"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

KMAN wrote:
"BCITORGB" wrote in message
ps.com...
TnT asks:
============
Frtwz and KMAN, can I assume that you are both comfortable with
this
definition, and willing to identify yourself as a Secular Humanist,
atheist with no need for the imaginary mystical creation of men's
mind
called God? TnT
===================

I can't speak for KMAN, but that works for me.

frtzw906

I'm good for the "no need for the imaginary mystical creation of
men's mind
called god" part and I congratulate Tinkerntom for that particular
turn of
phrase, which would make for an interesting albeit very long bumper
sticker.

I will plan on getting some royalty checks from your sale of bumper
stickers.

I am in total agreement with this particular statement, and would have
no trouble selling a few myself as well, so would you send me a couple
boxes? I'll assume I can order more as needed.

For you see, I have no need for the imaginare mystical creation of
men's mind called god either! TnT

New bumper sticker:

"no need for the imaginary mystical creation of Tinkerntom's mind called
god"

Scott:
==============
Nuclear weapons have no mind and no conscience, can be controlled by
one
person, and once released, can kill millions in an instant.

An armed citizenry has millions of independent minds, both an
individual and
a group conscience, are under individual control and one bullet can
only
kill one person.

Your analogy fails.
================

You think so?

frtzw906

Scott protests:
=============
Because that would be letting him off the hook, which I don't intend to
do
until he admits that he was wrong. All he has to do is admit that
buying an
"assault weapon" in the US is not as easily accomplished as buying a
pack of
gum.
=============

OK, let's rephrase that. "For all intents, buying an "assault weapon"
in the US is not as easily accomplished as buying a pack of gum."

I think we all get the point: it is easy. 'Nuff said. Move on! Next
point?

frtzw906

Weiser nit-picks:
===================
The hilarious thing is we ARE safer from guns.

"Safer" /= "safe."
=============

NOBODY is absolutely SAFE. Safer trumps less safe. Particularly when we
look at relative magnitudes. Canadians are MUCH safer from guns than
Americans.

frtzw906

Scott Weiser:
================
The SCOTUS is now considering the Ten Commandments plaque issue. I
believe
they will come down with a ruling that says that while a religious
symbol
may be placed on public property, generally, whether it is allowed
depends
on the nature of the property involved. Thus, where a Ten Commandments
plaque might be allowable as a part of a public display of historical
documents in the context of a neutral public forum like a park or
museum,
such a display in a courthouse or government office would be disallowed
because of the potential for harm to the civil rights of non-believers
engaged in conducting public business.
================

And a very wise decision that would be. Such symbols, in a park, would
be appropriate if they served the same function as these same symbols
in a museum.

frtzw906

Tink says:
==============
Religion by its nature, tends to find alot of comfort in the
Status Quo, and the political right, has said that it to is interested
in the same.
=============

Hmmmm... are you sure that's correct? JC was hardly an advocate for the
status quo (and what about those Latin American Catholic priests who
bucked the pope and the entire Catholic bureaucracy?).

But, OK, for the sake of this discussion, we'll go with your premise.

Tink says:
============
Jimmy Carter. He was held up as
the next best thing to the Messiah, he was "born-again." Well he left
office in disgrace, and was a terrible embarassment to the religious,
for political reasons.
===============

How was he an embarassment. I would think that his current charitable
work would be a credit to any regigious group.

Tink says:
==============
Then came Reagan, who again, was born-again, and the friend of the
religious right.
==================

Do you believe that about Reagan? About being born-again, I mean. I
suspect he was more of a political opportunist who used religion to
befriend the religious right.


Tink:
=============
But now Bill was a "born again christian", and we all
remember where that got us, basically today.
=================

Do you believe that about Clinton? About being born-again, I mean. I
suspect he was more of a political opportunist who used religion to get
votes in the South

Tink says:
=================
The fact that certain apparently rabid Christians are on board the
Lollypop, means absolutely nothing about what you can assume about
their faith, and that they even believe the part about "God Loves you."
Usually that is just some cosmetic they put on just before they run
over you, run off with your wife, run off with your money, and likely
all three! And certainly do not expect them to correlate any further
what else they say they believe religiously and what they say they
believe politically. Don't be so naiive to think logic has anything to
do with it, or that being a true Christian has anything to do with it
either.
================

Tink, I think you've made a very cogent argument. Perhaps you're right.

I'll stew on that for a bit.

