10 Questions for Atheists / Angry Agnostics

[Farmer77]

3 minutes ago, joc said:

The data cannot be trusted...

 

 

Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate.

 

 

 

 

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations. Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.

 

 

 

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.

 

“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

This is 7 years old.

[+joc]

Just now, Farmer77 said:

This is 7 years old.

A lie is a lie whether the lie was told today or 5000 years ago.  

Actually, Global Warming is more of a religion to the left than Jesus is to Christians.   

But the data has been manipulated, lied about, to the point that none of it can be trusted.  If those doing the research are not honest about there data and are willing to destroy evidence, lie about data changes, and hide the actual truth of their data from the scientific community, then how can one believe any of it?  Same questions could be asked of main stream religion.

[XenoFish]

Aren't we still coming out of the last ice age? 

[Farmer77]

11 minutes ago, joc said:

A lie is a lie whether the lie was told today or 5000 years ago.  

Correct however you presented it as if it was some breaking news or conversation ender.

11 minutes ago, joc said:

Actually, Global Warming is more of a religion to the left than Jesus is to Christians.   

Clearly, I mean look who they're voting for and what theyre supporting,. They dont give a **** about Jesus or what he actually said

11 minutes ago, joc said:

But the data has been manipulated, lied about, to the point that none of it can be trusted.  If those doing the research are not honest about there data and are willing to destroy evidence, lie about data changes, and hide the actual truth of their data from the scientific community, then how can one believe any of it?  Same questions could be asked of main stream religion.

 

I honestly kind of wish they would drop the climate change discussion myself. While its clearly happening we dont need to label it. Its really simple: any artificially produced pollution is bad for mankind and bad for the environment. We should just drop climate change so corporate shills and their idiot believers dont have the excuse to interfere in bettering society.

 

 

Edited September 12, 2018 by Farmer77

[Grandpa Greenman]

  1.     4.   Religion

·        1. Global Warming / natural disaster

·        2. Capitalism

·        5. General immorality

·        6.   War

·         3, Disease

·2.    I would do anything I can to aid and comfort him even if I have to lie.  I had a friend I who visited in a nursing home and read her the               Bible because it gave her comfort, I hope, anyway, because by that time she was unable to communicate her needs.    

3.     The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings.

4.     Wake to find a new Chrysler Pacifica, in place of my old Town and Country in the driveway. 

5.      That would be a problem, as in, I'll never ever get married again. 

6.       Not my yob, not that care if I am associated with bad news, it is just not my job. The Pagan part of my naturalistic Paganism forbids                 proselytizing.  That is something everyone must decide for themselves eventually.  If I am asked, I will tell them what I  believe,                         making sure they understand this is what I believe and what they believe is up to them.

7.     I don't understand what love of chocolate,  puppy dogs and preferring Motown over Elvis has to do with religion?     

8.     Nope, not playing that game.  Not going to stare in some guys eyes in the first place. Kissing the Pope's ring isn't going to change how I         feel.  

9.      Harm none.  I would hope they would relate to it, somehow at least. 

10.    Probably not, I would be busy doing my job.  In the States cops don't go around searching dark spaces, they call a canine unit to do              the search.  Dogs don't wear hats, usually.  

Edited September 12, 2018 by Grandpa Greenman
formating when wonky when it posted.

[Carlos Allende]

16 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

But when someone who openly claims to "love a good fight" and posts aggressive dialogues under that protection, it stinks of hypocrisy.

Is this directed at me? If I've been aggressive to anyone, I apologise unreservedly, up to and including deleting this entire post. In footie terms, I'll put my hands up to a nutmeg-gone-wrong, but nothing red card.

RE the Sniper's nest thing: it's a cool analogy (one of my favourite xbox games is Sniper Elite, one of my favourite films is Enemy at the Gates), but I don't think it hits the spot. That I could be accused of asking entirely open questions, with the proviso "...be aware, _this is not an ambush._ I will not use any answers to start a fight, and advise others to play nice also", and it still be seen as some kind of subtle, machievellian, Palpatine-style tactic (!) --I could almost take that as a compliment, but it's just not me.

