Fudge_Brownie

I'm not sure what I tried to dodge. I did say earlier I could see the term movement used. And if advocating a lifestyle with societal impacts, then whoever champions the Atkins diet on a 3am infomercial is running a carb-free religion. I think we may have reached an agree to disagree point.

To be fair, I think the only reason the topic came back up was my failed attempt at preventing it from being revisited. And several of you keep saying it's a religion and you're wrong Someone can be religious in a descriptive way, but does not mean they are a member of any religion. Olsteen and Harris are the same in their professional roles. But one is working on behalf of a religion, while the other is working to defend the absence of. Olsteen operates in the name of god, Harris operates in the name of the individual.

Incorrect. Some atheists enjoy being vocal yes. But not all. You're taking an extreme group and trying to apply it broadly, and deciding that it has become a religion because certain people who share the view have goals. Movement probably makes sense. Though to assume anyone who claims to be atheist is part of any movement is a mistake. If you claim atheism is a religion, I don't see how you can say agnosticism isn't. There may be an effort to remove god from public conversation, and those people obviously are atheist, but that does not mean all atheists are involved in it. All atheism does is describe someone's views. By your logic, we all belong to the church of volvo because we all share an interest and congregate to talk about it. By choosing not to believe in a higher power, a god, etc, you have NO religion. You have lost or left religion. You may have shunned religion. You did not join or become a part of another one. If atheism is a religion, how do I describe that I have no religion?

There is a lack of evidence of his existence, and it is an unlikely hypothesis to explain what we don't understand. But to be a reasonable person, I'm open to reconsidering my views based on new information. Since there's no new info, then there's no reason to believe there is a god. I determine this view for myself, based on what I've heard from people on different sides. I did not come to believe this because I bought in to someone's ideas. "There is evidence for God's existence, you just choose to ignore it because you choose to have faith in someone else's word over God's." I don't ignore it, I just don't consider it good evidence. And I don't ignore it on anyone's recommendation. The second half your quote implies that I (or Erik who you were responding to) is a follower of someone's idea structure. I don't think that's right. We might not be on the same page. You received confirmation that someone (say, a bishop) was speaking on behalf of conversations between them and god. But I'm asking if you could do that without hearing the person speak. Two study groups, half speak to god that day successfully, half do not. You don't get to interview any of them, or even see them. But you ask god to tell you how you can identify those people he spoke with. Write it all down, then a researcher confirms with the group. E.g. "Middle age man spoke to god about difficulties in knowing which bathroom to use". My point of the experiment is to prove god spoke to someone without relying on their honesty.

Just because there are extremists who share the view does not make it a religion. I'm not a fan of this attempt to incorrectly redefine the label, especially considering how central it is to the topic. And I also didn't want that to interfere with my point. I'm not sure I understand how it's shirking god because of sin. What makes it different? I'm not seeing any personal accusations. Maybe I'm reading things differently? I understand that I over-simplified my example. But I'm not sure how that changes my point. Are you saying that a person who has practiced religion well could learn not only to speak to god, but to confirm what was done with other people? Because that might lend as stronger evidence. But the idea that all conversations are private sounds a lot more like the imaginary friend. So... study: one group talks to god, the other doesn't. Could a strongly religious person confirm with god which of the participants he spoke to, and maybe the subject matter? If your answer is no, then that's what my original point was- can't call him up to confirm.

It would probably be easier for me to believe in a god, to believe in a religion. Why would I (or Erik) choose not to? I doubt he or I are the type who've shirked god to live a sinful lifestyle. Your phrasing still points to this 'us verse them' that implies atheism is a following, with believers. It's not that I chose to believe someoneelse's word. I just don't believe in the concept of god right now. I have not heard any good proposals to explain our existence beyond big bang. I don't know what is above/behind/around that starting point. But to assume that god is the likely answer seems so implausible that it is likely wrong. I've included that last sentence specifically to avoid any claim that I just defined agnosticism.

Assuming that's the case, I don't think that counts as evidence from a scientific method perspective. It seems akin to proving that the wind blows when I think hard about it by going outside, thinking hard, and the wind blows. Then someone else tries to reproduce it and you tell them they didn't do it right.