Cheers,
frtzw906

Tink thinks:
=============
I was also thinking that it is a symbiotic relationship. They both get
something out of it. The politicians obviously get the votes they want;
the religious, get to feel like they are on the winning side. And
everyone know that if your god is worth a hoot, he should be able to
pick the winning side.
=============

Again, I think you've made some cogent points. What it points to, if
you're correct, is some fairly shallow commitments to Christianity on
the parts of many fundamentalist, born-agains. Upon reflection, I ought
not to be surpised because, as you point out, many of these people do
follow like so many sheep.

Sadly, this does not reflect positively on the Republicans, nor the
religious right.

Tink asks:
=================
I was curious though, would you feel better if the religious were on
your side?
===================

I want critical thinkers on my side, but I'll reveal my prejudice.
Overt expressions of religiousity -- whether from a right or left-wing
politician -- will generally ensure my vote going to another candidate.


Fortunately, in Canada, politicians do not feel the need to add a
gratuitous "God bless Canada." to the end of every speech or to attand
church on Sunday. In fact, overt expressions of religiousity are, I
think, a political liability in Canada.

frtzw906

Tink, in reference to humanism:
================
You talk about blind faith, this is dumb blind faith!
=====================

And how is this different from the dumb blind faith of a religious
person?

Tink:
==============
This is like the old metaphysicist trying to conjure gold out of clay,
or lead, or crap. Still does not work!
=======================

Sorry, lead -- gold has been achieved many times. Here in Vancouver,
for example, at TRIUMF - Tri University Meson Facility.

Tink:
===============
A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful
through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our
intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who
differ from us.

More hogwash! If this life is an end in itself, all the history and
artistic achievments will be trash on the next generations dung heap!
Ask HST!
===================

What ARE you talking about. Secular humanists create (art, music,
teach, coach, etc) so as to leave a lasting impression. For us, it's
the only chance we've got.

We're not like crazed religious nuts who would fly planes into
buildings because there is some damned after-life.

There is NO after-life. That's why humanists do the best they can while
they're here. They're the pacifists. The teachers. The artists. The
scientists. They're the ones who give a damn about making THIS life
better!

And your logic about their art being trash on a dung-heap escapes me.

My after-life, insofar as there'll be one, exists in the impression I
leave behind. My after life rests entirely - solely - on my
achievements.

On this point, Tink, you haven't a clue!

frtzw906

KMAN wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
ups.com...

KMAN wrote:
...snip...

So, would you describe yourself as an atheist, agnostic,
humanist?
Tnt

Just sane.

Please define sane, and do you have any evidence to back up your
statement that you qualify? big Grin TnT

No evidence that I qualify. I am not disqualified through belief in
an
invisible man.

As to any evidence whether any of us qualify or not is probably
fleeting at best, so I will not hold your feet to the fire on this one!

As to this invisible man that you keep talking about, that is mean,
short tempered, and judgemental; sounds to me like you have a pretty
clear vision of who he is, and of whom they are speaking! You are found
out in the retoric of your denial. The more you deny, the increased
basis of denial you must depend on that you don't believe. The more
noise of denial you make, indicates that you actually have something
that you believe you are wrestling with that must be denied.

If in fact you did not believe, you would not be threatened by this
non-existant invisible being, and would have nothing to deny. You could
actually go through life quite quietly, with nothing to prove to any
one about this invisible man that does not exist. But if you go through
life yelling at/or about this invisible man that does not exist, some
may doubt your sanity.

I sure hear a lot of noise, coming from your direction. :) TnT

KMAN wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

KMAN wrote:
"BCITORGB" wrote in message
ps.com...
TnT asks:
============
Frtwz and KMAN, can I assume that you are both comfortable with
this
definition, and willing to identify yourself as a Secular
Humanist,
atheist with no need for the imaginary mystical creation of
men's
mind
called God? TnT
===================

I can't speak for KMAN, but that works for me.

frtzw906

I'm good for the "no need for the imaginary mystical creation of
men's mind
called god" part and I congratulate Tinkerntom for that particular
turn of
phrase, which would make for an interesting albeit very long
bumper
sticker.

I will plan on getting some royalty checks from your sale of bumper
stickers.

I am in total agreement with this particular statement, and would
have
no trouble selling a few myself as well, so would you send me a
couple
boxes? I'll assume I can order more as needed.

For you see, I have no need for the imaginare mystical creation of
men's mind called god either! TnT

New bumper sticker:

"no need for the imaginary mystical creation of Tinkerntom's mind
called
god"

You might have trouble selling that one, very few know who TnT is, and
you would spend all your time explaining it. Then having expained it,
like a joke you have to explain, most will pass on purchasing the item
for sale, or laughing at the joke. TnT