[Carlos Allende]

17 hours ago, GlitterRose said:

 There are way cooler lectures by Stephan Hoeller I would have chosen if I could have. There's a really nifty one about Jung's Seven Sermons to the Dead. 

Yeah. I watched these on Youtube on my commute this morning. Good call. That guy has a hell of a perspective. And I thought I was well-read when it came to Jung, but it turns out I was wrong. You can see where it's influenced lots of pop culture, too. Throughout listening to it, I was just thinking, "Ah, there's Twin Peaks, there's Star Wars, there's The Leftovers'. Cool stuff indeed.

[psyche101]

So what was the point of your questions? Many answered them, and nothing. 

Where are you heading with this thread? 

[+joc]

On 9/11/2018 at 10:38 PM, psyche101 said:

But it's not about consensus or social discourse. I don't care if some people wish to choose a religious path. It's about the assault on logic, knowledge and common sense. Those propagating the BS as if fact are the people who are generating the human divide. Some people have spent 80+ years as devout followers. I don't want to see their bubble burst in the last years of their lives, nothing is achieved on a realistic global scale and all it would create is torment for those who made that life investment. The issue is taken up with those that go on the offensive, attaching atheists and atheism, and of course those who would suppress real knowledge to proselytise religious ideologies. As an atheist, I can get along well with some religious people, others not so much. As such, I find every interaction different, and as such requiring a different approach. 

Every single time I attend church, I, we, the congregation, is completely bombarded by exactly that!  They attack atheists and have a willing cheering section, as if Atheists are The Enemy.  I thought Satan was the Enemy...but in the religious context if you are an atheist you are a Minion of Satan.

They present arguments baseless in fact, and then go to great lengths to twist both Truth and Logic...as if they were trying to convince themselves...but in reality, they are attempting to convince the Flock because to the Church...    F L O C K   =   M O N E Y   They are basically Religion Salesman...and I am not buying what they are selling.  

[Robotic Jew]

1)      Prioritise the following around which is the biggest threat to civilisation:

·         Religion 1

·         Global Warming / natural disaster 4

·         Capitalism 2

·         General immorality 8

·         War 3

·         Disease 6

·         Other 7

2)      You’re walking in the middle of nowhere, alone except for an anonymous old man walking a few paces in front. He’s stricken by a heart attack, and falls to the pavement in front of you, apparently dying. In his delirious state, he sees you as an angel, and desperately asks you to absolve his sins. He refuses to change the subject, or hear the truth. Do you play along, and absolve him? Do you ask what the sins consist of? Do you ignore him? I'd call emergency services and the console the man as best I could. I'm an atheist but what's the point in telling a dying man he's been fooled? What's to gain?

3)      Which inspirational / profound book would you choose to leave in hotel rooms in lieu of the Gideon’s Bible? The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

4)       Which would be more likely to convince you of the reality of God or the afterlife –scientific proof ---or having a days-long dream which is indistinguishable from reality, in which you’re reunited with your dead loved ones? Peer reviewed, repeatable scientific proof would be my choice given the options.

5)      Your missus / boyfriend wants to get married in a church. Problem? No. It's just a building. I hold contempt for people who scam others, not the buildings in which they do it. But, I would not allow mentions of a god blessing of the marriage and the ceremony would not be done by a religious leader.

6)      How do you explain to a small child that there’s no God or afterlife, without their permanently associating you with bad news? This is a ridiculously loaded question that assumes way too much to be taken seriously. Most times there is no need to just explain to a child these things. Give them a good understanding of laws of nature and how to be critical thinkers and they'll come to the conclusion on their own. The fact that religion is so forced into our faces on a daily basis that a child would ever need to come to you to as questions about God is sickening in itself.

