The Limitations of Atheism.

[Bowser]

Tiassa,

Try this one again...

Heterophobe (...) n. One who fears heterosexuals.

"Incidentally, in case you missed it, we figured out a long time ago that there is a definitive connection between unfounded fears about people and bigotry."

If it is just fears which we are weighing, then why should any minority fear be given preference? Shouldn't the larger fear have priority? We were once a democracy (of sorts) but we have now surrendered to a small group of demophobes, those who fear democracy and operate through device of government.

I'm sure you are itching to jump on the above with examples of homocide but let me remind you that homosexuals are not the first, nor will they be the last to suffer for the hatred of others. They are not the unfortunate few, Tiassa.

What is my fear: I don't believe that homossexuality is a good thing under any light which anyone has offered, and I don't want bias attitudes presented to my children through public education. I think you understand this, but we disagree as to whom I owe my priorities--homosexuals or my children.

"What the hell is so hard to understand about the notion that it is not your First Amendment right to force someone to shut the hell up? What is so hard about the idea that "equal protection" does not mean, "protect these people more than these people?"

I remember something of the same attitude back in the 80's...regarding child pornography. Well, Tiassa, it sounds like my right as a parent stops in the schools; it stands aside for the rights of others and their sexual identity. But I see this going even further. My opinions are second to the insecurities of others, even where my children are concerned.

"After about ten years of hearing homophobes prove themselves completely incapable of progressing beyond idiocy, it wears thin."

"...and is intolerant of those who differ."

* Liberal: We need to do what's best for everyone.

Based on whose opinion of what is "best", Tiassa. The assumption is that Liberals know what is "best." It really is a very arogant attitude--may I say...a "bigoted" attitude.

For a better definition of "Bigot," I offer you this:

Bigot (...) n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Do you see only one "Bigot" on this block, Tiassa? Has "Bigotry" blinded your eyes?

Look: Liberal, Conservative, they are two sides of the same coin.

"Neither you nor Mabon nor Wildmon nor Schlafly nor Phelps nor sun-moon-or-stars have the right to enforce your own selves at the stake of others."

You don't mind if we give everyone an opportunity to share in our future decisions, do you? Would that not be "best for everyone?" We don't want to offend the elitists or their favored minorities. I believe that homosexuals still retain the right to vote, but maybe we should give them a larger voice since they are homosexuals.

"Of course, I find conservatism to be so conformist, it's entirely possible that conservatives have forgotten the value of being your own self."

Tiassa, no one is forcing you to be heterosexual. I imagine that you can kiss your buddies without fear of being in violation of the law in much of this country. That is your priviledge where I'm concerned. Enjoy the possibilities which it offers, but that isn't an invitation, nor is it a licsence to flaunt it as a social norm in our schools. We both know that homosexuality is not a norm.

"Geez, Bowser, when you get to the point that the liberation of people is a violation of your liberty, you've got serious trouble."

Liberation at the expense of many others, Tiassa. All of us should agree that homosexuality is a good and healthy thing before exposing it to our children. I don't think we are in agreement. At best, we are divided, and for the satisfaction of the fears of a few, you are willing to disregard the opinions and concerns of so many others. I know, I know..."we are bigots."

As for all of you "Theophobes"... Yes, you are doomed to go to Hell, but don't let that bother you.<img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">



------------------
It's all very large.

 

[Bowser]

JEHOVAH,

"BILL & AL'S EXCELLENT ADVENTURES are ALMOST OVER. EIGHT LONG YEARS OF Clinton & Gorfe...."

It's not wise to poke at the wound of an animal. It might react by burning down the country for the good of everyone. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon12.gif">

------------------
It's all very large.

 

[Tiassa]

Bowser--

We just got Clue, the board game, in a Simpsons edition. I'm thinking of sending you Professor Frink's mechanical glove, so you can reach a little farther.

Heterophobe (...) n. One who fears heterosexuals.

I hear Whoopi needs a co-host at Comic Relief.

