Might is also be possible that a desire to force one's agenda or beliefs on to others, be it atheist or otherwise, at almost any cost, is not just down to insecurity but also to a sociopathic desire to control others no matter what?
Apparently people with 'sociopathic' tendencies have very little or no conscience, are apt to bully others and try to discredit everything they say. I just wondered because I have done a little bit of research on sociopathy, but I am not pretending any expertise. Just wondered if anyone had any other thoughts on that or whether they could improve on my knowledge.

Well, as I mentioned before, I grew up as an atheist myself - and I was one until I began to belief in God in 1991. But I still remember (and often experience from family and some friends) how atheists are thinking.
Most atheist come with the argument "If there were such thing like a God, then there were no war and no injustice in the world, as well no heavy diseases. But because they are, there is no God, and everyone who believes in such an idea is a darned fool." That's a poor thinking in my opinion, but they refuse to accept other ideas. It's not necessarily sociopathic, but rather a holding tight on all personal disappointings - (like in one of those old movies, when a heavily disappointed father said "you're not my son anymore, I have no son and never had one!!!")
Thinking about it right now methinks that there must be a kind of "faith by nature" in every human, but - like Stephen King mentioned, growing up a human is burdened more and more with disbelief - only those who kept at least a little bit of a child inside have the power to accept the idea of God.
I myself was treated like non-existent for one entire year by my own mother after she saw the certificate of my baptism in '93. It was like I being a traitor. Especially, due to the fact that my younger brother died only 8 years before in a Christian hospital, and the nurse there tried to console her with "God has taken your son to him..." Now I was joining the same God who took her younger son away after letting him suffer cancer? So I actually was a traitor in her eyes. It took her a while to learn and accept that I remained (almost) the same old guy she knew as her son, just a bit less pessimistic, and not a drinker anymore...

---

Account frozen...

Thanks for relating your story. My own husband is completely atheistic and simply won't entertain the idea of any god. In fact I think most of his family is. But he is very scientifically minded, an expert on computers and laser printers as his job involves these things. But I know you can be a scientist and still believe in some sort of god even though it might not be the old man in heaven with a white beard. I think that idea of God has been entirely discredited.
I keep an open mind about how the universe was created, although I tend more to the agnostic side. I think our existence can be explained by entirely natural processes, but I could be wrong about that. It's impossible to disprove the existence of God in the same way that you can't prove that aliens don't exist. How can you prove a negative?
And yes, it requires some form of faith to be an atheist, although I must admit, atheists do seem to have a lot of science on their side. But I don't think science can necessarily answer all our questions. All branches of knowledge must have their limitations, be it science, philosophy, theology, religion, etc.
I'd like to say one more thing about the nature of atheism. I have met many atheists in my time and people seem to have a rather simplistic view about atheism in general. Most people seem to think that if you are an atheist, it must necessarily follow that you don't believe in any form of survival or life after death. But that is simply not true. I have met atheists who do accept the possibility of disembodied existence or 'survival' as well as those who do not. Likewise, I have met religious people who believe in God, go to church and accept their religion's moral teachings, but do not believe in their own survival in the hereafter, so what people believe presents a far more complex picture than commonly imagined.

Well, in my opinion, science and faith can't be opponents - I mean, of course you can be a pure scientist AND believe in God. How else is it possible that there are universities owned and maintained by churches? There are many scientists who say that their research are proving the existence of God rather than negating it.

---

Account frozen...

Well, in my opinion, science and faith can't be opponents - I mean, of course you can be a pure scientist AND believe in God. How else is it possible that there are universities owned and maintained by churches? There are many scientists who say that their research are proving the existence of God rather than negating it.

---

Account frozen...

Science and faith need not be opponents in my opinion. There was a time in the past when science and religion enjoyed a much closer relationship than they seem to today. In fact even the word 'scientist' wasn't even coined until the 19th century. Before that they were generally called 'philosophers' and they often mixed 'science' in with theology or religious belief.
In 1831 the world's first science 'road show' was started. It called itself, 'The British Association for the Advancement of Science.' This was basically a group of wealthy Oxford dons. In those days science was not a paid professional career, so the gents had to have money and pay for their own research. Also at that time physics was called 'natural philosophy,' but they wished to dispense with that term. Christian astronomers, zoologists, chemists, geologists and botanists wished to unite under a more inclusive term.
A certain don by the name of the Rev. William Whewell came up with the right word; he was the one who coined the term 'scientist.' So the word 'scientist' is a fairly modern invention, meaning, one who studies material nature.

