Mad_Michael

No, an Atheist believes that there is no god. Please substantiate your argument. As it stands, it is merely a naked statement of your own opinion. Please explain how a negative act (rejecting belief in God) produces a positive belief. Well since neither position can be proven, neither one can be shown to be either negative or positive. Faith in God can be rejected on the basis of logic (using Ockham's Razor). This assertion in no way shape or form denies or disproves the existence of God - but one can logically assert that faith in God is irrational and that irrational acts may be rationally rejected. No 'faith' is used or required here. Ergo, 'atheism' does not require faith.* Ergo, 'atheism' is categorically different than 'religion' since all religion requires faith. *Note: Notwithstanding Kant's First Principle that is logically required for our discussion here to have any epistemological validity. This statement is only given here to pre-empt any solepscist based arguments in reply. Alternatively, atheism (fundamentally speaking) is not a doctrine or set of beliefs or something that is consciously adopted or 'believed in' as a matter of faith. It is a generic label that is applied to describe a rejection of belief in any given God or religion. This assertion is spurious since it is an entirely a self-serving subjective opinion. You may reasonably assert that my argument is unpersuasive to you personally, but my arguments are always addressed to a wider audience since this is a public forum. Others may perhaps appreciate the nuance of the distinction that you may choose to reject.

Then 'making it up as you go along' is your moral framework. My point is you have a moral and ethical framework because you are human. You cannot avoid having one. Even psychopaths have a moral framework that is built on self gratification (i.e. worship of themselves). I don't dispute this, but your Christian doctrine seems a bit shaky here... you do appear to be acknowledging that morality may have a source other than religion. Not that I care, just sayin'. I don't agree with this. Morality may stand independent of supernaturalism. However, Kant's rational moral system, for example, is a moral system that stands entirely without any reference or relevance to deism at all. Yes, not chosing to believe in God is a choice. However, non-belief in God is not the same as a belief that God does not exist. Rejection of belief in God does not engender belief in the non-existence of God. I don't believe in God. I do believe that it is theoretically possible that a God may exist. Your argument is thus logically flawed.

LinkBecoming famous is hard to do. In the 1950s and 1960s, an unknown man could use the political world to become famous. In this world, a person should first become famous before entering politics. Stronach, Drainville, Ignatieff, Bush Jnr, Hillary Clinton - all were famous before getting into politics. Dion is further proof; his Dad was famous - like Gilles Duceppe's Dad. Only Harper is old school; and his style has no future. Bunk. Arguably, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair were both wildly successful politicians (more so than any of the examples that you give). Neither one had any 'fame' prior to elected office.

Actually, no. I don't care (or know) how the universe works. Where have I said I assume that there is no god? Please cite. I don't possess a belief that God exists. That is not an assumption of anything. No, not at all. Who says I have a moral framework? Maybe I just make it up as I go along? Maybe I don't. The point is, there is no way you can know what it is - and that means when you tell me what it is, I find it absurd. You are projecting. P.S. I note that you are selective in your replies.

If God created the world, and the world is poisonous, then yes, obviously, the idea of God is poison. But I'm under no delusions that the banishment of religious would make this world any less poisonous. Then therefore God isn't poison, humanity is. There is no logic to your statement. If God created the world and God created humans and the world and/or humans are poison, therefore God is poison. (I do have an MA in Philosophy, I can keep up this kind of logic chopping all day)

No, an Atheist believes that there is no god. Please substantiate your argument. As it stands, it is merely a naked statement of your own opinion. Please explain how a negative act (rejecting belief in God) produces a positive belief.

Perception is reality. Subjective is the only thing you can be. Nothing awesome about it. Rather mundane actually - tiresome and annoying as well. I think it's awesome. Margrace! A bane on Mad Michael's house!! See? That's awesome! See? You pronounce a bane on Mad Michael's house. In your reality, there is a bane on Mad Michael's house. You have just created your own reality. Like I said, nothing awesome about it.

There you go again asserting that a negative act magically engenders a positive result. An atheist rejects belief in God. It is a negative act. Belief in God or belief in no-God are positive acts. There are entirely different. For the purpose of your argument, you are pretending they are one and the same. Some atheists may believe in non-God, for others, it is merely a logical conclusion.

For discussion purposes, since you claim to know, what activities DO provide a moral and ethical frame of reference?

1. No, my ethical and moral framework is not built around a non-belief in God. I have the same (or very similar) ethical and moral framework as my sister (for example). We were both taught the same things by the same teachers and were raised in the same environment. She believes in God, I do not. Btw, the absence of a belief in God is not proof of a belief in non-god. The absence of a thing cannot be used to prove a positive assertion. 2. You can have no reason, basis or proof to assert that my ethical or moral framework is built on anything at all. Indeed, if your God is true, I have no morality at all by non-belief in God (by definition), ergo, your argument is spurious from a Christian moralist point of view.

