Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Mannahnin wrote:I think you're contradicting yourself. Based on the evidence of one political advocacy organization and some poor grammar on their website you're painting atheism as a monolithic, dogmatic group. And yet you're now hedging on whether you consider atheism to be a religion.

That one political advocacy group, is the only one with main website and is a member of a supergroup of international atheist organisations. Now supergroup organisations exist for many groups, largely with the same purpose. Partly networking, but mostly accreditation. The Christians have one called the Evangelical Alliance, it is there to internally define what is Christian, after all many organisations use the name Jesus or Church in their title, yet are not Christian, so it was considered important.

Mannahnin wrote:
I'll concede that there are some politically-active atheists out there who want to oppose religious influences in society (including faith-oriented schools), but again, those folks are a tiny minority, and they're not guided by a book of dogma or a pretense of being guided by a god to their chosen course of action.

Are they a tiny minority, the group linked to is accredited by the Atheist Alliance International, were it an unwelcome extremist fringe it would not be. Besides other than individuals there are no other Atheist organisation websites in the UK, at least that I could find. There are the Humanists but they are not formally atheist.

As for dogma, you assume without reason that a God is required for one. These atheists show dogma and fanaticism similar to religious fundamentalists and thus it is entirely logical that they be treated the same.

Besides you mentioned that:

If you're not religious, you have no dogma.
and
The only atheists who bother talking about it are the ones who are annoyed by religion intruding into their lives.

Even when I have shown you strong evidence to the contrary, from atheists themselves, not what Christians et al say of them, and yet you have not withdrawn that position.


Let me leave you with this little 'gem' of artheist fundamentalism, from artheist Uk's mission statement on relgious eduication. Important points highlighted in bold.

We will campaign for the abolition of compulsory religious education (except as a branch of anthropology), collective worship and ‘faith’ schools – on the grounds that they are founded on a falsehood: God exists. We are also developing strategies to advance atheism within existing RE law.

Ignoring the rest of this sickening statement just concentrate on the bits in bold, and yes they are connected in context. Some atheists have the belief in the non-existance of God a belief taken as certain or near certain from their statement, a belief that can very literally be a faith choice on the ground of their certainty, this is not even the thinest veil of an excuse to try the lack of belief vs belief of lack here. Anyway on the grounds of these beliefs they demand that faith schools be abolished in order to prevent the propagation of religious beliefs contrary from their own.
That sir is the type of fundamentalist oppression we expect to see from Iran.

Now let us look at your next comment, that it is only a "tiny minority". Perhaps it is, but if it is a "tiny minority" its one an endorsed one, and second an unchallenged one. This points should be looked at in more detail.

When fundamentalist 'christian' nutjobs like Westboro Baptists spew their bile it is not just the atheists, veterans families and homosexuals who complain, so do the Christians. It has got to the point that noone tries anymore to pin Westboro Baptists filth on Christianity in general save for a few bigots who are largely ignored, the Christians in the US and abroad have made it known that Westboro Baptists views do not represent their own, or that espoused in scripture. When Westboro Baptist leaders tried to visit the UK, the churches joined in the move to petition for their entry into the country to be blocked.

Now AtheistUk doesn't seen quite the same level as Westboro Baptists, however if they truly are an unwelcome "tiny minority" not speaking for mainstream atheists then
1. Why are they accredited by an umbrella group?
and
2. Why are there no disclaimers of their rhetoric by mainstream mild decent atheists?

I tried to find a condemnation of Atheist UK's views online and have so far not found anything from the atheist community disowning the viewpoints I provided in the links. If mainstream atheists, in the UK at least, are not going to bother to challenge fundamentalist atheists attempts to enforce discrimination against other faith groups, that how can they claim to write off the concerns others have at atheist fundamentalism, and its status as a faith at a very minimum at the point where these atheists, the only atheist body operating in the UK, clearly claim a de facto yet unsubstantiated belief in the non-existance of God.

Perhaps the Uk's atheists might want to address this travesty. According to the website Atheism UK is Britain’s only distinctively atheist organization. I dont know if that is true or not , but I dont see any atheists queuing up to disagree with them.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Oh, Orlanth I still love how you cite 1 person and relate it to some. ie more than one. "some atheists in the UK" you cite one richard dawkins.