Science and faith need not be opponents in my opinion. There was a time in the past when science and religion enjoyed a much closer relationship than they seem to today. In fact even the word 'scientist' wasn't even coined until the 19th century. Before that they were generally called 'philosophers' and they often mixed 'science' in with theology or religious belief.
In 1831 the world's first science 'road show' was started. It called itself, 'The British Association for the Advancement of Science.' This was basically a group of wealthy Oxford dons. In those days science was not a paid professional career, so the gents had to have money and pay for their own research. Also at that time physics was called 'natural philosophy,' but they wished to dispense with that term. Christian astronomers, zoologists, chemists, geologists and botanists wished to unite under a more inclusive term.
A certain don by the name of the Rev. William Whewell came up with the right word; he was the one who coined the term 'scientist.' So the word 'scientist' is a fairly modern invention, meaning, one who studies material nature.

The thing about treating science and faith as diametric opposites is that to do so requires that you dictate methods to God. (OK, God, I'll accept that You created the universe, but only if you did it the way I think it needed to be done!)

I am continually amazed at the colossal arrogance required to take such a position!

The thing about treating science and faith as diametric opposites is that to do so requires that you dictate methods to God. (OK, God, I'll accept that You created the universe, but only if you did it the way I think it needed to be done!)

I am continually amazed at the colossal arrogance required to take such a position!

Yep, it's like: "Get off your throne, old man, and let the young folk do!"
Arrogance is a very understatement for such behaviour.

---

Account frozen...

As I said already, Bill Hyland, you don't know what you're talking about.

I'm through trying to pound it through your skull. If you refuse to realize the difference between faith and proof, I can't help you see things as they actually are any further. You know what I would say you're being. Go watch the series 'Cosmos'. The difference between faith and proof is explained in there somewhere. You seek to fool others and probably yourself in making me fundaMENTALly the same as you, when I'm not.


Knightmare:

Should it be a prerequisite that any person who decides to crunch work units for Seti must be an " actual scientist "?

Nope. You're running a program that is independent of whatever fantasy you believe in. It just makes me draw such a deep breath that the pure science has to come from people who haven't even a clue what science is. Look at Hyland.

---

Never Forget a Friend. Or an Enemy.

As I said already, Bill Hyland, you don't know what you're talking about.

I'm through trying to pound it through your skull. If you refuse to realize the difference between faith and proof, I can't help you see things as they actually are any further. You know what I would say you're being. Go watch the series 'Cosmos'. The difference between faith and proof is explained in there somewhere. You seek to fool others and probably yourself in making me fundaMENTALly the same as you, when I'm not.
Knightmare:

Should it be a prerequisite that any person who decides to crunch work units for Seti must be an " actual scientist "?

Nope. You're running a program that is independent of whatever fantasy you believe in. It just makes me draw such a deep breath that the pure science has to come from people who haven't even a clue what science is. Look at Hyland.

Chuck, you do realize that this is the "Religious Thread"? It was started so that people can discuss questions of religion, such as faith.

Rather than attempt to destroy what you do not wish to believe, why not start an "All Religion Is False" thread and see how it goes? At the very least, you may engender conversations with those that believe as you do, but for different reasons, and give you a better understanding of why you believe as you do.

As I said already, Bill Hyland, you don't know what you're talking about.

I'm through trying to pound it through your skull. If you refuse to realize the difference between faith and proof, I can't help you see things as they actually are any further. You know what I would say you're being. Go watch the series 'Cosmos'. The difference between faith and proof is explained in there somewhere. You seek to fool others and probably yourself in making me fundaMENTALly the same as you, when I'm not.
Knightmare:

Should it be a prerequisite that any person who decides to crunch work units for Seti must be an " actual scientist "?

Nope. You're running a program that is independent of whatever fantasy you believe in. It just makes me draw such a deep breath that the pure science has to come from people who haven't even a clue what science is. Look at Hyland.

Chuck, you do realize that this is the "Religious Thread"? It was started so that people can discuss questions of religion, such as faith.

