Except of course the Administration came out yesterday and said there was no Al-Qaeda in the US, just are own home grown terrorists (No, I'm not going to do the legwork for you on that one, feel free to Google it.) oh hell here it is give it a listen And what grows home terror? Oppression and fear! So you can take your Republican talking point about "Islamofascists" and go hide in your basement. Who exactly is being intellectually dishonest now?
Well you started it!! And I said I was going to poison you, not hit you with a 2x4. And it wasn't your 'definition' that got to me. Here is a direct transcript - we were under different nicks:
Grif: No! Like a 'Puma'! It's a big cat, like a lion.
Sarge: You're making that up!
Grif: I'm telling you, it's a real animal!
Sarge: Simmons! I want you to poison Grif's next meal!
Simmons: Yes, Sir!
Sarge: Look, see these two tow hooks? They look like tusks. And what kind of animal has tusks?
Grif:...A walrus.
Sarge: Didn't I just tell you to stop making up animals?
Ah then, I see your point -yes, you are right in looking down your nose then. I apologize. That was a bad turn of sentence and one post too many.
But to answer your question, the 72 comes from Hermetic lore.
"There are 72 Names of God"
And thus you call me out as both a Gnostic and a Hermetic. Though I call myself a Christian, truth be told, you an Atheist would get better welcome in most Fundamentalist Churches then I would.
I truly never meant to bait you or draw you out, I only wished for dialog betwixt our 'sides' That is why I put up my email.
I have at least one close friend that is a hard core Atheist (and is a Biology Professor) I worked making germs (some evolved to resist antibiotics!) for many years. I do actually understand the battle, and have already planted my flag on the side of evolution in my kids school district. I think if we were to meet you and I would actually get along despite the elephant in the room.
Amazing, you start off by being pedantic, and end by complaining that I am - wonderful. And you are right I cannot achieve my goal which you managed not to get, though you quoted it, by my own effort. It was "I was hoping to find a common definition of a term." namely "secular" (quoted instead of capitalized for your protection). You then end with the most perfect of doublespeak. I have not lied nor been dishonest. You may not like my opinions, but they are not lies. So you then lie about me lying. I have asked you for your definition of secularism that we may go over our posts, but you keep seeing an ulterior motive in me and evading the question and now call me a liar. I doff my hat to you Sir, and bid you Peace. May your life be wonderful, full, and joyous. And though you may disdain it, may the Demiurge ignore you.
Not really because you are comparing apples to turnips and asking if I can see that they are both fruit. I was speaking of a specific kind of Atheist - a NeoAtheist if you will. You generalized it, then showed a very specific religious type - a Roman Catholic. You then wonder if I can see the difference. I can turn it around I guess and say no - I dont read the books Catholics do nor do I recognize the primacy of the pope, but that doesn't make me nonreligious, it just makes me non-Catholic. Being an atheist you may not see the type of atheist that I am describing, but I have met many - they really do exist. And they have taken on a proto-religious bent. They are as happy to evangelize as their southern baptist brethren. You may not see them because you are who you are, but from an outsider POV I can tell you that they are very real and just as scary to me as the fundies.
What I am asking for is your definition of Secular, as it seems that you and I do not share the same one. I said secular, you said, dialectical materialism, what I was seeking was that no matter how you slice it, they are at best siblings, and at worst dialectical materialism is a child of secularism. I was hoping to find a common definition of a term. Your initial response even hangs on the word, so it seemed to me to be something to be defined before we went further. I am sorry that you feel that I was trying to hang you out to dry or mack you a "sucker" but I am not pretending you are "the one using words incorrectly" I was hoping for a agreed upon definition to both parties.
And if you wish for a specific error? How about this:
Secularism doesn't kill and oppress people. People oppress and kill people. I know of nobody in the history of mankind who has been killed or oppressed, for "secularism."
Which is odd, because I can find many many people that were killed and oppressed for secularism by religion, up to and including modern atheists. Is this an error or a weak argument? But perhaps you meant to say the opposite:
Secularism doesn't kill and oppress people. People oppress and kill people. I know of nobody in the history of mankind who has been killed or oppressed, by "secularism."
Again, we are back to the definition of secularism, which is what I was after in the first place. And I still stand by and assert my thesis: No Theist has oppressed or killed as many people as an avowed Atheist. No one in the upper echelons of Rome believed in the Gods, No on in Ancient China did but lip service to the Gods and Ancestors. You will find that those few that did, were the worst leaders of their countries, much like today. Theology, Politics and Science are orthagonal things, and should stay that way.
Seraphim
PS - this thread is going to go dead, and if you have a care, I am willing to keep talking, discussing and philosophizing, I am available @ Seraphim_72 @ yahoo . com
Exactly - do I get credit for ads? My ISP started putting ads on their default DNS, which trumps FF. So I see ads if I type in "google", and instead of the intelligent response I should get, I get my ISPs own search for it. ICK. Thank God for OpenDNS. Still, if you are going to meter me, you had better filter what I ask of you, or set your caps so high that I can't ever touch them.