Actually Richard Dawkins and Atheist UK. Check the links. Both are after similar things. I added Dawkins in order to double source and because he is an important atheist figurehead. This strongly implies that the opinions of some atheists to discriminate against faith schools is not isolated.

I ought to add for absolute clarity that I have no problem with, and in fact firmly endorse, atheist parents rights to ensure their children are not educated in faith schools.

sirlynchmob wrote:
I love the way you generalize though, "1 atheist sends his kids to a religious school so all faith schools must be doing something right"

Again try reading all of what you critique. Faith schools are doing alright because they have on average better results than secular schools. a single example was given to highlight a well known phenomenon. David Milliband was a good example because as a former cabinet minister and someone who tried to run for the job of Labour party leader (and thus potentially could have been Prime Minister) it is not unreasonable to suggest that he would be aware as to which are the best schools are the best for his own children.
If I had said 'some random bloke i heard of claimed to be an atheist an sends his own kids to a faith school' then you would have a point. As its a senior politican, the current Shadow Foreign secretary and a previous Minister of State for Communities and Local Government, then its safe to say he is fairly clued up, or at a minimum connected into the system to find out where best to send his kids.

sirlynchmob wrote:
You should probably state that you are referencing the atheists in the UK, and not project their actions onto all atheists in the world.

I mentioned UK a lot, which should be a hint, and used a British atheist leader and a British politician as examples.

Still it wasn't that long ago that everyone was saying 'its not happening' now you are least are saying 'its not happening outside the UK'. The Atheist Alliance International website linked me to atheist websites in US and Canada, both of which were far milder than Atheist UK. That isn't to say fundamentalism isn't happening, when you have enough atheists some will be, and even more if mainstream atheism is in denial over the possibility, or even the plausibility of fundamentalist atheism.

Besides the point has been made, backed up straight from the websites of atheists. Wheras many here on this thread flatly refuse to believe in the existance of militant or fundamentalist atheism i say I have seen some, and more importanly it is unchallenged by those who consider themselves mild and reasonable atheists.
Consequently my position that atheism should be watched for signs of fundamentalism as much as other faith groups has been vindicated. Atheist fundamentalists out to remove peoples rights are out there, and being unchallenged, perhaps because some people are convinced of the dogma that atheism is entirely rational and not religious that they cannot see that some are slipping into fundamentalism.

sirlynchmob wrote:
In the UK they might be trying to get atheism listed as a religion, but in the US and Canada they are not (to the best of my knowledge). so be careful what you wish for, if you really want to start comparing atheists to Christians and other religions, you might not like where your religion places.

Don't worry, we are covered, this is where having a holy book is an advantage let alone an understanding of the dangers of fundamentalism. When we see stories about kidnapping 'ministers', paedo Catholics and other scum we say with full conviction, not in our names, and not in the name of Jesus.

Also please remember that the Christian church is the largest organization in human history, and its largest single component the Catholic church has a population more or less similar to that of China. With so many people isn't it understandable that some shouldn't belong. If you were part of an organization the size of a very large nation, you shouldn't be surprised to find that some are not on the level, and that there are gangs of some not on the level. That is no excuse, but it does add some perspective to the problems the Catholics are having. Too many Popes, bishops and cardinals took the cowards way out and covered up rather than cleaned house.

Orlanth wrote:
Care to explain why.

Done it before, but sure.

Orlanth wrote:
I deliberately used religion rather than theism as the inclusion of a single God or pantheon of Gods is not a sufficient description of religion.

Really? Whoever would have thought that theism didn't mean religion?

Want an explanation, fine:

Theism entails no dogma, nor does atheism, they're categories or classification. The use of them as anything beyond that is either lazy, or a bald-faced misunderstanding.

Orlanth wrote:
After all atheism goes beyond whether the aforementioned God or Gods exist despite the literal origin of the word.

No, no it doesn't, and you treatment of "theism" illustrates why I've only now found the energy to deal with you. One can believe in God/god without religion, just as one can do the opposite with respect to the absence of belief, or disbelief.

I suspect your reply will center on "the human heart" or some other nebulous "thing".

Orlanth wrote:
Hence the meme 'atheism vs religion' rather than 'atheism vs theism'.

