David H. Burns wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>   Is it true that there are "closet atheists" in many parts of the US?
>>
>> Yes. Lots of places, especially in the south (known as the "bible 
>> belt") there will be tremendous discrimination against atheists, to 
>> the point of being harassed out of town. (I don't know about "many 
>> parts," mind. Just the very religious parts.)
> 
> Yes the "south" is swamp of hatred, ignorance, stupidity, peopled by 
> benighted morons
> who are capable of the most heinous crimes for religion or any other 
> reason.

Why are you taking offense? Are you claiming there isn't an area generally 
referred to as "the bible belt"? Or that it isn't in the south? Or that 
there aren't many places that discriminate against atheists? Or that there 
are proportionally more in the south than the north?  I may be mistaken 
about that latter one, but I'm just basing it on the news I read.

If you're taking offense at true statements, then you're doing it wrong.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 1-8-2009 16:16, David H. Burns wrote:
>> Probably, but how real are their fears. There are certainly a lot of 
>> "practicing atheists"
>> (i.e people who live as if they believed nothing) 
> 
> I strongly object to that. Atheists believe (i.e. know) that no God 
> exists. You do have people who believe nothing, but they are not 
> referred to as atheists nor agnostics for that matter.
Wouldn't even go that far for most of us. But, depends on your 
definition of "believe". If you mean, in the sense, that "I believe 
there is almost no chance I will spontaneously win the Australian 
lottery.", you are likely correct. I have no idea "if" such a thing 
exists, and even if it did, it would be hard to win, given that I don't 
live there, and haven't bought a ticket. If it does, then... there is a 
idiotically slim chance that someone might drop the winning ticket in 
front of me, in the parking lot, at work, because they happened to be 
visiting, while on vacation. Now, if you where to ask, "What are the 
odds of you winning the Lilliputian lotto?", then I would say *zero*, 
since Lilliput is a made up part of a silly book, and is in no way, 
shape, or form, part of the real world. I.e., could there be a god? I 
have no idea, but I place the odds very low, given the general lack of 
any evidence, and the fact that everything that is presented as such is 
better explained by something else. Does any "specific" god, as 
described in someone's theology exist? Absolutely *not*, for the same 
reasons.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> I think atheists can probably get along 99% even in the worst areas 
>>> if they just STFU and let the majority have their way, instead of 
>>> complaining about prayer in school and "In God We Trust" on 
>>> government buildings and such.
>>>
>> Ah, yes. Jews should do the same, and Pagans, and well..
> 
> I didn't say they *should*. I said they *can*. I.e., in contrast with 
> being black 100 years ago, where you couldn't avoid the racism by faking 
> it.
> 
Hmm. Point taken.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 1-8-2009 16:16, David H. Burns wrote:
>> Probably, but how real are their fears. There are certainly a lot of 
>> "practicing atheists"
>> (i.e people who live as if they believed nothing) 
> 
> I strongly object to that. Atheists believe (i.e. know) that no God 
> exists. You do have people who believe nothing, but they are not 
> referred to as atheists nor agnostics for that matter.

No offense intended. That's why I put the the phrase in quotes; perhaps,
Non-Believers would be a better term for those who believe nothing --but 
that
term might be misread too. :)

  "Believe" and "know" are not synonyms. :)

David

Post a reply to this message

On 2-8-2009 22:15, David H. Burns wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 1-8-2009 16:16, David H. Burns wrote:
>>> Probably, but how real are their fears. There are certainly a lot of 
>>> "practicing atheists"
>>> (i.e people who live as if they believed nothing) 
>>
>> I strongly object to that. Atheists believe (i.e. know) that no God 
>> exists. You do have people who believe nothing, but they are not 
>> referred to as atheists nor agnostics for that matter.
> 
> No offense intended. That's why I put the the phrase in quotes; perhaps,
> Non-Believers would be a better term for those who believe nothing --but 
> that
> term might be misread too. :)
> 
>  "Believe" and "know" are not synonyms. :)

Depends. A believer "knows", he/she will often deny believing as that 
suggests that there is another option. I know that no god exists, but at 
the same time acknowledge that others know that God does exist.
An outsider who does not share the same believe/knowledge may classify 
it as (merely) a believe, for the believer it is knowledge.
So whether it are synonyms or not depends on the observer.
(I am aware of the parallels with the evolution as (merely) a theory).

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> David H. Burns wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> Warp wrote:
>>>>   Is it true that there are "closet atheists" in many parts of the US?
>>>
>>> Yes. Lots of places, especially in the south (known as the "bible 
>>> belt") there will be tremendous discrimination against atheists, to 
>>> the point of being harassed out of town. (I don't know about "many 
>>> parts," mind. Just the very religious parts.)
>>
>> Yes the "south" is swamp of hatred, ignorance, stupidity, peopled by 
>> benighted morons
>> who are capable of the most heinous crimes for religion or any other 
>> reason.
> 
> Why are you taking offense? 

