Paul ’s Comments (group member since Sep 12, 2010)

Paul ’s comments from the Atheists and Skeptics group.

Alex, you forgot about her cat, which may or may not have chowed down on her lonely, bitter, evil corpse before the body was discovered.

Good comeback! Unfortunately this has never happened to me. I do read atheist literature on trains in the hope, but either British people aren't religious enough to be perturbed or are just too repressed.

Just because it's impossible to answer doesn't mean it isn't interesting to talk about. The christian church became dominant because it built on the Roman Empire, in fact became a continuation of it. It is possible that one of the many, many other cults of the time could have done the same (such as the cult of Mithras), but it is probably true that there was something about the form of christianity that became dominant that leant itself to adoption by other cultures - which is also probably why this form became dominant. So the form of christianity that was dominant built on the power of old Rome in a sort of perfect storm.

Assuming christianity had not become dominant leads to a whole tree of what-ifs, such as: Would islam have become dominant in Europe as well as the Middle East and North Africa?

Until the development of the renaissance and the subsequent enlightenment, as a species we could not hope but to be ruled by magical thinking. I don't think there is any doubt that history would be hugely different had christianity not appeared.

I think history does show that humanity progresses - although sometimes it is in fits and starts and filled with temporary setbacks (the declines of the Greek city states and of Rome, for example), and social and mental advancement go along with our technological improvement. It would be nice to think that all religion will be relegated to the status of myth in time.

Rita wrote: "Turned out that the Y"K was hyped up "hoax". Nothing really happened, at least as far as I heard at the time. "

It certainly wasn't a hoax, although a lot of the effects (airliners falling from the skies, etc) were over hyped. Noting happened because a hell of a lot of work was done to prevent it.

I do agree it would probably be too much hassle to change to a new dating system, which is why the Common Era system is a good compromise; while it still equates modernity with the christian era it removes it from the language. It reminds me of one of the pieces of journalistic laziness that most annoys me; the number of hacks who use the phrase "for [more than] two thousand years" to mean "since antiquity", as though everything BCE is all the same and progress only began two thousand years ago.

In my experience, in the UK most academics use the BCE/CE notation. I know a lot of archaeologists.

Xox wrote: "If this company refused to put up a billboard by black, it is more obvious. Replace black with atheist and you got the right idea. ."

But is it as black and white as that, no pun intended? If you ran an advertising agency and the KKK wanted to pay for your services would you be happy to take their money? I mean, of course, if the message they wanted advertised was technically legal but still immoral.

If you run a cafe or a hardware store, then refusing to serve people because of their beliefs is wrong, full stop. Okay, throw someone out if they start spouting ideas you find offensive, but you can't not serve someone because they are christian or muslim or atheist, black or white or asian. But agreeing to spread someone else's beliefs is a different proposition.

I know there have been cases where agencies have removed atheist billboards after receiving pressure from churches (or local authorities!), which absolutely is censorship.

Advertising professionals are not known for their moral absolutes; I remember hearing an interview some time ago with the head of a UK agency. When asked if he had any qualms about advertising tobacco he answered that as long as the product was legal he'd take the commission. The interviewer asked if he'd therefore advertise heroin if it was legal, and he said that the only thing he would never under any circumstances advertise was socialism. While the man was an obvious anus, that is his prerogative.

I've heard of this but never seen actually it. Pretty funny, love the way the set up and style is such straight, old-fashioned sitcom.

love the "conversational terrorism" link. I think a lot of it is lifted straight from the Fox training manual.

Dutch wrote: "I'm doing what ever it take to not go to heaven. Think it's working? :)"

Nice work ;D if it turns out we're wrong and there is an afterlife (provided i haven't imploded into nothing in surprise!) we'll have to organise an alternative party

Inflammatory question, Dutch; I fully expect some faith head to show up and start bitching about "see! you admit it! i knew you atheists were hatemongers!" ;D

Not sure if i actually do hate religion. it leaves me perplexed, flummoxed and, yes, sometimes angry (as well as fascinated. Oddly, I think I have an easier time hating certain individuals than the institutions - the Jerry Falwells and Bin Ladens who, whether or not they are believers or charlatans, use the beliefs for power and as a weapon.