Rather than attempt to destroy what you do not wish to believe, why not start an "All Religion Is False" thread and see how it goes? At the very least, you may engender conversations with those that believe as you do, but for different reasons, and give you a better understanding of why you believe as you do.

Like I said before.

---

Account frozen...

As I said already, Bill Hyland, you don't know what you're talking about.

I'm through trying to pound it through your skull. If you refuse to realize the difference between faith and proof, I can't help you see things as they actually are any further. You know what I would say you're being... You seek to fool others and probably yourself in making me fundaMENTALly the same as you, when I'm not.

Chuck, you do realize that this is the "Religious Thread"? It was started so that people can discuss questions of religion, such as faith.

Rather than attempt to destroy what you do not wish to believe, why not start an "All Religion Is False" thread and see how it goes? At the very least, you may engender conversations with those that believe as you do, but for different reasons, and give you a better understanding of why you believe as you do.

Like I said before.

Chuck, I already started a thread today: "Is Religion Nonsense?" - Just for atheists like you, and those who want discuss with them. I hope you'll not be offended.

---

Account frozen...

Some Texans don't take kindly to mosque

By Rasha Madkour
ASSOCIATED PRESS

December 8, 2006

KATY, Texas – A plan to build a mosque in this Houston suburb has triggered a neighborhood dispute, with community members warning the place will become a terrorist hotbed and one man threatening to hold pig races on Fridays just to offend the Muslims.

Many neighborhood residents say they have nothing against Muslims and maintain they are more concerned about property values, drainage and traffic.

But one resident has set up an anti-Islamic Web site with an odometer-like counter tracking terrorist attacks since Sept. 11. A committee has formed to buy another property and offer to trade it for the Muslims' land. And next-door neighbor Craig Baker has said he'll race pigs on the edge of the property on the Muslim Sabbath. Muslims consider pigs unclean and do not eat pork.

“The neighbors have created havoc for us and we didn't expect that,” said engineer Kamel Fotouh, president of the 500-member Katy Islamic Association.

Fotouh vowed to press ahead with plans for a mosque on the 11-acre site, as well as a community center that would offer after-school activities, housing for senior citizens, a fitness center and an Islamic school.

“We just bought it,” Fotouh said. “And we are going to use it. We have the right like any one of them.”

Katy, population 13,000, is a mix of middle-class bedroom-community neighborhoods and small farms on Houston's western edge. The hometown of Oscar-winning actress Renee Zellweger, it is 70 percent white and 24 percent Hispanic.

The Houston metropolitan area has about 170,000 Muslims, according to the Islamic Society of Greater Houston. Among their many mosques is one built in Houston by former NBA star Hakeem Olajuwon.

In September, the Islamic association bought the land in Katy, along with a home on the property that is the current site of its community center, for $1.1 million. It said the overall cost of the project has not been determined.

The dispute began when the group asked Baker to remove his cattle from their newly purchased land. Baker agreed, but he mistakenly thought the Muslims also suggested that he relocate. His family has lived in the area for more than 100 years. The rumor spread.

Baker, who makes marble and granite fixtures for kitchens and bathrooms and also owns livestock, said he got so angry he put up a sign announcing the pig races. (Baker's attempt to offend missed its mark, Fotouh said. Muslims do not hate pigs, he noted, they just don't eat them.)

As for the Web site tracking terrorist attacks (nearly identical to that of the Katy Islamic Association (He also noted the group has said it would comply with rules on drainage.

Cynthia Blackman wrote Radack that the center was a security risk. “Would you and your family safely and comfortably live next to this 11-acre Muslim mosque and facilities?”

The reaction has not been all negative. Fotouh said one man came to the mosque on a Friday afternoon and apologized for his neighbors. “He moved me, really,” Fotouh said. “The sense of fairness, the sense of standing by the underdog.”

Though he now concedes the Muslims are probably not after his land, Baker said he was obligated to go through with the pig races, probably within the next few weeks, because “I would be like a total idiot if I didn't.”

---

me@rescam.org

Bill, you're abysmally blind. You try to drag me down to your level of having 'belief'.
I don't believe. I keep telling you that, and you keep on claiming I'm 180 degrees from that - the same thing as you. But you're too myopic and uninformed to understand that.

Go read Sam Harris for starters. Then come back when you have something that is actually informed, to say.