There is a great deal of evidence to show that even the infamous "incest taboo" is not universal. It is cultural. Some behaviours may be perceived as 'inate morality' when they are really just species-level evolutionary statragems adopted long ago.

Perception is reality. Subjective is the only thing you can be. Nothing awesome about it. Rather mundane actually - tiresome and annoying as well.

No. I don't believe in God or any Gods. I don't believe in godhood. I worship nothing. Worship requires that one give some service to something. I give non-god nothing. This need to pretend that atheists are just like the religious fanatics is spurious.

If God created the world, and the world is poisonous, then yes, obviously, the idea of God is poison. But I'm under no delusions that the banishment of religious would make this world any less poisonous.

PLUS 9 MORE>>>>>>>>> http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/godfuse.html This is a strawman. Stalin and Mao have everything in common with self-righteous religious fanatics and act like them in every way. Mao certainly was fanatic about 'spiritualism'. In other words, self-righteous fanatics are dangerous. I've studied too much history to give the religious fanatics a pass on anything. Please give us some examples of actual 'humanists' who have been fanatical murdering monsters...

What? Disney's right to steal from the public domain must be protected? Did you know the greatest economic growth comes from ignoring copyright and patents? That's how the USA built itself into the largest economy on the planet. Britain which was obsessed with the importance of her intellectual patents was left behind economically. Same thing is happening now between China and USA, with USA cast in the role of Britain - fighting to protect their wealthy elites. I'm not making any comment upon whether it is right or wrong to ignore copyrights or patents. I'm only observing that countries that are obsessed with protecting them tend to be the economic losers in the long run while those who ignore them tend to be very successful in so doing.

Looks like August1991 doesn't have a monopoly on sexist crap.

History suggests that it is males that are far more status conscious than females. No comparison between the two. But I suppose that doesn't fit the script here... What a load of sexist crap. Reads like a typical rant from the fever swamps of US rightwing blogs.

What, for instance has Mark Steyn ever done to qualify as a worst Canadian, and Amiel for that matter, other than that she's married to Black. You obviously don't remember Baba Amiel's days as a columnist for the Toronto Sun. She was a 'necon' twenty five years ago - always in favour of blowing up foreign countries filled with too many brown people.

Murderers are a dime a dozen and most of them are indistinguishable as Canadians. They could be Brits or Americans and you couldn't tell the difference. To me, the worst Canadian would be someone like Conrad Black - one who tore up his Canadian citizenship in order to purchase a baronet in England. That is just plain ugly on so many levels - just like the man himself. Yes, Conrad's pilfering of pension funds and screwing of shareholders all to pay for a lifestyle to which his abilities were insufficient to pay for does look very petty and pathetic. But it is his pompus lectures and public pronouncements about his brilliance, hard work and business accumen that turn this run of the mill inherited millionaire into a major annoyance well deserving of the hatred to which he is no doubt accustomed to. A classic case of the guy born on third base and acts like he hit a triple.

Any proof of this "lechery" that you libel Sir John A. with? Or is it just a 'stock' insult applied for rhetorical effect?

Yes, these types are "individuals" the way all those teens who fight with their parents about the right to dress themselves to express their individuality - in a way identical to all of their friends. And just what is the difference between a individual experiencing "hysteria" and one experiencing "moral panic"? I respectfully submit that there is no appreciable diffence there. And indeed, the far more interesting topic is to discuss how these particular 'moral panics' are fostered, facillitated and propagated - to what purpose and for whose benefit?

A bit too late for that hope. It is a done deal. Count me amongst those who have walked away from this toxic forum. Ironically enough, several of those whom I consider to be the worst trolls are busy having their usual fun in this very thread. How typical. Goodbye.

Oh my gosh, someone actually cited Ayn Rand as an expert on something! That's hilarious. Rand's crap is not taught in academia because it is not worthy of consideration. Not an original thought in her works. Indeed, most of it is lifted from Nietzsche, Hobbes, Locke (or reverse-engineered out of Marx) - except the parts she didn't like, she just ignored that stuff as if it didn't exist. There is no substantive intellectual basis to Rand's work. It does make nice novels and it is best to leave it at that. Nothing can proclaim a lack of higher education more clearly and precisely than praise for Rand as some kind of serious thinker. She isn't.

I am steadfastly opposed to any adoption of proportional representation. Such a system has a systemic bias towards minority-coalition governments which are powerless to cut anything. One cannot 'cut' any program under a coalition system. Ergo, proportional representation systems are perfect for endless expansion of the Government State (see European example). I don't like that one bit. I want to be able to vote for a policy and I want to be able to vote to kill a policy. This becomes effectively impossible under proportional representation models. Btw, I look forward to seeing McGuinty and his government going down in the next Provincial Election. The man is an embarrassement as Premier.