It's prejudice I take offense at -- though maybe "disgusted" may be a better
term than "offended" to describe my reaction. But I probably should have 
resisted
  the temptation to reply -- or just repeated the Kristofferson quote I 
used earlier. :)
Are you claiming there isn't an area
> generally referred to as "the bible belt"? Or that it isn't in the
> south? 
"Bible Belt" is a media term, pejorative and emotive, with no 
descriptive value.
Or that there aren't many places that discriminate against
> atheists? Or that there are proportionally more in the south than the 
> north? 

My experience leads me to doubt both of these statements. I've never 
seen such
discrimination. Off course I have heard and read people preach and rave 
against atheists
  and against christians, and against many other beliefs. But preaching 
and raving aren't
especially southern phenomena.
  I may be mistaken about that latter one, but I'm just basing it
> on the news I read.

What one reads in the "news" depends on what news one chooses to read.
To my mind, none of it is to be trusted too far.

David :)

I

> 
> If you're taking offense at true statements, then you're doing it wrong.
> 

I

Post a reply to this message

David H. Burns wrote:
>  "Believe" and "know" are not synonyms. :)

Part of the problem is that the faithful and the non-faithful use these 
terms in opposite ways.

The faithful think that believing is more "complete" thank knowing. As long 
as you believe, it overrides whatever you might know.

The non-faithful say "I believe X", meaning "I might be wrong, but I think 
this is the truth", while saying "I know X" means "I'm virtually certain 
this is the truth."

So when the faithful person says "I believe in God," they mean what a 
non-faithful person would mean by "I know there is a god and I know what 
attributes that god has". When the non-faithful says "I don't believe in 
god", they (generally) mean "you would have to actually give me a convincing 
reason for me to believe in god, at which point I would know why."



-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
A believer "knows", he/she will often deny believing as that
> suggests that there is another option. I know that no god exists, but at 
> the same time acknowledge that others know that God does exist.
> An outsider who does not share the same believe/knowledge may classify 
> it as (merely) a believe, for the believer it is knowledge.
> So whether it are synonyms or not depends on the observer.

Well, of course one is free to use any word to mean anything one likes,
and if it comforts one in one's faith to use "know" to mean "believe",
one is free to do so. But if one wants what he says or writes
  to be understood .... :)

> (I am aware of the parallels with the evolution as (merely) a theory).

??

David :)

Post a reply to this message

David H. Burns wrote:
> It's prejudice I take offense at 

What prejudice do you think I'm exhibiting? That's the question I asked.

> "Bible Belt" is a media term, pejorative and emotive, with no 
> descriptive value.

http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Abible+belt

Google, Princeton, and wikipedia all disagree. As do the Dutch, apparently.

http://images.google.com/images?q=bible+belt
It sure looks like a pretty well-defined area, with five or six different 
but substantially similar maps showing the american bible belt, as well as a 
couple of Dutch bible belt maps.

As I said, if you're taking offense at the truth, you're doing it wrong.

> My experience leads me to doubt both of these statements. I've never 
> seen such
> discrimination.

Fair enough. Myself, I've never seen black people discriminated against. Yet 
I don't doubt it happens.

However, don't attribute to my prejudice what you can attribute to your 
ignorance. A better response would be evidence that a wide-spread prejudice 
is wrong, rather than simply calling someone names who hasn't said anything 
bad about you.

> What one reads in the "news" depends on what news one chooses to read.

Certainly. But it's not like I go out picking news sources that reinforce my 
beliefs. Quite the opposite, really.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> David H. Burns wrote:
>>  "Believe" and "know" are not synonyms. :)
> 
> Part of the problem is that the faithful and the non-faithful use these 
> terms in opposite ways.
> 
> The faithful think that believing is more "complete" thank knowing. As 
> long as you believe, it overrides whatever you might know.
> 

Are you speaking from experience?

> So when the faithful person says "I believe in God," they mean what a 
> non-faithful person would mean by "I know there is a god and I know what 
> attributes that god has". When the non-faithful says "I don't believe in 
> god", they (generally) mean "you would have to actually give me a 
> convincing reason for me to believe in god, at which point I would know 
> why."

It's unwise to attribute to someone a meaning different from what he has 
actually said.
Of few of us, in ordinary conversation anyway, say precisely what we 
mean. You use of the
terms "faithful" and "non-faithful" are "interesting." :)

David

Post a reply to this message