Atheism

GratefulFan wrote:

Hey speaking of the 6th grade, did your "M.A." supervisor regularly wear a red nose and big floppy shoes?

6th grade level indeed. Not that it's any of your business, but my thesis supervisor was prof. dr. Adam Fairclough, the leading historian of the Civil Right Movement and a renowned expert on the history of American Reconstruction (1865-1877).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Fairclough

None of that precludes the possibility of him wearing a big red nose or floppy shoes.

Fuck, if I were a professor, that'd be my first instinct.

Zebonka12 wrote:

None of that precludes the possibility of him wearing a big red nose or floppy shoes.

Fuck, if I were a professor, that'd be my first instinct.

True. In fact, I had a couple of professors who might do something like that.. Not quite professor Fairclough's style, though.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

GratefulFan wrote:

Hey speaking of the 6th grade, did your "M.A." supervisor regularly wear a red nose and big floppy shoes?

6th grade level indeed. Not that it's any of your business, but my thesis supervisor was prof. dr. Adam Fairclough, the leading historian of the Civil Right Movement and a renowned expert on the history of American Reconstruction (1865-1877).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Fairclough

Come on GF, don't keep us in suspense...

Having an MA doesn't make you wise, tolerant, caring, empathetic or even civilised. That I even have to explain that shows how ignorant some of you are.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

GratefulFan wrote:

Hey speaking of the 6th grade, did your "M.A." supervisor regularly wear a red nose and big floppy shoes?

6th grade level indeed. Not that it's any of your business, but my thesis supervisor was prof. dr. Adam Fairclough, the leading historian of the Civil Right Movement and a renowned expert on the history of American Reconstruction (1865-1877).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Fairclough

Ha ha. You're amusingly predictable.

What do you think Dr. Fairclough would think of you on this thread Thomas? Not once, not twice but three times completely arbitrarily maligning the qualifications and contributions of historian Philip Jenkins, one of his contemporaries in the study of American history? What would he think of you bipping about rankings in respect to this Cambridge PhD (I'd suspect Penn State outranks Leiden in any case, where Jenkins is a Professor Emeritus and where he held his post when the book was written) and slandering him for absolutely nothing more than prolific contributions in his field? Would he conclude he'd turned out a good and fair thinker when you level a charge of Christian bias against an academic whose many books include the titles "Laying Down the Sword: Why We Can't Ignore the Bible's Violent Verses" (he's argued that the Bible is more violent than the Koran) and "Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, And Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe For The Next 1,500 Years" and "Dream Catchers: How Mainstream America Discovered Native Spirituality"? Would he think your M.A. had bred a respect and appreciation for the vastness of the field and for academic pursuit in general, or would he think you're a bit of an ass who had missed some of the point? The kind of graduate who eschews the expansive thought and intellectual curiosity and intellectual honesty your credentials should have provided you and replaces that with arrogance, sloppiness, ad hominem and talking about your credentials? They're just a couple of useless letters after your name Thomas if you don't actually use them to think.

History needs a thinker like you like Bob needs a little more self esteem.

Panchgani wrote:

Trivia Time:

Which QZ'er stated the following on page 3 of this thread?

"I consider 'god' an imaginary being who humans lazily thank or curse, depending on circumstance, because they'd rather give control and responsibility to this magical being than accept it for themselves."

"There are many like myself who see religion as a crutch."

How can you describe these kinds of rigid, sweeping beliefs in terms of anything other than head shaking self-absorption? And there is so,so much of it on this thread. Atheism and irreligiousness just does not deserve to be represented in this way. If you'd be interested in sharing, how did your choice of atheism evolve, and to what do your credit your more curious and empathetic views towards religion and the religious?

Oh please. I do more thinking that you'll ever do in your whole life. You might not have noticed, possibly due to your complete lack of realism, but a discussion on an internet forum is not the same as a thesis, a book or an article. This is quite fortunate for you, as those sources you so fundamentalistically stand by are far from neutral. Also, if you had even a tiny bit of insight into sensible academic research, you'd realize that trying to establish the value of an argument by hammering on the reputation of the person who made the argument is about the biggest fallacy there is.