7)      Are you sure you’re not claiming to be an atheist simply out of the satisfaction that comes from being contrarian? Please confirm you’re not automatically inclined to be contrarian by avowing your love for the following universally loved things:

·         Chocolate love it

·         Elvis has some good songs

·         Star Wars everything but TLJ

·         The internet It's an evil place but too necessary in this day and age to dismiss

·         Puppy dogs Dont hate them but they can be annoying

8)      The Vatican employs Robert Powell to reprise his role as Jesus of Nazareth, blue contact lenses and all. Do you agree to a stare-out contest with him? If you win, Catholicism will be disbanded across the world. However, if _he_ wins, you will be required to kneel and kiss the Pope’s hand in front of all the world’s media. Dont know who this is or what his contacts have to do with anything but if I could end the evilness that is the catholic church by winning a staring contest...I'd give it a shot.

9)      What’s your favourite secular motto that you think religious people will relate to? Don't be a dick

10)     You’re a rozzer, in hot pursuit of a scuzzball who’s robbed a charity collection tin. He flees inside a church and hides somewhere in the eerie grey shadows. As you conduct your search, do you remove your hat as a mark of respect to the church?    No.

[Jodie.Lynne]

On ‎9‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 1:48 PM, Carlos Allende said:

Is this directed at me? If I've been aggressive to anyone, I apologise unreservedly, up to and including deleting this entire post. In footie terms, I'll put my hands up to a nutmeg-gone-wrong, but nothing red card.

RE the Sniper's nest thing: it's a cool analogy (one of my favourite xbox games is Sniper Elite, one of my favourite films is Enemy at the Gates), but I don't think it hits the spot. That I could be accused of asking entirely open questions, with the proviso "...be aware, _this is not an ambush._ I will not use any answers to start a fight, and advise others to play nice also", and it still be seen as some kind of subtle, machievellian, Palpatine-style tactic (!) --I could almost take that as a compliment, but it's just not me.

Despite your assurances that you are looking for an open dialogue, I cannot help but feel that there is a hidden agenda here. Especially since you have repeatedly used the phrase "angry agnostics", and your initial posted questions seem somehow 'loaded'. Although, I have yet to discern your motive.

[XenoFish]

2 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Despite your assurances that you are looking for an open dialogue, I cannot help but feel that there is a hidden agenda here. Especially since you have repeatedly used the phrase "angry agnostics", and your initial posted questions seem somehow 'loaded'. Although, I have yet to discern your motive.

I'm wondering the same. Odd choice of questions. 

[psyche101]

12 hours ago, joc said:

Every single time I attend church, I, we, the congregation, is completely bombarded by exactly that!  They attack atheists and have a willing cheering section, as if Atheists are The Enemy.  I thought Satan was the Enemy...but in the religious context if you are an atheist you are a Minion of Satan.

They present arguments baseless in fact, and then go to great lengths to twist both Truth and Logic...as if they were trying to convince themselves...but in reality, they are attempting to convince the Flock because to the Church...    F L O C K   =   M O N E Y   They are basically Religion Salesman...and I am not buying what they are selling.  

Indeed, it strikes me that a lot of modern views seem to take Lucifer as more a figurehead, so atheists seems to have filled that hole. 

[Carlos Allende]

6 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Despite your assurances that you are looking for an open dialogue, I cannot help but feel that there is a hidden agenda here. Especially since you have repeatedly used the phrase "angry agnostics", and your initial posted questions seem somehow 'loaded'. Although, I have yet to discern your motive.

My motive is that I want to find a baseline of sensitivity between atheists and religious people. Certainly they're loaded questions. If I've asked some seemingly stoopid or annoying follow-up questions within the forum, it's merely been to have atheists and talkative agnostics refine their views and apply them to _everything._ I debated whether to post in 'Spirits and beliefs' or 'Spirituality v skepticism' --but, then, there's really no 'versus' about it. I don't want to displace anyone's views with my own, except maybe some vague idea that being triggered in an argument is a religious experience in itself.

[SHaYap]

2 hours ago, Carlos Allende said:

My motive is that I want to find a baseline of sensitivity between atheists and religious people.