This is how gas, electricity, and other things are portioned out, and I haven't heard many people complianing about how its unfair.
Around here they actually do care. Here (MN) you cant cut gas off to a house in winter. Why do they do this? Because it is unfair to cut someone's gas off in winter.
What the hell could you possibly be doing with more than 60GB a month anyway?
shrug Running my own server for family and friends, while listening 24/7 to radio, while running my own spam free mail server, playing FPS on the weekends and the occasional torrent.
I guess my question back at you is why would you accept the limit? If I want to offer up HD versions of my kid working for 20 mins at his first cursive assignment - why limit me? Are you offering me bandwidth, or GB - pick one. Because either I pay for GB, and you give it to me as fast as possible, and I pay for GB or I pay for 5Mb service all the time and you shove your limits. Which is it, you *don't* get to chose both.
Atheism is the disbelief in God. It has no meaningful tenets, no dogma, no holy books, no ceremonies, no rites, no declarations of faith, no churches, no temples, no leaders, no hierarchy and no common moral code. In short, it has none of the hallmarks of a religion.
Let us take this a bit at a time. You used the word "hallmark". We will use Number 3 "A conspicuous feature or characteristic"
no meaningful tenets, no dogma
Hmm.."every person of faith is a nutter" seems to fit both really. How about "All I ever needed to know about the bible I learned from Robert Heinlien, sunday school, and George Carlin." or "All Christians deny evolution" because I can tell you from the outside of atheism, it sure looks like they are.
no holy books
Really, you must not hang around the Dawkins crowd much then.
no ceremonies, no rites
These I will give you with a giant...yet
no churches, no temples
Except of course for this one University in Italy. And the number of posters saying "It should be thus at every institution of higher learning!"
no leaders
That is just laughable, there are no Atheist leaders? Really? How does Mr Dawkins eat?
no hierarchy
....save for the PriesthooD whose opinions are fact, not opinion. (And yes, I work at a college, and that was snarky, but I have seen that a dumb idea and a PhD goes a heck of a lot farther then a PhD alone)
no common moral code
I will give you this one. Perhaps it is part of the problem though.
So, have I met enough hallmarks yet, even though a few were in (partial) jest? Enough to make you think anyway? Can you at least see how it can be seen as a religion? It may not be one, but it sure waddles and quacks like one.
On a separate note:
I think the Parent's number analogy was wonderful. If your claim then is that Atheism is NaN, why must you comment on number theory? (yes, I know how silly that sounds)
I do not think they are opposite approaches to things. They are actually quite orthogonal.
Thank you for that. I keep trying to tell people this and then they go back into their Jimmy Swaggart caves and Dawkins' holes muttering under their breath. People stop letting the Trolls on both sides goad you on and stop letting them lead you into battle each time this happens.
The bad outweighs the good by orders of magnitude.
Really? Then you in turn must take all of secularism under your belt. I think you will find secularism has killed and oppressed many many times more people then religion ever has. Sadly thier chief tool is religion, but make no mistake, it is secular greed, avarice, and power hunger that drives it.
I will get by just fine with nonprofit, secular healthcare from my local hospitals and service-providers as well as with secular international aid via Doctors Without Borders and the UN, thanks very much
You do that, and I will tell everyone that went through Katrina what a heck of a job the secular government did as opposed to the International Red Cross and even Walmart. I will also point out the great job Haliburton is doing in Iraq, but you will bring up the Crusaders, and I will point out that that was a thousand years ago, and now instead we have people shooting up the streets for money instead of God, my how we have progressed.
The corollary is, of course, that there are any number of wicked acts or statements that ONLY a believer could make (ie: flying planes into buildings)./i>
Or people looking to make a buck. Everyone is a 'believer' in something. From God, to the almighty dollar to GWBush to their own children. If you truly believe that you couldn't find some 13 people to fly a plane into a building for any reason at all (Death to Barney the Dinosaur!) then you don't get out much. You seem, like so many of the neo-athiest set, to conflate faith with religion. They are two very separate things and you would do well to learn the difference.
Slashdot Mirror
How about they are breaking several Federal Laws by handing the names over? Like, you know, in this case.
You have posted 5 times since 2001. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Alan, I am a hard core Democrat. Any time you need a place to sit, you just ask, you are my kind of Republican.
Sera
Except of course the Administration came out yesterday and said there was no Al-Qaeda in the US, just are own home grown terrorists (No, I'm not going to do the legwork for you on that one, feel free to Google it.) oh hell here it is give it a listen And what grows home terror? Oppression and fear! So you can take your Republican talking point about "Islamofascists" and go hide in your basement. Who exactly is being intellectually dishonest now?
A nerd Dentist....who knew? Tell me your practice is in Minnesota.
Well you started it!! And I said I was going to poison you, not hit you with a 2x4. And it wasn't your 'definition' that got to me. Here is a direct transcript - we were under different nicks:
...A walrus.
;)
Grif: No! Like a 'Puma'! It's a big cat, like a lion.
Sarge: You're making that up!