And? Why is that name appropriate? Because some atheists have little comprehension of religion? Because some religious theists have little comprehension atheism?

Orlanth wrote:
Besides I never liked the word theist, noone calls themselves a theist or is refered to as such, they, we, are religious.

And theists.

Orlanth wrote:
There are four answers not three, and they blend into two because noone not even fervid cases like Dawkins, or myself, are truly certain.

W = I believe in God.
X = Maybe there is a God.
Y = I do not believe in God.
Z = I believe there is no God.
X is a subset of W, Z is a subset of Y.

"I do not believe in God." and "I maybe believe in God." are the same.

Seaward wrote:

Orlanth wrote:So this means they can respect an opposing opinion, and remain patient if it is doesn't disappear? Apparently not on this thread.

You seem to be confused. A lack of religious belief does not require me to respect your religious belief, else I become, by default, religious. While I certainly respect your right to believe what you want, I do not by any stretch of the imagination respect your faith in the supernatural. That does not suddenly make my atheism just another religion.

I am not confused because hat is not what I said. Atheism is a faith choice, because its a choice amongst options that accepts or denies the existence of God, for whatever motive required, including lack of evidence. The desire for some to sink into vicious personal attacks is indication that they have been emotionally charged by the concepts in a manner similar to a religious fanatic.

We must all ought to be able to keep to the issues and post our points fairly with room to accept that others do not share ones view and that neither side need surrender their position due to the force of the other.

There is no such thing as fervid detachment, you can be logical and detached, or fervid, not both. To some on this thread their atheism is a religious issue, its their choice and they get angry when its challenged, just like a fanatic. Of course non atheists can be like that too, but everyone knows this and we watch out for it, including watching ourselves. Some may be so secure in the knowledge that they are of reason they might not be aware they are not until to late.

I must say I have no excuse to place you in that category, you appear reasonable and argue your side well and both you and your worldview have my respect, regardless of how firmly I disagree.

I wonder if the desire to treat atheism as a religion is indicative of an aspect of cognition.

Perhaps it shows a drive to comprehend things within a faith based rather than a reason based framework.

Orlanth wrote:
Atheism is a faith choice, because its a choice amongst options that accepts or denies the existence of God, for whatever motive required, including lack of evidence. The desire for some to sink into vicious personal attacks is indication that they have been emotionally charged by the concepts in a manner similar to a religious fanatic.

Or, minimally, that they think your arguments are tired.

Orlanth wrote:
We must all ought to be able to keep to the issues and post our points fairly with room to accept that others do not share ones view and that neither side need surrender their position due to the force of the other.

This is funny, given how you have spoken of the "PC dogma".

Orlanth wrote:
There is no such thing as fervid detachment, you can be logical and detached, or fervid, not both.

One can be fervidly attached to the rules of logic.

But then, since you continually misunderstand "logic", I shouldn't be surprised at this.

dogma wrote:
Or, minimally, that they think your arguments are tired.

Except that I post a whole lot of fresh stuff, which is ignored
In favour of making the same 'tired' arguments used earlier.

dogma wrote:
This is funny, given how you have spoken of the "PC dogma".

Dogma need not be exclusively religious, you at least ought to understand that



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:I wonder if the desire to treat atheism as a religion is indicative of an aspect of cognition.

Perhaps it shows a drive to comprehend things within a faith based rather than a reason based framework.

You are working under the fallacy that faith and reason are mutually exclusive. This can lead to the error of failing to detect the existence of emotive draws upon what is intended to be reasoned arguments.

My observation that atheist fundamentalism exists and drawing parallels to other types of fundamentalism is based on reason. My theory that this is a recurring pattern comes from an understanding of faith.
Both can work together.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
Theism entails no dogma, nor does atheism, they're categories or classification. The use of them as anything beyond that is either lazy, or a bald-faced misunderstanding.

Sadly your explanation doesn't survive the real world.
Dogmas can arise from atheist thought in practice, one can have the belief that atheists frees humanity from religious mumbo jumbo via reason, a dogma that works on the ideology that atheism is pure reason based and draws heavily on the faith based ideology that the opposing religious viewpoints are certainly wrong.

