How many degrees in their orbit do the planets travel in one Earth year?

On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:39:51 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Or "In Nothing We Trust" for you atheists.

I don't know any atheists who are incapable of trust, or don't have
things in which they trust. They just don't place their trust in
imaginary beings.

On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 12:37:17 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

I have suggested that some are good ideas (regulation of salaries,
laws regulating broadcasting, federal management of public education).
I've argued that religious instruction of children is unethical, but
haven't suggested we should create laws banning it.

peterson, did you write this? :

"The right to religion has been limited throughout history, to the point where its existence is doubtful (and ought to be limited today in free societies, such as making it illegal to teach children about religion, or take them to church)."

On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 12:37:54 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:24:04 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 12:13:08 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 08:40:16 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

So you wish to use that as an excuse to ban all religion?

Nope. To encourage people to abandon it.

How do you propose to do that? (Certainly not with your intolerant, egotistical attitude.)

By educating them about its harms, and demonstrating where it is
teaches falsehoods.

You haven't demonstrated any "harms."

Your inability to pay attention is your problem, not mine.

I have been paying attention, but you haven't provided any support for your assertions.

On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 12:56:27 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:37:25 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Society is the product of people's beliefs, and we are all affected by
the nature of society.

The sort of "society" I favor would not allow people's beliefs to have any effect beyond the immediate environment of the person holding those beliefs, whereas in your society beliefs would have to be molded and regulated by the government.

Nonsense. The sort of society anybody favors involves creating an
environment that affects everybody. You have beliefs about religion,
about guns, about politics, about economics that you would like to see
embraced by society, and they clearly have wide reaching impact.

peterson, your beliefs have elements of fascism, communism, totalitarianism, paternalism, etc., that diminish everyone.

My beliefs involve free, voluntary, non-coercive, mutually beneficial interactions among individuals, (with just enough government to keep bad actors, such as yourself, under control.)

On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:24:31 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Nonsense. The sort of society anybody favors involves creating an
environment that affects everybody. You have beliefs about religion,
about guns, about politics, about economics that you would like to see
embraced by society, and they clearly have wide reaching impact.

peterson, your beliefs have elements of fascism, communism, totalitarianism, paternalism, etc., that diminish everyone.

My beliefs involve free, voluntary, non-coercive, mutually beneficial interactions among individuals, (with just enough government to keep bad actors, such as yourself, under control.)

Your characterization of my beliefs certainly furthers my assertion
that you are unable to rationally examine the beliefs of others.

But that's irrelevant. It doesn't matter what my beliefs are. It
doesn't matter what yours are. We both seek changes in society that
further our own beliefs. Nothing could be more American- more _human_-
than trying to change the minds of others. That you are threatened by
that kind of thing demonstrates just how fundamentally insecure you
really are.

On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:15:46 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 12:37:17 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

I have suggested that some are good ideas (regulation of salaries,
laws regulating broadcasting, federal management of public education).
I've argued that religious instruction of children is unethical, but
haven't suggested we should create laws banning it.

peterson, did you write this? :

"The right to religion has been limited throughout history, to the point where its existence is doubtful (and ought to be limited today in free societies, such as making it illegal to teach children about religion, or take them to church)."

Saying something ought to be illegal (and I've always qualified that
by the observation that can only happen when society changes enough
that the norms shift) isn't at all the same as calling for laws
against something.

A distinction that is apparently far too subtle for you.

Quadibloc wrote:
On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 1:17:28 PM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:

Exactly. You think you are. Isn't that enough?

But how could I think if I didn't even exist?

John Savard

You might be part of a system (computer) which has programmed a subset of
itself to behave as if it were independent.
Which is not far from the reality of the conscious mind as suggested by
modern research.

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 19:18:58 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 09 Sep 2015 20:35:13 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

They let's use the definition of atheist as someone who denies the
existence of any deities. That's the best definition of atheist since
it applies to all atheists, i.e. to all who deny the existence of
deities.

I am an atheist (because I don't believe in any gods), but I do not
deny the existence of any deities. So it clearly does not apply to all
atheists.

You're an agnostic who wants to be a member of the atheist subculture.

Since I lack a belief in any gods, that makes me an atheist by
fundamental definition. The degree to which I am or am not an agnostic
is arguable, but a different issue.

I'm not really a part of any "atheist subculture". I'm more associated
with secularism and anti-religionism.

The you should call yourself an agnostic. It would be true and wouldn't
mislead people into thinking you believe that no deities exist?

On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 18:36:06 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 19:18:58 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 09 Sep 2015 20:35:13 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

They let's use the definition of atheist as someone who denies the
existence of any deities. That's the best definition of atheist since
it applies to all atheists, i.e. to all who deny the existence of
deities.

I am an atheist (because I don't believe in any gods), but I do not
deny the existence of any deities. So it clearly does not apply to all
atheists.

You're an agnostic who wants to be a member of the atheist subculture.

Since I lack a belief in any gods, that makes me an atheist by
fundamental definition. The degree to which I am or am not an agnostic
is arguable, but a different issue.

I'm not really a part of any "atheist subculture". I'm more associated
with secularism and anti-religionism.

The you should call yourself an agnostic. It would be true and wouldn't
mislead people into thinking you believe that no deities exist?

I'm not sure if I'm agnostic or not. That is, I haven't formed a firm
opinion about the knowability of a deity. In the most general sense,
we can never disprove the existence of any deity, but if one exists,
we can potentially prove that. So knowability is problematic.

On the other hand, I'm an atheist simply because I meet the most basic
definition (the one found first in nearly every dictionary, the one
used by atheist authors and speakers, and the one that absolutely
applies to every atheist), someone who lacks a belief in any deities.
"Agnostic" is just confusing. Why have a word that is synonymous with
"skeptic" but only applied to matters of theism? So the most accurate
way I can characterize myself is as a skeptic and an atheist (although
I would argue that the latter is a bit redundant, because any skeptic
is likely to be an atheist as well).

Quadibloc wrote:
On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 5:28:44 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
The number who are driven to
intolerance (racism, sexism, opposition to various civil rights
issues), however, is much greater.

That depends on how you define civil rights issues...

The right to control over your own body.

Oh, you mean the right to kill innocent babies as long as they haven't been
born yet. What's next, will you be defending the right to buy and sell innocent
human beings as though they were horses... as long as they have the wrong color
of skin?

John Savard

So you think a woman's who has been raped should be sentenced to look after
the child of the rapist for a couple of decades. And pay the bills as well.