Of course I try to destroy religion. It's a scourge on humanity. Like I have said before, I don't mind if people want to harm themselves with it. The problem is they never ever keep it to themselves. They go out, spreading the message, spreading the word. Just look at Oprah lately. It's all 'god' this, and 'god' that.

Those of you who believe need to see if your religion can stand up when you throw critical thinking at it. Of course it can't. But somehow; science DOES withstand critical questionning. Why? BECAUSE THERE'S NO ELEMENT OF BELIEF TO IT!!!!

---

Never Forget a Friend. Or an Enemy.

Of course I try to destroy religion. It's a scourge on humanity. Like I have said before, I don't mind if people want to harm themselves with it. The problem is they never ever keep it to themselves. They go out, spreading the message, spreading the word. Just look at Oprah lately. It's all 'god' this, and 'god' that.

So what! Then just ignore those people if you feel annoyed by them. Nobody is forced to believe in God, or even to listen to the testimonies of those who decided to follow Christ - or admit every other religion. Hey, Oprah is a show on TV, and where it is broadcasted that's not the only available channel, is it? So just switch to another channel if you don't want to hear that. You know what? I think there is something missing about you. Something important: tolerance. Your postings give me the impression of a hardliner, almost more fanatic than muslimic Imams.

Those of you who believe need to see if your religion can stand up when you throw critical thinking at it. Of course it can't.

As a former atheist, I can only say that religion can stand critical thinking. Especially when you (as I did) not only read the bible and see only one church, but read also critical sources and compare the different beliefs and churches to each other and to your actual conviction. Before I decided which church I joined, I informed myself about all churches available and compared them to my own view. So I know that you can't lump all religions together - not even the Christian churches.

But somehow; science DOES withstand critical questionning. Why? BECAUSE THERE'S NO ELEMENT OF BELIEF TO IT!!!!

Sure there is. Especially when there are new theories, or theories which are explaining things otherwise than the etablished ones. Even for atheist scientists, it's a matter of belief - a matter which theory they believe in, because almost for all matters there are several theories and theses and axioms, and several matters can be proved differently due to the theory you use. (For example the particle/wave - discussion about photons, or Schroedinger's theorem)
Some theories even can't be proven by now and remain a theory but are used like a proven evidence, and entire sub-sciences are built upon them - so where is there no belief in science?

---

Account frozen...

Bill, you're abysmally blind. You try to drag me down to your level of having 'belief'.
I don't believe. I keep telling you that, and you keep on claiming I'm 180 degrees from that - the same thing as you. But you're too myopic and uninformed to understand that.

Go read Sam Harris for starters. Then come back when you have something that is actually informed, to say.

Of course I try to destroy religion. It's a scourge on humanity. Like I have said before, I don't mind if people want to harm themselves with it. The problem is they never ever keep it to themselves. They go out, spreading the message, spreading the word. Just look at Oprah lately. It's all 'god' this, and 'god' that.

Those of you who believe need to see if your religion can stand up when you throw critical thinking at it. Of course it can't. But somehow; science DOES withstand critical questionning. Why? BECAUSE THERE'S NO ELEMENT OF BELIEF TO IT!!!!

Chuck, I would like you to read Eric Hoffer's The True Believer and evaluate your actions (responses to posts on this forum, etc.) in light of what you learn from that book.

Mr. Hoffer was also extremely critical of religion, but his insights cover the entire spectrum of human belief systems.

Chuck, I would like you to read Eric Hoffer's The True Believer and evaluate your actions (responses to posts on this forum, etc.) in light of what you learn from that book.

Mr. Hoffer was also extremely critical of religion, but his insights cover the entire spectrum of human belief systems.

Bill, this is probably your best post. Wish I had time right now to read this or some of the books Chuck suggests that I have not read yet (or, in the case of Cosmos, re-reading it).

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Unearthed coffin may hold St. Paul, but first things first

By Daniela Petroff
ASSOCIATED PRESS

December 12, 2006

VATICAN CITY – A white marble sarcophagus believed to be the final resting place of St. Paul has been unearthed from beneath the altar of Rome's second-largest basilica after centuries hidden from view, but those curious about its contents will have to wait still longer.

Vatican experts, announcing yesterday that the coffin had been unearthed, said they hoped to be able to examine it more closely and maybe even look inside.