That said, I am amazed that Scientology hasn't yet been mentioned. Perhaps people don't consider it to be a proper religion? It seems just as bullshit as the rest of them. The thing that gets me about it is the divisiveness that has already been mentioned in respect of the Jehovah's, but also its blatant self-serving attitude.

Tyler wrote: "Actually, we should be dating everything without reference to a religious event. I prefer BS/PS: before and after the death of Socrates.

That's a good measure of how far civilization has advanc..."

now that is a superb idea!

I'm not sure if there's a GR constitution, but surely if there were the first clause would be prohibiting censorship. To quote Carl Sagan:

"The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas."

"Frederick Douglas taught that literacy is the path from slavery to freedom. There are many kinds of slavery and many kinds of freedom, but reading is still the path."

I was the same, Dutch; I began to skim after the fist dozen.

To answer the the question posted at the beginning of that discussion: no, they absolutely should NOT be treated differently from other books. If people are offended by that, tough.

The other point is the number of times someone wrote about having to "respect others beliefs". I remember being brought up with this sentiment and, quite early on, being dissatisfied with it but not being able to work out why. It took me years to realise the problem; while I absolutely respect someone's right to hold a belief, that does not mean that I have to respect the belief itself. If that were the case, I would have to respect the beliefs of a Nazi or the KKK. So please respect my right to call your beliefs bollocks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtIREJ...#!

"maybe salvation should be more about enhancing your humanity than rescuing you from it"

surprised he hasn't been burnt at the stake yet

It does sound very much like the majority of people i know who describe themselves as 'religious'; believing that there is 'something', some force or point to it all. God as nature and the vital force. Barely even deism.

I actually think that organised churches embracing this is generally a good thing. There's a reason that Christian philosophers have decried this kind of thing through the centuries - i think it is a positive step toward abandoning faith altogether. Remember, religion is a crutch and some people need crutches.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europ...

"A study by the Free University of Amsterdam found that one-in-six clergy in the Dutch Protestant Church was either agnostic or atheist."

Alex wrote: "message 6. shows how they are not denying a right because gay marriage is not a right, never has been a right. And also that it will have an effect on religious peoples rights. So this is not bigotry. You place yourselves in a position of moral superiority, and relegate those with different views to positions of inferiority by labeling them bigots, and thus show how intolerant you are towards others. ."

by this logic, women wouldn't have the vote and black Americans would still be slaves. in fact, depending upon where you set the starting point, nobody would have any rights because they never would have had any rights.

what you have done there is to simply repeat yourself ("also it will have an effect on religious peoples rights") without actually saying how, while adding a piece of complete gibberish. Do all our rights begin and end with the bible, perhaps? Luckily, I'm Jewish a couple of generations back, so i guess i'm alright.

Very tempted as I am to descend to the kind of name calling apoplexy that you obviously expect 'my kind' to resort to, I actually would like you to attempt to engage in this discussion and demonstrate that you're not the idiot you so far appear.

Alex wrote: "Alex wrote: modern inclusive liberals(MIL) are the most harsh in their criticism and ridicule of those they dont understand and those they fear. ..."

This may include large sections of the popul..."

i can't help but notice that you aren't actually answering my response to you objection...

Alex wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "LOL. New York Bigots!"

Sure Madge as usuall you dont suprise me. Some people have a different view to you and so you label them bigots. That is very common in progresive circles..."

Part of the problem of modern inclusive liberalism as a hesitancy to condemn, but we seem to be finding our teeth and are quite happy to call out bigotry where we see it.

Would you deny that these people are trying to deny other people rights on the simple fact of beliefs they hold, despite the fact it has no bearing on their own lives or rights? That sounds like bigotry pure and simple.

the wonderful Johann Hari

"all people deserve our respect, not all ideas do"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01J_d2...

Hannity, Beck and O'Reilly - the triumvirate of evil. I actually mean that word.

Interesting teh see O'Reilly disagreeing with Ann Coulter, though - probably more evil than the rest put together.

Coulter admitted she was an avid supporter of President Bush's decision to invade Afghanistan, but explains that the reason she was for the invasion until she was against it has a lot to do with the fact that Democrats are now in charge. "Republicans support deploying the troops when it is in the national interest of the United States," she explained, while "Democrats support deploying the troops – flinging them around the world, in fact – only provided it is not in the United States' national interest."