On the side, just because someone with as big a mouth on accuracy, yet so little of it, deserves to be shown wrong whenever possible: http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2012

Leiden: 95
Penn State: 101

Of course, you could probably find a ranking where Leiden is below Penn State, as there are literally hundreds of rankings around, but then, you'd be guilty of selective shopping, and of course, you never do that [/sarcasm]

Care to name a "neutral" source on anything that's in the realm of human interpretation? I've got news for you Thomas, the "thesis, book or article" you set such store by are all written by human beings, and humans are not neutral commentators.

"Oh please. I do more thinking that you'll ever do in your whole life." -- There's not much evidence of that here. In fact, your boorish ignorance I've observed over the course of a number of years on Queenzone suggests exactly the opposite -- you're a very close-minded and arrogant individual whose first line of defence when someone disagrees with you is to insult them. So your blathering to GF rings hollow (at least, to anyone who doesn't have a dog in the fight: I'm sure you can rely on Bob for some fan worship -- it's easy to see wisdom in the words of someone you agree with). Word of advice Thomas: try to be a bit more humble, because you've got a lot to be humble about.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

Oh please. I do more thinking that you'll ever do in your whole life. You might not have noticed, possibly due to your complete lack of realism, but a discussion on an internet forum is not the same as a thesis, a book or an article. This is quite fortunate for you, as those sources you so fundamentalistically stand by are far from neutral. Also, if you had even a tiny bit of insight into sensible academic research, you'd realize that trying to establish the value of an argument by hammering on the reputation of the person who made the argument is about the biggest fallacy there is.

On the side, just because someone with as big a mouth on accuracy, yet so little of it, deserves to be shown wrong whenever possible: http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2012

Leiden: 95
Penn State: 101

Of course, you could probably find a ranking where Leiden is below Penn State, as there are literally hundreds of rankings around, but then, you'd be guilty of selective shopping, and of course, you never do that [/sarcasm]

1) Is fundamentalistically even a word?

2) Your shift from the concept of bias to the concept of neutrality makes you either dishonest or dim. You can pick. For example, the fact that I am not neutral on the concept of you as a shit thinker says nothing about bias. It's an observation based conclusion I've had for years, and expressed many times.

3) I agree that internet discussion is not the same. There is no M.A. supervisor, no particular format, no particular rules. It's just you interacting with the ideas around you, deciding what's germane, perceiving a theme, absorbing what's been said. In real time. And you suck at it.

4) "you'd realize that trying to establish the value of an argument by hammering on the reputation of the person who made the argument is about the biggest fallacy there is." Okay Mr. Ad Hominem. Wasn't it me that told you to actually read the book? Isn't it you that met Jenkins' arguments with a bizarre attack on his output? This is why discussion with you is like caring for a toddler. You either don't remotely care about coherence, or you're incapable of it.

5) Thomas logic: I'm going to prove you definitively *wrong* with my university ranking link. Any evidence you have to the contrary is evidence that you are selective. LOL

Coming from a field that is constantly ranking data all the time and in just about every way possible, it's my opinion that there is good but limited and sometimes misleading information in these kinds of services. That said, a bit of googling indicated your link was from one of the three top ranking services for world universities. The other two had Penn State ahead 61 vs. 64 and 49 vs. 73. But I suspect you already knew that. ;)

University of Illinois, Urbana / Champaign: 56

Looks like my alma mater puts Leiden to shame ...

GratefulFan wrote:

Panchgani wrote:

Trivia Time:

Which QZ'er stated the following on page 3 of this thread?

"I consider 'god' an imaginary being who humans lazily thank or curse, depending on circumstance, because they'd rather give control and responsibility to this magical being than accept it for themselves."

"There are many like myself who see religion as a crutch."

How can you describe these kinds of rigid, sweeping beliefs in terms of anything other than head shaking self-absorption? And there is so,so much of it on this thread. Atheism and irreligiousness just does not deserve to be represented in this way. If you'd be interested in sharing, how did your choice of atheism evolve, and to what do your credit your more curious and empathetic views towards religion and the religious?

I am somewhere between being an agnostic and atheist.

I was a practicing Catholic through my first year of graduate school. I went to public elementary schooI, but was an alter boy. In my first year of graduate school I was in the Catholic guitar choir and also went on a religious retreat, and for a while read the bible every day ... but I always had doubts about religion ...