Anyway, I'll let you know when I meet a heterophobe. However, I am wondering, in light of your term, what to think of frigid women and whatever we call their seemingly rare male equivalent.

See, "heterosexual" is only important to most of the gay people I know in terms of, "Oh, best not to hit on him." Or, "Do you think he's a closet?" For lesbians, I've discovered, the meaning of heterosexual has to do with whether her married girlfriend is going to come over alone, or whether they're expected to put on a show for the heterosexual stud who can't satisfy his wife. (I'll roll my own eyes at that )

If it is just fears which we are weighing, then why should any minority fear be given preference

With the exception of males on a planetary basis, minorities generally don't run around driving people into the ground by ... I believe you brought up the term--the device of government.

Let me guess ... the "Rodney King" riots were just another atrocity against whites in a long history of government-sponsored racism against the European-American.

The answer to your question is that when we let silly superstitions, such as religiously-derived standards based on obsolete social needs, govern the general masses, well, there goes that lovely thing called equality. You know, that thing you strive for by advocating censorship.

Shouldn't the larger fear have priority?

No.

Persons of African descent would still be for sale for slave labor, with the endorsement of the law.

The most rational, most pressing fears are the ones which require our primary attention. That anyone in this country is getting beat up, pushed around, cussed out, or otherwise, for the perceived crime of being gay, based upon superstitions derived from a religion whose history is purely bloody and violent, is a definitively of higher priority than your right to demand that teachers can't tell your child he's wrong when he spouts your personal brand of bigotry. You know, when he parrots your firm opinions?

That you are unable to provide any basis aside from your own assumptive fears about what other people might do, while simultaneously attempting to deny the harrassment that your targets receive in the first place ... I don't know. It sounds pretty cheap.

I'm sure you are itching to jump on the above with examples of homocide but let me remind you that homosexuals are not the first, nor will they be the last to suffer for the hatred of others.

I'll tell that to the next woman I find raped and bleeding in an alley: "Hey, don't sweat it, babe. Others have had it worse."

Your children's right to repeat your opinions in school without being contradicted comes somewhere below another human being's right to live.

Have you a sense of compassion for anything you don't feel the need to own?

I don't believe that homossexuality is a good thing under any light which anyone has offered, and I don't want bias attitudes presented to my children through public education. I think you understand this, but we disagree as to whom I owe my priorities--homosexuals or my children.

A) Fine. Whatever. It doesn't have to be a good thing. I don't find warfare a good thing, but I don't see the need to petition to have conventionally-accepted mass murder removed from the curriculum. I personally think we could do a world of good by preventing teachers from describing warfare in a positive way. Oh, well. Ain't gonna happen, and I'm not worried about it.

B) Biased attitudes abound, as we well know. Since even scientific consistency is subjective in this forum, there's little to say about that. Except that I think your bias is the detrimental one, but you know that. I still don't get what you fear. I mean, I hear the rhetoric, but it amounts in my best sense of it to conduct which would be unacceptable in a heterosexual--excuse me, pro-family --context as well. So when you're describing the need to limit homosexual exposure, it sounds as if you're creating an inequitable standard based solely on social prejudice and superstition. Consider that if you don't reserve your sexuality for procreative efforts exclusively, you really don't have a right to bitch. If we reserve sexual intercourse for procreation, then what we object to is the wasting of resource--that is, seed. In that sense, a woman who has her period is a failure. (I love the convoluted results of this brand of conservative "morality".) I mean, you're wasting resources if you masturbate, have casual sex, use birth control. Everything 'twixt there and here is subjective. I understand that you want your way. I understand very much that your "rights" are only respected when others are taken away. I understand that you don't see anything wrong with this. I remind you that such callous thinking is exactly why we have not achieved direct democratic governance. Because majorities don't stop at proper governance. Consistently throughout history, majorities have usurped arbitrarily. We have decided that this is wrong, as a society. Except, for some reason, where money or sexuality are the issue. Were it not for the ability to make We, the People, choke on ourselves from time to time, much of the sinfulness we now accept--such as interracial marriages, cultural acceptance--would never have ceased to be sinful.