Please do elaborate on this, especially how and what you consider to be baseline in regards to sensitivity. Personally I must confess that I do harbor some reluctance at embracing both the atheists or theists that have consistently shown insensitivity towards each other, most times it is merely a matter of personalities which is quite banal in nature. The contradiction here to which you propose is quite clearly the opposite of what you are saying here, as everything you are postulating leads indeterminately towards not only 'versus' but quite unalterably towards displacing opinions that does not fit the ideals of your theoretical and hypothetical.

~

[Carlos Allende]

10 hours ago, third_eye said:

Please do elaborate on this, especially how and what you consider to be baseline in regards to sensitivity

Well, Third Eye, and Eight Bits, and Piney  --at a risk of turning this into the Carlos Allende Show --I think it's both a strength and a weakness of religion and atheism that the whole thing is _always_ unsolicited.  What's that Radiohead video where the guy is lying on the pavement after learning some profound truth, and then loads of people gather round to try and get him to tell them, too? Each person takes a turn guessing what this awesome Ultimate Truth might be. That's the vibe I get from hearing atheists debate with religious people, and vice versa. Which is no bad thing, just intriguing. We can at least surmise that the Ultimate Truth in the context of a communal debate would have to be dialectical in nature, and highly prioritised. For instance, my question about Elvis, and Star Wars and Chocolate--and confirming you like at least _one_ of them to prove  you're not just a contrarian personality. If we were debating something I care passionately about --say, the survival of the NHS, or the fallibility of capitalism-- and someone asked me the same question but with things that lots of other people love but_I_ hate --say, Harry Potter, Ed Sheeran, cakes-- I would be inclined to lie and say I love them all, simply to build a rapport with my opponents. In the case of God and religion, you can't simply suggest, "Hey, can we agree it would be cool if God _did_ exist, even though he probably doesn't?" because, let's be honest, most people carry too many embittered neurosis to hold an unbiased opinion (and that's probably the way it should be, I think, because we're all battle-damaged humans that've been around the block, right?)

Now, about Brexit...

[SHaYap]

9 minutes ago, Carlos Allende said:

Carlos Allende Show

~

©BIll Watterson

~

[Carlos Allende]

3 minutes ago, third_eye said:

~

Is this a reference to Thomas Hobbes the philosopher? He came from my home town. Weird coincidence. I think it means something. 

 

[Podo]

20 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Indeed, it strikes me that a lot of modern views seem to take Lucifer as more a figurehead, so atheists seems to have filled that hole. 

Could it be that they don't like it when we eat babies at midnight?

[Jodie.Lynne]

16 hours ago, Carlos Allende said:

My motive is that I want to find a baseline of sensitivity between atheists and religious people.

I am still unclear what "a baseline of sensitivity" is supposed to mean. And I fail to see how sensitivity relates to contrariness.

As for your subjects: I like chocolate, but my body can only take it in moderate doses.

I LOVE the original Star Wars trilogy, and despise the rest.

Elvis had some great songs, and did a bunch of silly movies. What does that indicate?

 

[RAyMO]

2 hours ago, Carlos Allende said:

In the case of God and religion, you can't simply suggest, "Hey, can we agree it would be cool if God _did_ exist, even though he probably doesn't?" because, let's be honest, most people carry too many embittered neurosis to hold an unbiased opinion

In my unbiased opinion the above is a biased opinion.

[SHaYap]

10 hours ago, Podo said:

Could it be that they don't like it when we eat babies at midnight?

Frankly, I prefer to make babies at midnight, then breakfast will come and just be right at the right time

~

[DodgyDaoist]

On 14/09/2018 at 7:39 AM, Carlos Allende said:

My motive is that I want to find a baseline of sensitivity between atheists and religious people.

Why ? To what end ?

Arguments and disagreements are actually healthy, they allow us to grow, they help us in understanding the strength within our convictions. Whether those convictions are based in fact or on faith is not relevant.

When we argue we travel the path of self discovery, we define who we are and what we stand for. They challenge our preconceptions, they challenge our outlook on life and give meaning to what we choose to believe.

Arguments make us stronger.

