Are you an atheist? (7 Viewers)

[Mike375]

Yes and we all know that good grammer and correct spelling are prerequisites for posting on internet forums.

Actually I beleive in your case it is a sign of strong bias and dislike for anything religious or supernatural.

 

[Mike375]

I wonder if she thinks you feel that way...?

I don't get the impression that most of you brits feel that way about them (the royals, it is a package deal isn't it?) Seems most around here love her to death...

Several years ago Australia had a referendum to cut the connection but it never got by and mainly because the people that pushed for the referendum were the real lefty types. But it will probably go through next time as it will have support from both major parties.

Many years ago it was very big in Australia but not these days.

 

[KenHigg]

Actually I beleive in your case it is a sign of strong bias and dislike for anything religious or supernatural.

I think this forum is supernatural - You really can't be in Australia and her in Colorado and Brian in England. Impossible.

 

[Rabbie]

I think this forum is supernatural - You really can't be in Australia and her in Colorado and Brian in England. Impossible.

The wonders of modern technology!

It always brings a wry smile to my lips when I see americans going crazy over our royal family. Perhaps they regret breaking away from Britain.

 

[KenHigg]

Several years ago Australia had a referendum to cut the connection but it never got by and mainly because the people that pushed for the referendum were the real lefty types. But it will probably go through next time as it will have support from both major parties.

Many years ago it was very big in Australia but not these days.

Do you see it as evolution for the better or was it 'better' in the good old days?

Do you have a 'Church of Australia'?

 

[dan-cat]

No, I was responding to Lister's use of the term - you will see I was quoting him.

I understand that you were responding to him. I just wanted to know what you meant by this statement:

"I agree that people who selected option 1 or 5 on this poll ARE zealots - they believe based on faith, not on evidence. "

if my interpretation of what you meant was wrong.

 

[Alisa]

I suppose Alisa is religious. She treats atheism as a religion She shares with the Bible thumpers a dogmatic approach to a belief of which there is no direct or real evidence.

You have it exactly backwards, as I have pointed out before. I don't have a belief system, dogmatic or otherwise. I am not religious precisely because there is no direct of real evidence of god.

 

[KenHigg]

The wonders of modern technology!

It always brings a wry smile to my lips when I see americans going crazy over our royal family. Perhaps they regret breraking away from Britain.

It's kind of like seeing mickey mouse in disney land -

(Those were some tuff times when we were breraking away... )

 

[Alisa]

I understand that you were responding to him. I just wanted to know what you meant by this statement:

"I agree that people who selected option 1 or 5 on this poll ARE zealots - they believe based on faith, not on evidence. "

if my interpretation of what you meant was wrong.

I meant that I agreed with Lister in the sense that he had previously used the word, which he used to describe people that take things on faith and don't care about evidence. I am not saying that is the dictionary definition of the word. That was the way he used the word, and I used it in the same way to respond to his comment to maintain the continuity of the conversation.

 

[Rabbie]

It's kind of like seeing mickey mouse in disney land -

(Those were some tuff times when we were breraking away... )

The perils of typing too fast and not reading it thruough before pressing the submit button

 

[KenHigg]

You have it exactly backwards, as I have pointed out before. I don't have a belief system, dogmatic or otherwise. I am not religious precisely because there is no direct of real evidence of god.

Would you submit evidence there isn't? Perhaps you are more agnostic than atheist?

 

[KenHigg]

The perils of typing too fast and not reading it thruough before pressing the submit button

Sometimes it helps to read thruough several times before posting

 

[Mike375]

Do you see it as evolution for the better or was it 'better' in the good old days?

Do you have a 'Church of Australia'?

Actually Australia in practical terms has been independent for over 100 years. We have a Governor General which is the Queen's representative but it is formality. Our conservative party is basically a supporter of the monarchy and the Labor party is very anti the monarchy.

In real terms there is not really much difference between the political systems in America, Australia and Britain. I think most of the differences between the countries are a result of area, population distribution, climate and so on. All three are based on winning areas or electorates as opposed to popular vote. I guess in theory a Prime Minister would have more power than a president (as in POTUS system) because the Prime Minister is in parliament and can vote.

 

[Rabbie]

I think the key part of Lister's Post was

Good point Mike, I have called these people Atheistic Zealot in the past. They believe to their very core that you should not believe in anything. And they would, if they could, force you not to believe.
Funny how the balance is kept.

the bit about forcing you to believe. I do not see any evidence that the atheist part of this thread or indeed the religious part have tried to force their beliefs on people during this discussion.

 

[Rabbie]

Sometimes it helps to read thruough several times before posting

It's a subtle plan to stop you developing better arguments. I wouldn't want you to be branded as a Zealot. This apparently is not a good thing

 

[Mike375]

You have it exactly backwards, as I have pointed out before. I don't have a belief system, dogmatic or otherwise. I am not religious precisely because there is no direct of real evidence of god.

You have a very strong belief system.

Blokes like Hawking and Davies and others say they run out of puff at the Big Bang as all physics ends. But you are dogmatic that they will find an answer.

 

[Alisa]

Would you submit evidence there isn't? Perhaps you are more agnostic than atheist?

You must first have evidence FOR before there can be any evidence AGAINST.

 

[Rabbie]

Actually Australia in practical terms has been independent for over 100 years. We have a Governor General which is the Queen's representative but it is formality. Our conservative party is basically a supporter of the monarchy and the Labor party is very anti the monarchy.

In real terms there is not really much difference between the political systems in America, Australia and Britain. I think most of the differences between the countries are a result of area, population distribution, climate and so on. All three are based on winning areas or electorates as opposed to popular vote. I guess in theory a Prime Minister would have more power than a president (as in POTUS system) because the Prime Minister is in parliament and can vote.

Interesting theory. Britain and Australia have a parliamentary system and the government can be removed by a simple majority in the parliament. In the US the president can only be removed by impeachment which requires a 2/3 majority in the senate.

 

[Alisa]

Actually I beleive in your case it is a sign of strong bias and dislike for anything religious or supernatural.

Actually is it because of the poor education I recieved here in the U.S., I never learned proper capitalization.

 

[dan-cat]

I meant that I agreed with Lister in the sense that he had previously used the word, which he used to describe people that take things on faith and don't care about evidence. I am not saying that is the dictionary definition of the word. That was the way he used the word, and I used it in the same way to respond to his comment to maintain the continuity of the conversation.

I think you'd better re-read his post. That wasn't how he used the term at all.