C) Homosexuals or your children: How far does that go? As you've expressed it, you are embodying the greed that poisons society. Your children will be better off in a trusting world. You look out at all the dangerous people, and most of them are merely paranoid, as I would assert you are for the purpose of this example. In order to "protect" your children, you are going to teach them fear, and thus give them something to believe they need protection against. I mean, you're talking about your child's right to live in a gay-free world versus another human being's right to exist in society. That's a great value to teach, Bowser.

I remember something of the same attitude back in the 80's...regarding child pornography.

Bowser: Do you believe that the child is capable of proper consent to pose for simple pornography, much less to do the things some pornographers show? Do you believe that the child is hurt by participating in the creation of the pornography?

Now ... let's go see Lance and Bruce, again. Who's getting hurt?

Now, since we can see that Lance and Bruce are not hurting anyone, and that they both want to do what they're doing together, there's no real violation against anyone, is there?

Now, how does those five, or thirty, or sixty or however many minutes of intercourse change Lance's morality?

Well, Tiassa, it sounds like my right as a parent stops in the schools; it stands aside for the rights of others and their sexual identity.

You're quite wrong. It stands aside from time to time because it must. Home-school your kids, otherwise. It stands aside because your assumption of your rights extends beyond what they actually are. That people choose sexuality to hate about is the choice of the hater. I know people who think it's about whether or not the schools teach the inevitable consequences of being American. I also know people who think sexuality is the most vital question of a person's moral, intellectual, or other qualifications.

"After about ten years of hearing homophobes prove themselves completely incapable of progressing beyond idiocy, it wears thin."

"...and is intolerant of those who differ."

I if I've taken you incorrectly, you can ignore the next statement, which I hereby give you forewarning of its negative purpose:

Bowser, go F--k yourself.

By the parallel you've made, a person with dark skin is "intolerant" of people because he's tired of being treated like a nigger.

That's ridiculous. That's cosmically undefinably ludicrous.

Bowser, when you're being fired from your job, evicted from your apartment, denied loans, beaten in the street, or otherwise for the perceived crime of heterosexuality, and being persecuted as such by homosexual religious persons, then you can come and tell me about intolerance.

When you've taken enough malicious slaps, turned enough stung cheeks, and realize that you're not obliged at the stake of your eternal soul to sit there and take it, and that the laws of the land in which you live guarantee that you don't have to take it, then come and talk to me about intolerance. When heterosexuality endures a thousand years of execution, torture, and general hate, come and talk to me about intolerance.

But if intolerance is embodied by a person's refusal to let you make hateful superstition and bigoted zealotry into law, then I'm Ellen DeGeneres.

Based on whose opinion of what is "best", Tiassa.

Well, based on a conventional agreement. I mean, consider the Constitution. I suppose it's intentionally written to our detriment.

Within that Constitution, which I feel is intended to benefit all Americans, the ideas you propose for law are unacceptable. Your law challenges the First Amendment across the board, and creates such a situation where people might lose property, wealth, or the means thereof based on superstitions derived from a book which is regarded as the founding text of the bloodiest religion in history.

I mean, you do have to change the Constitution before your petty measure can exist as law.

* I've already explained what's wrong with your application of the word bigot.

The assumption is that Liberals know what is "best."

This is as opposed to the assumption that Mabon and a host of hateful holy-rollers know what is "best"? We might eventually figure out what is "best", unless of course we start removing parts of the equation because our Bible tells us so.

You don't mind if we give everyone an opportunity to share in our future decisions, do you? Would that not be "best for everyone?" We don't want to offend the elitists or their favored minorities. I believe that homosexuals still retain the right to vote, but maybe we should give them a larger voice since they are homosexuals.

Quit whining, puppy-dog.