Grif: I'm telling you, it's a real animal!
Sarge: Simmons! I want you to poison Grif's next meal!
Simmons: Yes, Sir!
Sarge: Look, see these two tow hooks? They look like tusks. And what kind of animal has tusks?
Grif:
Sarge: Didn't I just tell you to stop making up animals?
Sera
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw Good lord this is cool. And he is right - bring on the games!!!!
OK, I have to admit that was dang funny and fun to type.
The abbreviation you were looking for is TANSTAAFL :)
Sorry - I let the geek in me get out.
I would never steel from you, but you do realize you just posted an idea that would make you a millionaire right?
Seraphim
d) let the place die and buy it in the fire sale afterward.
Ah then, I see your point -yes, you are right in looking down your nose then. I apologize. That was a bad turn of sentence and one post too many.
But to answer your question, the 72 comes from Hermetic lore.
"There are 72 Names of God"
And thus you call me out as both a Gnostic and a Hermetic. Though I call myself a Christian, truth be told, you an Atheist would get better welcome in most Fundamentalist Churches then I would.
I truly never meant to bait you or draw you out, I only wished for dialog betwixt our 'sides' That is why I put up my email.
I have at least one close friend that is a hard core Atheist (and is a Biology Professor) I worked making germs (some evolved to resist antibiotics!) for many years. I do actually understand the battle, and have already planted my flag on the side of evolution in my kids school district. I think if we were to meet you and I would actually get along despite the elephant in the room.
Seraphim_72
Amazing, you start off by being pedantic, and end by complaining that I am - wonderful. And you are right I cannot achieve my goal which you managed not to get, though you quoted it, by my own effort. It was "I was hoping to find a common definition of a term." namely "secular" (quoted instead of capitalized for your protection). You then end with the most perfect of doublespeak. I have not lied nor been dishonest. You may not like my opinions, but they are not lies. So you then lie about me lying. I have asked you for your definition of secularism that we may go over our posts, but you keep seeing an ulterior motive in me and evading the question and now call me a liar. I doff my hat to you Sir, and bid you Peace. May your life be wonderful, full, and joyous. And though you may disdain it, may the Demiurge ignore you.
Seraphim
Not really because you are comparing apples to turnips and asking if I can see that they are both fruit. I was speaking of a specific kind of Atheist - a NeoAtheist if you will. You generalized it, then showed a very specific religious type - a Roman Catholic. You then wonder if I can see the difference. I can turn it around I guess and say no - I dont read the books Catholics do nor do I recognize the primacy of the pope, but that doesn't make me nonreligious, it just makes me non-Catholic. Being an atheist you may not see the type of atheist that I am describing, but I have met many - they really do exist. And they have taken on a proto-religious bent. They are as happy to evangelize as their southern baptist brethren. You may not see them because you are who you are, but from an outsider POV I can tell you that they are very real and just as scary to me as the fundies.
Sera
And if you wish for a specific error? How about this:
Which is odd, because I can find many many people that were killed and oppressed for secularism by religion, up to and including modern atheists. Is this an error or a weak argument? But perhaps you meant to say the opposite:
Secularism doesn't kill and oppress people. People oppress and kill people. I know of nobody in the history of mankind who has been killed or oppressed, by "secularism."
Again, we are back to the definition of secularism, which is what I was after in the first place. And I still stand by and assert my thesis: No Theist has oppressed or killed as many people as an avowed Atheist. No one in the upper echelons of Rome believed in the Gods, No on in Ancient China did but lip service to the Gods and Ancestors. You will find that those few that did, were the worst leaders of their countries, much like today. Theology, Politics and Science are orthagonal things, and should stay that way.
Seraphim
PS - this thread is going to go dead, and if you have a care, I am willing to keep talking, discussing and philosophizing, I am available @ Seraphim_72 @ yahoo . com
Exactly - do I get credit for ads? My ISP started putting ads on their default DNS, which trumps FF. So I see ads if I type in "google", and instead of the intelligent response I should get, I get my ISPs own search for it. ICK. Thank God for OpenDNS. Still, if you are going to meter me, you had better filter what I ask of you, or set your caps so high that I can't ever touch them.
Sera
I guess my question back at you is why would you accept the limit? If I want to offer up HD versions of my kid working for 20 mins at his first cursive assignment - why limit me? Are you offering me bandwidth, or GB - pick one. Because either I pay for GB, and you give it to me as fast as possible, and I pay for GB or I pay for 5Mb service all the time and you shove your limits. Which is it, you *don't* get to chose both.
So, have I met enough hallmarks yet, even though a few were in (partial) jest? Enough to make you think anyway? Can you at least see how it can be seen as a religion? It may not be one, but it sure waddles and quacks like one.
On a separate note:
I think the Parent's number analogy was wonderful. If your claim then is that Atheism is NaN, why must you comment on number theory? (yes, I know how silly that sounds)
Seraphim
Seraphim
Perhaps you should go explore what the word "secular" is actually defined as. I will be here when you are done.
Seraphim