Orlanth wrote:
There are four answers not three, and they blend into two because noone not even fervid cases like Dawkins, or myself, are truly certain.

W = I believe in God.
X = Maybe there is a God.
Y = I do not believe in God.
Z = I believe there is no God.
X is a subset of W, Z is a subset of Y.

"I do not believe in God." and "I maybe believe in God." are the same.

Orlanth wrote:
Except that I post a whole lot of fresh stuff, which is ignored
In favour of making the same 'tired' arguments used earlier.

No, not really. You talk about alot of what you believe and then claim something "bold", then insert the equivalent of "profit" and make some nonsense claim.

I guess that's "fresh" somewhere.

Orlanth wrote:
Dogma need not be exclusively religious, you at least ought to understand that.

No, but when people drop "religion" as universally equivalent it is hard to step aside.

sirlynchmob wrote:In the UK they might be trying to get atheism listed as a religion

To my knowledge it is to give people who are not religious the same protections and benefits as those who are, as well as demonstrate how silly it is to give protections/benefits to select groups because they have a boss who cannot be proven to exist while everyone else has to get along without them... rather than any belief (hehe) that atheism is actually a religion (which I would suggest that most athiests would not agree with).

Orlanth wrote:
"I do not believe in God." and "I maybe believe in God." are the same.

Wrong. Flatly so. Also, misrepresentation.

Orlanth wrote:
Actually they are not. 'I do not believe' indicates a measure of negative uncertainty, 'Maybe there is' is unsurity with hope.

No,wrong. The absence of belief indicates nothing but the absence of belief.

Orlanth wrote:The emotive side of human nature exerts a subtle influence

More nebulous bs!

dogma wrote:More nebulous bs!

Funny that, most of the stuff you two seem to spend so much time arguing about in this off topic forum looks like nebulous bs to me. Usually the first point one of you makes is valid and the rest is just a perpetual argument fuelled on one-upmanship.

Oh well. maybe some philosophr out there will fall upon this small section of a wargamning forum one day and all of the grey is black or white arguments will have maybe an iota of meaning.

Thankyou for th cold water Glorioski.

dogma, we arent going to agree, and both of us 'know' the other is wrong. Lets call it a day, between ourselves at least.

I oppose faith schools for exactly the same reason I oppose private schools, they promote segregation and if they were abolished then the standards of comprehensives would rise. There is nothing dogmatic to it, I have no opposition to sunday schools.

dæl wrote:if they were abolished then the standards of comprehensives would rise.

What makes you think this?

Peersonally I would think that tiered schooling would significantly increase the standards of education being provided - the brightest students go to schools which cater for academic skills, the students best suited to more vocational learning go to trade schools and apprenticeships, etc...

SilverMK2 wrote:

dæl wrote:if they were abolished then the standards of comprehensives would rise.

What makes you think this?

Peersonally I would think that tiered schooling would significantly increase the standards of education being provided - the brightest students go to schools which cater for academic skills, the students best suited to more vocational learning go to trade schools and apprenticeships, etc...

I think this because all the people who are most concerned with their child's education would then have to engage with the comp system, and funding would all go to the same schools.

So a child's intellect is defined by where they live? or what faith they are (or claim to be)? or how much money their parents have?

dæl wrote:I think this because all the people who are most concerned with their child's education would then have to engage with the comp system, and funding would all go to the same schools.

Funding per child for even reasonably standard independent schools is usually in excess of funding for comp schools. And remember that for every child who is not in comp education, their parents are paying taxes to support those who are; banning private schools just puts all those kids into the system so while an individual comp school may get slightly more (as they are usually funded per student to some extent), the overall funds available for education go down unless they draw them from somewhere else.

You also have a problem in that a lot of the staff in private education only carry on working because they are not working in the public sector; a number of people I know who teach (either public or private) have said that they ultimately do not want to work in the public sector and want to go to a private school (or remain at one).

So a child's intellect is defined by where they live? or what faith they are (or claim to be)? or how much money their parents have?

Not entirely sure where I said any of that...

A publicly funded multi-level school system (like we had back in the old days) helps stream children based on ability and aptitude, independent of wealth or faith. Granted some areas will tend to produce children less interested in education than others, but there is not a great deal that schools can do about that...