Get it through your skull: The Bill of Rights does not apply to this person, but not that person. Freedom of Speech? I don't see a Freedom to Shut the Hell Up in the Constitution!

Tiassa, no one is forcing you to be heterosexual.

And I appreciate it. However, if Mabon and his menagerie ever succeed, they will be. And then the fact that I find gay men just a little too ... gay, to be honest ... will probably evaporate. I don't take well to being instructed to be anything. I don't take well to censors.

. I imagine that you can kiss your buddies without fear of being in violation of the law in much of this country.

Someone should have told the slaves that part of the country was non-slaveowning.

Your perception of the words "equal" and "rights", as independent words, seems lacking. I won't put them together and confuse you.

We both know that homosexuality is not a norm.

What color are your eyes? And it's not a bullshit joke.

What color is your hair?

In how many ways are you statistically deviant?

Get over yourself.

Liberation at the expense of many others, Tiassa.

What others? What expense? Both answers need to be correct for full-credit.

All of us should agree that homosexuality is a good and healthy thing before exposing it to our children.

I won't remind you how ridiculous unanimity is in a diverse society. Yes, I will: Are you serious?

To the other, We should all of us agree that homosexuality is a bad thing before mandating that people describe it only in negative terms.

Oh, I'm sorry. Your right to hate someone actively is so much more important, isn't it, than their right to participate in society?

At best, we are divided, and for the satisfaction of the fears of a few, you are willing to disregard the opinions and concerns of so many others.

Bowser, I don't want to make it illegal for you to speak. I just won't let you write bigoted discrimination into law merely because you're dumb enough to believe you have the right.

All I know about homosexuality and your need to make it illegal is that you don't like it and that you don't think it's healthy. Yet you wisely avoid the details. Now, please explain to me why you think it's so negative, so unhealthy, so bad that it has to be legislated against directly. Mabon can't pull it off, but that's no surprise.

For the rights of the few, though, I will gladly hack through the stupidity of the many.

But I like your determination to hammer on the idea of phobias. If I distrust a God, church, or religion because it has a history of being bloodthirsty, I don't think that's unreasonable. If I distrust a person because a superstition tells me to, I think that is just a little outside propriety.

But it really was a nice try.

--Tiassa

------------------
Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet. (Khaavren of Castlerock)

 

[Bowser]

<a href = "http://www.2000inauguration.com/">The End Is Near.</a>

------------------
It's all very large.

[This message has been edited by Bowser (edited January 20, 2001).]

 

[Tiassa]

It would seem to be so. Actually, I wonder if anyone realizes how hard our culture has rushed toward an Apocalypse. I mean, the millenial apocalyptics must be ready to have a fit, since we're now into the "official" new millennium, and our election guaranteed a son of a political dynasty would rise up; there's violence in the Holy Land, and now I see in the newspaper that part of Kansas is on fire. (Isn't that Freddie Phelps' big reason for being in Topeka, Kansas? That it's the wickedest place in the world because of all of the 666## zip codes right there?) Anyway, we're tampering with monkeys, playing god, and all of that sort of stuff.

Furthermore, this son-of-a-dynasty comes to our executive office claiming to be an envoy of "compassion" ....

I recall hearing that an ethically-deposed scientist in the Chicago area reacted to Clinton's anti-cloning orders and legislation by saying he thought he could clone a human being by 2000--this has not happened, that I have heard about, but still it's nice to know that someone was racing to give us a "child without a soul", as such.

Pollution--anyone in southern California knows a red sunset; heck, I saw plenty during field-burning season west of Salem, Oregon. I've also seen plenty of red, red moons, a few eclipses in my day, and plenty of other stuff that says the Biblical apocalypse is still possible. Well, only if I were to choose to believe that such things were reality.

I wish James Joyce was alive to write a poem about it all.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet. (Khaavren of Castlerock)

 

[Cloud]

Actually most scientists and doctors believe in the existance of the spirit, and many follow specific religions. There are far too many incidences showing the existance of an "unknown" influence upon matter. "It is the mark of a great man to know that he is not the whole of his existance on this earth.. it is also the mark of a great man to know that even he, cannot know God"

 

[Cris]

Cloud,

Let me be the first to say welcome.

