Figleaf

Toronto Sun How fitting. A few crumbs from the table for the average Joe, but gluttony for the potentate.

Interesting test. I'm not sure that it is very effective in finding out what they are looking for, however. It seems like they are trying to investigate the interpretation people place on Intents and Outcomes. From a purely design pov, I wondered with such long questions, rife with subordinate clauses, and only 8 of them, how badly skewed the results might be from simple mis-reading. Anyway, what do the numbers mean?

Again with your private language! It really does make a discussion difficult to pursue. Look here -- words are symbolic constructs used to represent things, concepts, people, etc. collectively called memes. For this system to be useful, the word/symbols used to represent different memes must distinguishable from eachother, and used predicably to allow hearers to decypher the intent of speakers. Or in short -- Words have meanings. Now, the words 'greater good' are, if you look closely, DIFFERENT words than 'believing in a specific deity'. Why do you suppose that may be? Well, in fact, it's because they represent DIFFERENT things. Yes. And so, when you burble up and say they are the SAME thing, it really isn't very comprehensible or useful. There is nothing necessarily theistic about perceiving and acting on a 'greater good'. To take an example, a person who feels he has had a full life with little more joy to come, might quite LOGICALLY decide if forced into a situation to sacrifice his life to ensure the prospect of life for younger people. There is no need to drag any notion of a 'higher power', let alone a specific 'God' into explaining that. ??? Here we go again. What is your private definition of 'deity' now? Bunk.* *Silly unsupported assertions are adequately met with denial. They don't deserve the dignity of refutation.

Ozzie?? Do they play a lot of Black Sabbath?

Why would they unless they believed that their sacrifice served some greater good? Do you make up your private language in response to peoples comments, or have you already got it fully formed when you start your posts? Here you now seem to be using the term 'greater good' instead of 'God'. Atheists often have a very highly developed view of the greater good. Totally without theistic content. What possible rationale would lead you to utter that whopper?

That doesn't pass the sniff test. Which lefties did that, where, and when? (Please provide sources.)

You've also failed to show that the objections are irrational. Not all are. But it is the irrational ones that lead to 'fighting'. Minor point indeed. To avoid appearing sophomoric, it's often preferable to focus on points that make a difference. You say I'm using 'gerrymander' wrongly because I'm using it to refer to adjustements of the number of people within ridings rather than to the boundaries of the ridings. If I concede that I should have said 'gerrymander-like', would that address your issue? The word gerrymandering, as you're well aware, has a connotation of mischief, shenanigans, malice, gimmickry, and so-on. I think mischief is implicit in adjusting political representation to create advantage for one party or interest. And that is exactly what I think the government is doing in this case. By taking deliberate and specific steps that expand and preserve that 'part of our system'. I think either number is a misalignment. Taking steps that approximately preserve that misalignment whilst remedying a similar problem elsewhere is the thing I'm objecting to. Oh really? You should check out the results of this poll. I refuse to. Sure, since they directly contradict your unsubstantiated comment. Other than your jejune quibble about the definition of 'gerrymander', what is wrong with the questions?

What evidence do you think you have for that whopper? For example, please explain how belief in a higher power helped accused witches survive in the 1500's. No, they don't. Those are not 'higher powers'. Riverwind, it using your own private language does not help make your positions any more sound. I don't believe your assertion is true. Please demonstrate (if you can) that belief in a higher power is a requirement of altruism.

Not yet, I'm posting my reactions to each chapter as I go. It sure is crap. Regarding Chapter 3 ... The example does nothing whatsoever to support the assertion it is attached to. There is no 'invisible ideal'. There are specific, expressed ideals, communicated through language and socialization. Wanting justice in no way requires a magical lawgiver to make you want it. Grasping that someone has taken advantage of someone else has nothing to do with anything mystical. It's pragmatic ... we have promulgated rules for the collective benefit, and someone else has broken those rules to your detriment. Thinking that is wrong is simply reasonable -- No magic required. The writer is committing a fallacy. He is attempting to use unlike comparisons as though they were the same. The relevant reason to object that your girlfriend is having sex with the Chicago Bears is not that sex itself is a problem, but rather that sex with someone else outside of a committed relationship is a violation of that interpersonal expectation of exclusivity. When I read the things that religious proponents say about ethics, I really begin to think that maybe they are right about THEY THEMSELVES needing religion to keep from being immoral, since they do seem to lack an intellectual appreciation for the exercise of ethics Well, first off, Christianity doesn't merely take the 'moral impulse' and put a name God on it. It claims (without foundation) that the named entity predates and causes the moral impulse. And it claims that the entity's (alleged) views supercede whatever the natural impulse tells us. And they use claims about the entity to impose the (alleged) entity's morality. Christianity (and other religions) don't simply take it 'one step too far'. They take it several steps off to the side and then kick dirt on the original path.