However, having the option of private education does nothing to the detriment of learning in public schools.

Valid point on funding, I was more thinking along the lines of those with power, be it directly political or in lobbying, tend to privately educate their children. If forced to use the comprehensive system they would ensure it was the best it could be.

So a child's intellect is defined by where they live? or what faith they are (or claim to be)? or how much money their parents have?

Not entirely sure where I said any of that...

I was referring to our current system.

I also stand by the point that it encourages segregation, and can dictate a child's future simply by where they've been schooled.

SilverMK2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:In the UK they might be trying to get atheism listed as a religion

To my knowledge it is to give people who are not religious the same protections and benefits as those who are, as well as demonstrate how silly it is to give protections/benefits to select groups because they have a boss who cannot be proven to exist while everyone else has to get along without them... rather than any belief (hehe) that atheism is actually a religion (which I would suggest that most athiests would not agree with).

I get that part, I can see in some countries how being label a religion could be beneficial. But I also thought that's why we have the Flying Spaghetti Monster


@Orlanth Atheism is not some world wide organization, It is not a religion, its just INDIVIDUALS that don't accept your claims of a god. But on the whole atheism is not a religion. It doesn't even need to be a choice. All babies are born atheists, and remain so until they put their faith in a god. Also any groups that have never heard of god/gods are atheists. If you accept the FSM as your god, then you are a theist.

Oh no the horror of those UK atheists, "abolition of compulsory religious education" How dare they not want your god taught to their kids, how sickening . Because of that you think they are extremist and should be watched by the government? get a grip. Can you agree that if we are looking for fundamentalists and extremists we should be watching christians with a higher priority than atheists? Because while you might say christian extremists are not acting in Jesus name, the extremists have faith and believe they are acting on behalf of jesus. And the last time it was brought up, about who is and is not a christian the only group to be labeled not christians were the mormons. so even the christians on this site accept that the westboro baptists are christians. And as you are claiming who are true christians and who are not true christians, then please explain which of the 42,000 types of christians is the correct one? And how do you know jesus agrees with you and not the extremists, did he tell you?

"I added Dawkins in order to double source and because he is an important atheist figurehead"
He's no such thing and implies nothing other than his opinions.

dæl wrote:Valid point on funding, I was more thinking along the lines of those with power, be it directly political or in lobbying, tend to privately educate their children. If forced to use the comprehensive system they would ensure it was the best it could be.

Or they would send their kids overseas, which some of the richer, more powerful people tend to do anyway. Although it is probably not going to be much different from now where people move into the catchment area of good schools to "ensure" their children will go to a good school.

The bad schools will still get left behind. Although having said that, a number of programs have turned some of the worst schools around, or at least improved them. However, the problem with "bad" schools isn't always the school itself, it is the generational slums that generally constitute their catchment areas...

I was referring to our current system.

I also stand by the point that it encourages segregation, and can dictate a child's future simply by where they've been schooled.

Sure, in the same way that if you go to a "good" university, you are seen as "better" than someone with the same qualification who went to a former poly where you need to be able to grunt your own name to get onto the course (for example).

The only thing that will happen in your proposed system is the best state schools will continue to be over-subscribed (in the same way they are now, only now the "richer, more powerful parents" (who according to you are the main driving force behind the now banned private sector) will be pushing their kids in at the expense of "normal" kids, whose parents can no longer afford to move into the catchment area of "Awesome School" ), and there will probably be an even greater demand for private tutours to give those same kids from "better" backgrounds an edge over people who only use the public system...

sirlynchmob wrote:
Oh no the horror of those UK atheists, "abolition of compulsory religious education" How dare they not want your god taught to their kids, how sickening .

Religious education is compulsory as it grounds children in the religions and faith choices present in our society. It doesn't focus on one religion the syllabus covers Christianity in several forms, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and Atheism. This is so kids today grow up less ignorant of the multi-faith culture inherent in the UK today. Faith schools do focus on one religion, not always Christianity so there is genuine diversity in the system. Those who send their kids to a Christian or Jewish school etc expect that the respective religions will feature heavily in the schools culture, even so the formal syllabus doesnt change and the children must be at least aware of the basic tenets of the various major religious and faith choices out there. Besides noone is forced to send their children to any such school by the government or schools system.