Just a few issues with your comments.

Actually most scientists and doctors believe in the existance of the spirit, and many follow specific religions.

What independent statistics can you provide that will justify your assertion? This appears to just be your opinion. I can accept that many of these professionals might keep an open mind to the remote possibility of spirits but I seriously doubt than many scientists who work with reasoned arguments and logic on a daily basis would ever state that they BELIEVE without any unambiguous evidence.

There are far too many incidences showing the existance of an "unknown" influence upon matter.

Please give some examples. Something that is ‘unknown’ does not support the conclusion that a spirit exists. It means that there is inadequate evidence to reach a reasoned conclusion.

"It is the mark of a great man to know that he is not the whole of his existance on this earth..

The claim of ‘knowing’ without a reasoned basis (evidence) is simple irrationality, ignorance, and superstition.

it is also the mark of a great man to know that even he, cannot know God"

You are defining a true agnostic – one who claims it is not possible to know a god. It does not seem reasonable to conclude that because a man is an agnostic that he must be great.

Concerning the existence of spirits: I refer you to an earlier topic on this board that contains an extensive discussion on the existence of souls. Find the post by Boris, which is quite long, but superbly readable and covers the subject very convincingly.
http://www.exosci.com/ubb/Forum8/HTML/000245.html

See the 4th post.

Stick around, this can be fun.

Cris

 

[Cloud]

Hi Cris,

The “ivory tower” effect. Even scientists who are perfectly aware of the contradiction between a rationalist approach and the belief in god would rather keep it to themselves in order to avoid conflict. Scientists know very well that in modern times their ability to live the good intellectual life could be threatened if they went on a collision course with religious authorities. It is happening wherever fundamentalists have political power.
http://www.meridianmagazine.com/sci_rel/001025belief.html

Even scientists believe in God, and in roughly the same proportions that expressed their faith more than 80 years ago, according to a 1996 survey of scientists that attempted to replicate a classic 1916 study. These contemporary researchers found that about four in 10 randomly selected scientists two years ago professed belief "in a personal God," almost exactly the same proportion as in 1916, Bishop reported.
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/wat/archive/wat060198.htm

 

[Emerald]

Cloud,

It is interesting that you would quote an LDS source to support your viewpoint. I thought you might like to know how Meridian defines the words "vital" and "intelligent":

Vital--Fresh, current contemporary, Meridian looks at the events of our tumultuous time through a Latter-day Saint lens. It investigates pertinent and important stories, bringing you topics a reader could find nowhere else from a perspective you appreciate.

Intelligent--Meridian assumes that whatever problem the world offers, the gospel answers. It celebrates and seeks out the noble and virtuous, affirming that despite all the bad news and deviant behavior we see in the media, goodness still flourishes.

Not exactly unbiased, if you ask me. As for the second source, 4 out of 10 scientists does not equal a majority. But then, I was never exposed to the "new math".

Personally, rather than discussing such irrelevant ideas as what percentage of which group believes in what religious or metaphysical concepts, I am more interested in discussing the various ways scientific method may have been employed to explore what we might label the "paranormal" (for lack of a better term), as in <a href="http://www.mceagle.com/remote-viewing/def">Remote Viewing</a> or the measurement of <a href="http://munshi.sonoma.edu/jamal/soulmass.html">soul mass</a>, for example.

Although I do have personal experience with the paranormal, that doesn't count for much in a world that demands proof of such phenomena. And 4 out of 10 scientists aren't much help if none of them are using their scientific skills to measure the "unknowable".

~Emerald

------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.

 

[Cloud]

Cris,

You cannot SHOW me ANYTHING that would stop me in believing in souls. If the soul is intangible, you cannot show me visually anything to countermand the existance of an unobtainable object.