My new British roommate at college (after I started my 2nd year of graduate school was atheist and had a lot questions that helped sow doubt in my religion. Ironically, he met my family (particularly my mother) and eventually (after graduating) became Catholic when he returned to England years later.

I never felt worthy of heaven, but I knew I was not deserving of hell, and I certainly resented being threatened to believe in god ... or else. I know I am a good and moral person, and I know I do not need what I perceive as coercive a god, if he exists.

My folks still love me even though I quit being a practicing Catholic and never tried to force me back into religion. They've always accepted me for who I am.

I have seen many "commoner" religious folk "walk the walk" rather than just "talk the talk" who are very good people. When my son was in Boy Scouts it was part of a Mormon boy scout troop. I was impressed with their work ethic, charity work, humbleness, sense of community, and acceptance of non-Mormons. I always showed respect toward their religion and they always treated me with respect.

I know I am not arrogant enough to believe I have all the answers, and I am certainly not arrogant enough to believe that the religious are mentally inferior sheep.

However, I know I am superior to TQ because I attended and graduated from a better college ... LOL

Panchgani wrote:

I am somewhere between being an agnostic and atheist.

I was a practicing Catholic through my first year of graduate school. I went to public elementary schooI, but was an alter boy. In my first year of graduate school I was in the Catholic guitar choir and also went on a religious retreat, and for a while read the bible every day ... but I always had doubts about religion ...

My new British roommate at college (after I started my 2nd year of graduate school was atheist and had a lot questions that helped sow doubt in my religion. Ironically, he met my family (particularly my mother) and eventually (after graduating) became Catholic when he returned to England years later.

I never felt worthy of heaven, but I knew I was not deserving of hell, and I certainly resented being threatened to believe in god ... or else. I know I am a good and moral person, and I know I do not need what I perceive as coercive a god, if he exists.

My folks still love me even though I quit being a practicing Catholic and never tried to force me back into religion. They've always accepted me for who I am.

I have seen many "commoner" religious folk "walk the walk" rather than just "talk the talk" who are very good people. When my son was in Boy Scouts it was part of a Mormon boy scout troop. I was impressed with their work ethic, charity work, humbleness, sense of community, and acceptance of non-Mormons. I always showed respect toward their religion and they always treated me with respect.

I know I am not arrogant enough to believe I have all the answers, and I am certainly not arrogant enough to believe that the religious are mentally inferior sheep.

However, I know I am superior to TQ because I attended and graduated from a better college ... LOL

Thanks for this Panchgani. I appreciate it. :)

My moral systems have always felt internal too. Somehow though I never registered a sense of coercion though there is certainly plenty in religion that directly supports that exact expression of the concepts. Even the ideas of heaven and hell which would seem to be central to the entire operation haven't occupied any real place in my imagination outside the symbolic. I think the thing I absorbed early and often from Catholicism was the sacramental view of the world which touches everyone and everything with a kind of grace that has coloured my experiences with religion as positive and hopeful and joyful. We bring a lot of ourselves to any idea and I've always been a bit of mix of pragmatism and romanticism. One of my earliest memories relating to religion is being skipped to grade 3 from grade 1 but having to go back to the grade 2 classroom for periods of First Communion preparation. Even at seven I remember making the walk down the hall between the classrooms and perceiving a kind of a dreamy poetic loneliness. At my confirmation in grade 8 I sat in the pews at church watching my peers and being overwhelmed with emotion and tears because we'd all become so 'grown up'. LOL. I was 12! So I have always been well primed from a personality standpoint to hook into the ideas of a kind of mysterious and exultant grace and wonder in religion rather than coercion and punishment and all those other things that are certainly there.

Anyway, I'm glad you've found a nice balance in your life. Thanks again for offering your experiences. :)

Maybe some of you have seen this before, but it’s new to me. It’s slightly off topic but still fascinating, IMO. The magic/illusion of ancient religions (History Channel Documentary from 2007) - "To maintain the sense of bewilderment and wonder in the mind of their pious observers, duplicity was vitally important.”

Huh. Religious leaders imparting life and power to machines to further their interests and the interests of religion. Meanwhile in 2013 the militant atheist sector and its evangelists slickly strip human beings of their experience, reason, intelligence and autonomy to impart on them the mindless function of machines slaved to their programming. Ironic.