What Atheism UK wants to do is ban this, completely, for the stated aim of abolishing religion by preventing it from belief propagated across the generations.

Why not concentrate on the real message behind the link the erosion of religious liberty and the entrenchment of atheist fundamentalism by force of statute irregardless of the wishes of the populace.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Because while you might say christian extremists are not acting in Jesus name, the extremists have faith and believe they are acting on behalf of jesus.

No they aren't if they blatantly fail to keep Jesus' commands. Most notably for combating fundamentalism this one:

Luke 6:31 Do to others as you would have them do.

sirlynchmob wrote:
And the last time it was brought up, about who is and is not a christian the only group to be labeled not christians were the mormons.

Oh really. Mormons are on the list, but so are Jehovahs Witnesses, Christadelphians and Christian Scientists. That isnt isnt a complete list either.

Rather than guess check out the Evangelical Alliance, thats the major body set up by the Christian denominations to decide and delimit who are essentially Christians.

sirlynchmob wrote:
so even the christians on this site accept that the westboro baptists are christians.

Who exactly. I don't know of any, but I have seen Westboro baptists disowned by Christians on every thread they come up. Even ther Christian bashers on the site do not try and force this one,

sirlynchmob wrote:
And as you are claiming who are true christians and who are not true christians, then please explain which of the 42,000 types of christians is the correct one? And how do you know jesus agrees with you and not the extremists, did he tell you?

Work according to cross reference with the Biblical standards with broad agreement of the major Christian denominations. Some borderline cases exist that are harder to define than others.
Dojng this is not against Biblical principle either, numerous passages support the idea of being wary of the false brother and how to discern them.

sirlynchmob wrote:
"I added Dawkins in order to double source and because he is an important atheist figurehead"
He's no such thing and implies nothing other than his opinions.

Dawkins, not an important atheist figurehead. If you say so.

Orlanth..I've been sitting on the side on this thread since I looked at it late. I don't know if you use the ignore feature( I do)..but I recommend not wasting your time with sirlynch. He/she doesn't care to have a reasonable discussion.

Case in point how he/she thinks Christians believe that westboro baptists are Christians and how he/she misrepresents what Christians believe on the matter. While there may be someone out there that thinks they are Christians, he/she presents it as if it's the general consensus of Christianity.

GG

Kilkrazy wrote:I wonder if the desire to treat atheism as a religion is indicative of an aspect of cognition.

Perhaps it shows a drive to comprehend things within a faith based rather than a reason based framework.

I think that this is highly likely.

Palindrome wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I wonder if the desire to treat atheism as a religion is indicative of an aspect of cognition.

Perhaps it shows a drive to comprehend things within a faith based rather than a reason based framework.

I think that this is highly likely.

I think it's more of a position of denial. I don't mean that to be insulting, but I believe that certain athiests are self deluded into thinking that a world view based on reason, means that they do not use faith...at all

And from this denial..they can assume a position of superiority in their own minds. "I don't have faith, only stupid/crazy people have faith, therefore I'm superior"

Belief or unbelief does not exist in a vacuum...there are inputs human beings think about/ ponder/ study....and making decisions on these inputs is what triggers a decision. Whatever decision that is.. it requires some aspect of faith.

Athiests usually take an approach of scientific certainty, which is to say that they believe enough of what modern science teaches, seemingly without question.

How do you know with absolute certainty that the speed of light has always been what it is now? (used to measure astrological time)
How do you know with absolute certainty that decay rates of the radio isotopes have always been the same as they are now? (used to measure geological time)

GG

generalgrog wrote:
Athiests usually take an approach of scientific certainty, which is to say that they believe enough of what modern science teaches, seemingly without question.

How do you know with absolute certainty that the speed of light has always been what it is now? (used to measure astrological time)
How do you know with absolute certainty that decay rates of the radio isotopes have always been the same as they are now? (used to measure geological time)

GG

Well the speed of light is used the theory of general relativity and is a constant, I'm not hugely versed in physics but I can't imagine that messing around with c works.
The decay rates of radio isotopes are just causality, you can take two and start them at different times, they will decay at the same rate over time.


