Quote:
 

Where did you get that from? What part of subatomic physics is not repeatable?

freediver wrote on Mar 21^st, 2010 at 12:40pm:


Well for example, the position and momentum of an electron? Take a text on Quantum Physics and just read part of it at random. You'll find plenty of other examples.

Are any supernatural phenomena repeatable? Please provide examples to back up your answer.

I think for many, when they call themselves “atheist”, they don’t intend to take (or defend) an ontological position as much as a protestant one.

Their response arises from that which comes after the theistic declaration of god’s existence. Theirs is a protestation against theistic arrogations arising from theists' insistence that god intervenes in the physical world, transcends it and/or is immanent within it and that, because of this, there are immutable behavioural and moralistic consequences for all – believer or not.

Remove those theistic presumptions and you often find that most “atheists” fall back into a position of agnosticism and/or a sense of spirituality, which they express freely and without any sense of contradiction of their previously declared “atheism”.

Dawkins and Hitchens are too intellectual to merely take a protestant position, despite their public performances consisting largely of just that.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 21^st, 2010 at 12:57pm:



I think you're probably right. Those people who describe themselves as atheist do so from a position of being antithetic to religion - in order that they stand out as separate from religion.

Soren - There is a meaning in the Holi ceremony, but it's mostly lost on the participants. It's just a fun tradition like kissing under the mistletoe. Nothing wrong with it.

Quote:


No - by definition. If they were repeatable, they would be considered natural. You appear to be asking for examples that undermine my answer, not support it.

This extremely stupid distraction is what theists always trot out, because it is far easier to bog people down with meaningless semantics, rather than face the irrationality of their own beliefs.

So let us simplify, a theist believes in god(s), an atheist doesn't, and an agnostic doesn't believe in god(s), but is too indifferent to theists to ever bother announcing why they do not believe in god(s).

Now obviously the theists who like having their silly belief systems validated by society, prefer the agnostics that are too disinterested to ever bother challenging this unjustifiable state of affairs, over atheists who have the affront to point out the most glaring and offensive intrusions that theists demand, and question why we should allow them to continue to get benefits like tax free status, as well as public money for assistance in proselytising to kids while they should be getting an education.

At the end of the day, the simple fact is that right after their god of choice, their claim on the mighty dollar is certainly next on their list of what they are trying to protect.

The sad fact is that churches take money from everywhere they can get it, they enjoy a tax exempt status they do not have to justify to receive, and they are happy to spend that money in trying to seek political favour for their churches own particular prejudices.

In the US, they have over 300 billion dollars donated to churches, and sure I know that some of that goes toward charity work, but I certainly do not believe that the bulk of it goes that way.

After all, they have palaces to build, lifestyles to pay for, and political contests they wish to influence, and that all costs money.
In a US study, 75% of churches were found to have donated money illegally to political campaigns, and when you are seeking to have homosexuality outlawed, and that young earth theory taught in schools as a valid alternative theory to real science, then you need to spend big.
Crazy dreams are crazy expensive.

Now of course some will say that perhaps the money could have been spent better in other ways, but it is their money ralph.
My objection, apart from seeing deranged ideologues seeking to influence our political systems to enforce their bizzarre beliefs, is that money attracted no tax, and in fact the majority of it would have resulted in significant tax deductions for the donors.

So when the churches and religions are happy to live by, and follow the same rules that apply to the rest of us, and keep their noses out of other people's lives, then good luck to them, until that day, then as far as I am concerned, they are fair game.

mozzaok wrote on Mar 21^st, 2010 at 4:57pm:

Whaddayou?crayzy?...Thereonamishonfrom... God.