Now... I say to you that the knowledge of your eternal existance and your responsibilities of existing and growing within this realm are far more burdensome of mind than the pathetically weak belief that we are nothing more than our biological makeup with no purpose in this universe. It is a sad and shallow man indeed he who tells himself lies and half truths in order to protect his fragile ego and justify his carnal desires.



[This message has been edited by Cloud (edited January 23, 2001).]

 

[Cloud]

And I'm afraid you cannot scientifically argue against an unmeasurable subject. That's the whole point of "belief" and the "metaphysical". If we were able to physically measure it, then it couldn't very well be the metaphysical now could it? You confuse logic with skepticism, and this is false reasoning.

 

[Cris]

Cloud,

You are absolutely correct. I cannot show you anything that proves there is no soul and as you have also determined there is no scientific method or otherwise that can show the existence of an intangible entity.

So with no known method to determine the existence or non-existence of a soul how do you justify your claim that a soul exists.

Cris

 

[Bowser]

Exploring the possibility that we are more than what we understand? Why not?

Without going into detail, I had a discussion today regarding the nature of the human soul and how it might be grasped. [since I just spilled coffee on my mouse and mouse pad, I will be brief.] The spirit (the essence) of an individual does live beyond mere physical existence. I see peices of myself in my children and in those around me. My parents reside here within me, as do many others I have known. Using examples such as Christ, MLK, Hitler, and many other notables, I think it is reasonable to assume that the spirit of a person can live beyond a natural life.

The question I think is whether soul is spirit or something more. I think most would agree with the above observation, and that the essence of a person can live beyond the limits of his/her physical existence, even if that existence is realized only as a thought. The strength of an individual soul/spirit might be measured by it's life through time and the power it has to influence the actions of the living during that time (Christ = Christians = 2000 years + still counting). That's one large soul/spirit.

Anyway, at the very least, your spirit has the potential to live beyond your lifetime, Cris. The person whom I was talking with earlier regarding this was trying to determine if the soul and spirit are two separate entities. My best assesment is that they are one and the same thing.

------------------
It's all very large.

 

[Cris]

Bowser,

I think perhaps we would need to agree some basics before we decide whether a soul is something different from a spirit. So far I have used both terms interchangeably. But there are more important issues first.

Why isn’t what you see in your children and your parents simply a matter of genetics? And there is some physical evidence that indicates that identical twins enjoy almost telepathic experiences. None of that supports the claim for a soul.

All what you say still only constitutes an imaginative human concept. It gives no weight to any truth for the claim.

Cris

 

[Bowser]

Christ = Christians = 2000 years + still counting

Genetics?

------------------
It's all very large.

 

[Bowser]

Imagination?

------------------
It's all very large.

 

[Cris]

Ah Ha! I see the problem. You don't know about genetics, and you didn't realize you had an imagination.

 

[Bowser]

Well, I don't think that the spirit of Christ, Christianity, and 2000 years are the product of genetics or my imagination. You might attribute my childs green eyes to his genetic heritage, but not his understanding, nor his memories of me after I die.

------------------
It's all very large.

 

[Cris]

Bowser,

I see peices of myself in my children and in those around me. My parents reside here within me, as do many others I have known.

So what does that statement mean?

I think I now have a clearer perception of what it will be like when and if we ever make first contact with an alien race. And in our case we are using the same language.

Will this help you? My frame of reference is –

There are no gods.
There was never a Christ.
The historical Jesus never existed.
There are no souls or spirits.

Because no one can show otherwise. They are all products of the human imagination.

Cris


[This message has been edited by Cris (edited January 24, 2001).]

 

[Boris]

Cris,

No need to be unnecessarily harsh with Bowser, at least on this issue. I think what Bowser likes to call "spirit" is really, in plain English, knowledge. Knowledge can indeed survive across generations; if it didn't we would still live like apes.

So, knowledge endures. But what does that have to do with heaven/hell/afterlife/ghosts/angels/demons/God?

------------------
I am; therefore I think.