What exactly are you trying to prove? That evidence of things is the same as things there is no evidence for?

generalgrog wrote:Orlanth..I've been sitting on the side on this thread since I looked at it late. I don't know if you use the ignore feature( I do)..but I recommend not wasting your time with sirlynch. He/she doesn't care to have a reasonable discussion.

Case in point how he/she thinks Christians believe that westboro baptists are Christians and how he/she misrepresents what Christians believe on the matter. While there may be someone out there that thinks they are Christians, he/she presents it as if it's the general consensus of Christianity.

GG

I never use the ignore feature, it avoids controversy for the wrong reasons. I believe that a challenge should be responded to for the benefit of third parties reading the thread, very rarely do I feel I have much to add directly for my detractors. Those who will not listen wont listen, but all too often someone snips my posts down to one or two usually cyclic comments and uses that to drown out what I am saying. Especially when it is vehemently opposed. You can get away with calling any argument 'stupid' or 'crap' etc and if unchallenged those reading may be misled into agreeing without thinking why too much.

Though I do tend to reply more often than I should to some who use these tactics. However part of the strategy is that if I actually make a fresh point, rather than look at the thread as a whole ignore it and ask the same old questions on parts that echo points raised on previous pages or even threads. Then the value is drowned out.

I found proof of atheist fundamentalism, and strong evidence that mainstream atheism isn't challenging it. Powerful evidence that something is wrong with a portion of the atheist movement and that its excesses are not being reined in by the rest. Have the atheist apologists tried to look at this, not much, in fact most quote a single sentence from that or the next thread bypassing the topic, attack that in the hope that my points will eventually disappear two or three pages down the thread.

When my opponents critique my work I try to do the honour of critiquing back wholecloth, covering much of not all the content. I am not paid the same courtesy because honest debate is simply not the intention of some, sad to say.

generalgrog wrote:
Athiests usually take an approach of scientific certainty, which is to say that they believe enough of what modern science teaches, seemingly without question.

This is where your argument breaks down; all science is based upon reproducable evidence, I can research the evidence for every single genuine scientific discovery and with sufficent resources I can duplicate it. If I can't duplicate it then the discovery may be wrong and others will then do further work to find out what fits the available evidence best.
Incidentally no scientist should ever accept anything without question and nothing in science is ever absolutely certain. The closest that we come to it is that, for example evolution, is highly statistically likely and all our evidence supports it. If evidence was found that did not support it then it would be investigated and if found to be real then evolution would be modified to suit or scrapped all together. That is how science works

Faith in the reilgious sense is the certainty that your diety(ies) are real and that the tenents of your faith are correct. Atheists on the other hand, at least those that i have talked to about this (which in fairness isn't that many), are not absolutely certain that there is no god, just that it is extremely unlikely to the extent that it isn't worth the bother worrying about.

Basically scientific 'faith' and religious faith are unrelated.

Palindrome wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
Athiests usually take an approach of scientific certainty, which is to say that they believe enough of what modern science teaches, seemingly without question.

This is where your argument breaks down; all science is based upon reproducable evidence...

Respectfully I think you just proved my argument. You have to have faith in the now. Faith that what we observe now...is what actually happened in the past. Sure we can guess relatively close to what the speed of light is now..We can measure decay rates they way they are now And from those now measurements make postulations...but those postulations are only valid if the now is the same as the past.

Can you prove that these now events have always been that way?

GG

I will always take faith in the tangible over faith in the intangible.

You are missing what I am saying. There is always an element of doubt in science, it is the very foundation of the scientific method. Religious faith leaves no room for doubt while scientific 'faith' depends on it, the two are not the same.

In essence you are attempting to prove that science is the defacto religion of atheists and that is simply wrong.

There are ways to examine past events such as nuclear decay and get a time rate, for example by examining Carbon-14 decay in layers of known age.

That is to say, you determine the age of the layer by an independent factor, like Iridium content, and see if the Carbon-14 decay reading gives the same age. When it does, you put your non-religious faith in the idea that God didn't play a shell game with reality to make history different to the bible story in order to screw with his creations' heads.

Nothing is ever proved in science. It is only indicated with a greater or lesser degree of confidence.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Nothing is ever proved in science. It is only indicated with a greater or lesser degree of confidence.

There are mathematical proofs and some in physics too.

See Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.