[Carlos Allende]

6 hours ago, DodgyDaoist said:

Whether those convictions are based in fact or on faith is not relevant.

I agree with everything you say, particularly the above. 

 

18 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

I am still unclear what "a baseline of sensitivity" is supposed to mean. And I fail to see how sensitivity relates to contrariness.

I can't explain atheism; I can't explain why someone would want to discuss their disbelief in God --which is not to say that I'm not thoroughly grateful that they do. They provide a far braver, more valuable insight into the human condition than any proselytizing religious person. However, I'm concerned that if you take away the aloof, Spock-esque logic and the lazy, doctrine-hating works of Dawkins or Hitchings, there's not a lot that's left to separate the atheists from the theists, in terms of personality or strength of character. And surely these things matter? I refuse to believe that the subconscious hatred of a non-interventionist god is all that motivates an atheist to speak up. So then, what does? Intellectual satisfaction at having the best grasp of logic doesn't account for it, not on the level of human solidarity. So, by my reckoning, there must be some hidden factor that we aren't yet seeing.

Imagine it's the year 2037 and the Earth is about to be rendered uninhabitable by an unprecedented solar flare. An international effort is made to save a limited number of people by sending them into the past through a classified time travel project. Your name is drawn in a planet-wide lottery to _at least_ undertake an aptitude test. Regardless of whether you decide to leave our century or not, you decide to go along to the test, simply for the experience. No expense is spared in flying you out to Ankara University, where Professor Abdulhamit Subasi is using electroencephalographs to undertake psychometric tests to confirm an applicant's suitability for high-stress situations. While the high-frequency electrodes are being attuned to your brainwaves, you glance into the chair opposite to see a fellow applicant, a deeply religious man. Just as Professor Subsari is encouraging you to imagine you're seconds from death, and drawing strength from the denouement of your atheist beliefs, he's equally encouraging the religious man to imagine he's about to go to heaven and meet God. It becomes clear he's playing you off against each other. To make matters more interesting still, as Professor Subasi's back is turned, you see the religious man take a surreptitious swig from a whisky bottle. Do you complain to Professor Subasi that his test is silly? Do you undertake it anyway? Do you grass up the other applicant merely for being drunk?

Edited September 15, 2018 by Carlos Allende
spellin

[+joc]

On 9/13/2018 at 7:29 PM, psyche101 said:

Indeed, it strikes me that a lot of modern views seem to take Lucifer as more a figurehead, so atheists seems to have filled that hole. 

I think a series of psychological factors go into play when someone is "saved".  First, they feel guilt for things they have done, and they ask forgiveness from Jesus and surrender themselves over to that Higher Power, they pledge their devotion, pledge to turn their lives around, etc.

Secondly, because of that 'surrender of will' they experience a feeling of joyfulness, no doubt related to the release of dopamine. 

 Thirdly, they link that 'joy,'  not to dopamine,  but to proof of their 'forgiveness and acceptance' by said Higher Power. This is the time when they really truly believe.

  Fourthly, a high is a high is a high is a high, and people tend to seek that same high...over and over again.  This leads to deeper indoctrination, more 'powerful' sermons, etc. and can be witnessed as such by those who attend highly emotional services, revivals and such, especially those we have all seen where they want 'healing' ...and the preacher touches their forehead and utters the words, In the name of J e s u s!...the anticipation of that is so great that  the adrenaline and dopamine give them the high they were seeking...and they again...attribute it to God....touched by the Spirit of God ... If you notice, in those events, there is always someone to catch the person who always falls back into their waiting arms...it is a Surrender/Dopamine release episode...but is attributed to God...and the end result is a satisfied (fed) flock.  And through belief and indoctrination they are instructed to give money to the church, and they do.  

Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, a healthy thing or an unhealthy thing is in the eyes of the beholder and the one experiencing it.

But I think the psychological connection between dopamine, adrenaline, and the Holy Spirit...goes a long way to explain why people like Will are so set in their Belief Ways.   I sometimes just want to shout IT'S ONLY A DRUG PEOPLE!  WAKE UP!  ...but to no avail...