you are aware of the way you act even when you see others of the same religion. Just like . . . Xians . . . yeah.

Atheism (most critically as far as this article is concerned) is defined as a "belief that there is no god" (Collins), "a doctrine that denies the existence of deity" (Encarta) and "a disbelief in the existence of deity" (Miriam-Webster, 1546)

Which, as I have pointed out to you a few times, is bullshit for two reasons. 1. You can't define god(s) or deity. and 2. A god can be anything. Science for example, is the god of the militant Atheists.

400!

Atheism is therefore, by definition, the absence of theism and any individual who cannot say "I believe in a deity or god or religion" is an atheist, the term atheist can therefore be seen to completely encompass (include) the term agnosticism (Barnett).

It would have been far more interesting if you had actually thought that the word god was important enough to define as far as terms go. Of course you didn't because it is more about an emotional reaction to political and social repression by Xianity but, hey!

400!

Thats just me.

Most monotheistic religions will claim that their god is all-seeing, all-knowing & all-powerful and yet, when asked if we have free will answer yes, but if that god is all-seeing and all-knowing etc. then it must be able to see the future and therefore we cannot have free will because whatever will happen is preordained and so we have a contradiction. Monotheistic gods & their scriptures tend to be brimming with such contradictory characteristics and because of this a relatively rational atheist who lacks belief may safely say that he does not accept the existence of (does not believe in current descriptions of) a given god without forcing his or her worldview to become a belief, the rejection is made on purely rational grounds. If one were to say to someone who claimed to be able to fly and following repeated (rejected as one might expect) demands for a demonstration that he did not believe that he was able to fly then that statement would be the product of reason and not of faith. It is the same when an intelligent and rational atheist does the same WRT god.

Well, that, surprisingly would make some sense if it were not for the aforementioned inability of the militant Atheist to define the simple word god, come to a rational understanding of his real emotional response to political and social repression and mobilize or organize accordingly as well as recognize that the Bible, as far as monotheistic scriptures go, doesn't support the religious idea of God being omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.

Not to mention, that to most atheist with only the exception of militant Atheists, would anything other than a simple statement of a lack of beleif in god.

Religion tends to be characterised by a number of features or necessities, which are summarised as follows:

I will add my response to each of these in bold and brackets. I have removed the ones that were not true of all religion. You had included them because they were fundi Xian and you have an emotional attachment to those who apperently are politically and socially superior to you. That scares the hell out of me, but there aren't many of you militant Atheists out there.

<B>The Characteristics Of Religion</B>

Format: Characteristics [Required to be an atheist]

* A belief in a non-demonstrable deity or deities [Yes. Evolution.]
* The necessity of prayer/worship/ceremony [Yes. Bill Maher]
* Places of worship [Yes. The Internet, Star Trek conventions]
* Holy books & scriptures [Yes. The Gospel according to Richard Dawkins]
* Religious authorities (priests, rabbi etc.) [Yes. Darwin. Dawkins.]
* Supernatural beliefs (e.g. angels, demons) [Yes. Aliens.]
* Acceptance of the miraculous [Yes. Evolution.]
* Lifestyle restrictions (dress, diet, marriage etc.) [Yes. Sin.]
* Belief without evidence (faith as a virtue) [Yes. Evolution.]
* Belief in spite of the evidence (anti-science) [Yes. Evolution.]
* Supernatural origins (of life, the universe) [Yes. Aliens.]
* The need to convert (doorstep preachers etc.) [Yes. Every election.]
* Comfort factor (that others go to better place) [Yes. Of course! Don't be stupid!]

You conclude by not making a point but only having claimed to have made a point so I skipped that bit since you don't know what the fuck you are talking about anyway.