What sort of perfidious bullshit is this now! You think no atheist has ever gone to war and thrown himself on a grenade? No atheist has ever donated a kidney? Wize up. Your belief beggars belief. How is that 'higher'? +++++++++++++++++++++++ This is an amazing topic. The level of sloppy language is only exceeded by the sloppy thinking.

IOW - atheism is a religion. Did you read my post?Anyway, atheism isn't really 'pursued'.

I would disagree. Belief in a higher power is an incredible coping/survival tool. The saying that 'there are no atheists in fox holes' is quite true. I want to make sure I understand your contention ... are you saying that belief in religion is useful because it can encourage people?

Well said.

The bold items are no part of atheism: It is pretty clear to me that a religion is any system of beliefs that may or may not involve a diety. So, as you can see, there are important differences, even using your definition. In any event, I think the following definitions 1-4 (with 5 being just colloquaial) are more in line with what people think of in terms of religion:

This kind of shabby treatment puts the lie to the pretense that Steve's government really cares for the troops. Chalk up one more reality check for Canadian voters to keep in mind.

Seriously, why on earth do you say that sort of crap? Atheism has NO GOD in it. That makes it fundamentally, axiomatically, and by definition NOT religious. Their views were extremist, yes, but NOT religious.

That comment is just such utter drivel it's hard to know where to begin. The human brain produces a "realistic impression" of an all powerful, miracle healing, red-sea parting, jealous God!?!?! Drivel. Among the legion of things that Figleaf is ignorant of and with is the religious experiance. http://www.meta-religion.com/Psychiatry/Th..._experience.htm In fact, religious experiances and the brain are well documented, but figleaf is too dishonest a poster to acknoledge that. ... Poor M.Dancer. What an absolutely idiotic post. First off, I'm well aware of that research. If it is correct, and religion begins with a mere neurochemical short circuit, then wow, what a destructive pathology that is! Second, bizarrely, M.Dander doesn't see any difference between an IMAGINARY God and a REAL one -- one that IN HIS HEAD works miracles vs. (the kind I was refering to, a real God) who really DOES miracles. Dancer's explanation for the imaginary kind of God says 100% zip about a real one, and it's just lame that he can't see that. Third, does anyone have any idea what Dancer thinks 'dishonest' means?

Really? How exactly is a belief democracy and universal suffrage instinctive? An understanding of the benefits of democracy is based on reason. Democracy is fairer than systems of privilege or command, therefore more stable. And because it recruits more minds into free decisionmaking its choices should be better, by and large.

Do you believe that it is wrong to kill someone? Do you think stealing is wrong? Do you believe in democracy? You must have a system of ethics - you could not survive in society without them. You have ethics because you have faith in something. It may not be a God but I am sure your sense of ethics is not based on some proveable natural law.That makes your belief system a form of religion even if you deny it. If you want to simply define religion as including all things, then go ahead, but in terms of an argument it's pretty silly.

Take what up with Websters? I didn't have a problem with the definition, only with your utterly fallacious claims about what it meant.

So I read a little further on the site that M.Dander referenced. What a load of tripe. From my perspective, what I hear on an emotional level from the Christian there is "I'm in and therefore good, you're out and therefore wicked." On an intellectual level what I hear is "bluggabluggablugablahblahgloopplop". Strange little strawman projection there, eh? Who ever hears atheists complain that Believers don't really believe something? That comment is just such utter drivel it's hard to know where to begin. The human brain produces a "realistic impression" of an all powerful, miracle healing, red-sea parting, jealous God!?!?! Drivel. "Has to be", eh? Well, find it in the Bible then. Don't just spout opinions.

Nonsense. Secularism is not a 'system of belief', atheism is only arguably a 'system of belief', and neither of them have anything to do with "worship". I really don't understand why religious people keep trying to tar atheism and secularism with the dirty brush of faith. What do you hope to gain?

Why would not be partisan when I was trying to guage criticism of the party carrying out the gerrymandering? Its not the poll that produces the fighting, it's the irrational objectors to it that do that. You're not making much sense here. You say its extensivey gerrymandered, then you complain when I complain about gerrymandering. Anyway, having ridings that are misaligned is not gerrymandering. DELIBERATELY misaligning them for political gain is. Oh really? You should check out the results of this poll.

Hey look, M.Dancer has started a thread of his own, rather than merely disrupting others. Well, why don't I just take a peak and see what he's come up with... Wow. That's loopy. Atheism hasn't killed anyone that I ever heard of, so what is there to put aside? It's easy to understand why, as between theism and atheism, the theists would not want to make a spreadsheet to compare. So far as I know, there has never been an atheist world. But it's true that some ideologies that are officially atheistic have been involved in mass oppression and killing. In no case has that seemed to revolve around the atheism angle, however. Other aspects of the ideologies, however, have been quite extremist. Yes, but atheism hasn't done any of it.

Al Gore is an assault on just about everything including reason. Exemplary. Thanks for coming out.