Giorgio Filippi, a Vatican archaeologist, said researchers' first concern was to free the coffin from centuries of plaster and debris in the hope of finding other clues on the sarcophagus itself.

“Right now we can treat it as a symbol, regardless of its contents,” Filippi said.

St. Paul, also known as the apostle of the Gentiles, was beheaded in Rome in the first century during the persecution of early Christians by Roman emperors, according to tradition. Popular belief holds that bone fragments from his head are in another Rome basilica, St. John Lateran, with his other remains inside the sarcophagus.

The 8-foot-long coffin, which dates from at least A.D. 390 and was buried under the main altar of St. Paul's Outside the Walls Basilica, has been the subject of an extended excavation that began in 2002 and ended last month.

“These excavations give us the full certainty and knowledge that the sarcophagus is St. Paul's tomb, whether it contains his remains or not,” said Cardinal Andrea Cordero Lanza di Montezemolo, head of the basilica.

The cardinal said X-rays were unlikely to penetrate the thick marble, making it necessary to open the tomb to find out what is inside.

“It has never been opened or explored,” di Montezemolo said.

Filippi said the decision to unearth the sarcophagus was made after pilgrims who came to Rome during the Roman Catholic Church's 2000 Jubilee year expressed disappointment at finding that the saint's tomb – buried under layers of plaster and further hidden by an iron grate – could not be visited or touched.

The top of the coffin has small openings – subsequently covered with mortar – because in ancient times Christians would insert offerings or try to touch the remains.

Work in the small area under the altar, to clear the debris and insert a transparent glass floor for better viewing, unearthed new evidence of the authenticity of the sarcophagus, said Filippi, who led the project.

The basilica stands at the site of two fourth-century churches – including one destroyed by a fire in 1823 that had left the tomb visible, first above ground and later in a crypt. After the fire, the crypt was filled with earth and covered by a new altar. A slab of cracked marble with the words “Paul apostle martyr” in Latin was also found embedded in the floor above the tomb.

Paul, along with Peter, are the two main figures known for spreading the Christian faith after the death of Jesus Christ.

---

me@rescam.org

Bill, you're abysmally blind. You try to drag me down to your level of having 'belief'.
I don't believe. I keep telling you that, and you keep on claiming I'm 180 degrees from that - the same thing as you. But you're too myopic and uninformed to understand that.

Go read Sam Harris for starters. Then come back when you have something that is actually informed, to say.




Of course I try to destroy religion. It's a scourge on humanity. Like I have said before, I don't mind if people want to harm themselves with it. The problem is they never ever keep it to themselves. They go out, spreading the message, spreading the word. Just look at Oprah lately. It's all 'god' this, and 'god' that.

Those of you who believe need to see if your religion can stand up when you throw critical thinking at it. Of course it can't. But somehow; science DOES withstand critical questionning. Why? BECAUSE THERE'S NO ELEMENT OF BELIEF TO IT!!!!

Oh Chuck, you evil thing you. Gods people work so hard and recieve so little. To prove my point, my neighbors are Jan and Paul Crouch of Trinity broadcasting. To view their home (1 of 2), go google earth 1Ridgeline dr, Newport Beach Ca 92660. God DO love his people !

---

Bill, you're abysmally blind. You try to drag me down to your level of having 'belief'.
I don't believe. I keep telling you that, and you keep on claiming I'm 180 degrees from that - the same thing as you. But you're too myopic and uninformed to understand that.

Go read Sam Harris for starters. Then come back when you have something that is actually informed, to say.




Of course I try to destroy religion. It's a scourge on humanity. Like I have said before, I don't mind if people want to harm themselves with it. The problem is they never ever keep it to themselves. They go out, spreading the message, spreading the word. Just look at Oprah lately. It's all 'god' this, and 'god' that.

Those of you who believe need to see if your religion can stand up when you throw critical thinking at it. Of course it can't. But somehow; science DOES withstand critical questionning. Why? BECAUSE THERE'S NO ELEMENT OF BELIEF TO IT!!!!

Oh Chuck, you evil thing you. Gods people work so hard and recieve so little. To prove my point, my neighbors are Jan and Paul Crouch of Trinity broadcasting. To view their home (1 of 2), go google earth 1Ridgeline dr, Newport Beach Ca 92660. God DO love his people !

Google "Jan and Paul Crouch"

---