They have faith someone proved the existence of wind, but if they wanted, they could reproduce whatever experiments were performed. Is the same be true about evidence supporting the existence of a god? A lot of the evidence seems to be moments when god told someone something. I can't call him up and say "Hey, did you talk to Bob yesterday and give him clarification on verse 3:16?".

Worst case scenario, drive your fanless car around until you can get to the junkyard. If you get stuck in traffic, get out.

And what do they exist in?

I think the problem is clinging to science the way he is doesn't acknowledge that we still don't know a lot. You can break down particles to the lowest level, but those things are just floating around in space as the result of the big bang? And that explosion started in the middle no where? He says science explains what we formerly explained as god's power, but that's not really accurate. If you put aside skepticism involved with biblical stories, and discrepancies that evolved from scientific understanding, what do you believe exists beyond space?

I think you're outlining why people are trying to apply binary computing to the brain. For anyone interested, I believe Damascus steel and Roman concrete are examples of forgotten technology. I think the stonehenge and pyraminds are lesser examples with a bunch of theories but no solid answer. When I was younger, I disregarded history's value. I was annoyed at how much time was spent teaching it. A mix of my own arrogance and the subject matter. They dwelled on sequences of events, instead of the overarching lessons. Lately, I've been much more interested in how events shape the general public's mind. How events before my time shaped the politics that affect me today. And unfortunately, that extends to religion

Relative to 200 or 600 years ago, I think we've come a long way. Definitely smarter. But are we smart? Have we reached more than 50%? Doubt it. I dunno if it was one of you here who was telling me this, or from somewhere else but I remember hearing about a professor who asked his medical students how well understood the brain was. Was like 75% well understood? Zero? They thought very high. The professor believed it to be like 3%, and was dismayed at how overconfident the students were.

I'm well aware of the connection, the references to religion, the use of the word god, etc. And it's founder's views. I was when I said what I said. It doesn't change my point. It provides a moral structure without dependence on religion, and could be done entirely without it. I used it as an example because I figured we were both familiar with it, but I'm not sure you're really rebutting my point. Instead, you're trying to show it has the religious connection I acknowledged from the beginning. On a metaphor level, I've always thought of the brain as RAM. It's a computer memory which only lasts for as long as it has power, and disappears the moment the power is gone. That's how you lose your unsaved word document. A computer has persistent memory (hard drive) but I've always assumed we didn't have anything like that. Just a second layer of RAM for older memories less accessed. I'm kind of surprised that this article doesn't differentiate that a computer has two types of memory. If his description is accurate, I'm also surprised that anyone noteworthy is trying to apply the way computers work to the brain so literally - to the point of bit processing. I can see why that's worth considering, but to consider it probable? Wouldn't that have to assume we operate in binary and have some binary processor? Which I think is his point. Intel is not inside. I think it's fair to say we don't understand how the brain works. But the explanation is that it must be magic? I'm not trying to be derogatory by using that word, but I don't want to use the word soul.

I know that. Well, not that it was 50% but I knew it substantial. I also know they have a long history of involvement, and are very active today. Churches are also common meeting spots. It's a major reason I said there's a link between them. But I'm arguing that you don't need it for it to serve as moral direction. Scouts aren't taught that the almighty is always watching, and their teachings don't depend on it. Granted, that might be painted slightly differently in a Utah troop. Atheism is not a religion. I don't see how that's debatable. And you're mistaken when you say atheists have to believe in a higher power. Maybe for them to believe that is illogical, but it doesn't mean they don't believe it. You're essentailly debating symantics at this point. You need to realize that just like there are those who operate in the name of god incorrectly, there are those who operate under the title of atheism incorrectly. But that doesn't change that you're still wrong about what an atheist is Certainly aren't in control of your own destiny though? That's obviously what you believe but I think you'll find many atheists and agnostics disagree. I don't believe some magical power controls my destiny. Fate's an excuse to explain complex scenarios and serendipity/phenomenon/coincidence.

The BoyScout/Girl Scouts offer similar moral structuring without dependence on god. Granted, there is some link between the BSA and organized religion, but it's fairly easy to ignore and operate without it. I guess my point is that religion provides a purpose, a reason, and a a road map but it's like saying you're going from NYC to LA, use this map, and to do it you have to believe you're guided by god instead of just believing you're on a road trip. AA walks that line too. I've heard it depends on god, others say a purpose is all you need. E.g. your life goal is to be a good friend/family member or good citizen. "a person who (..) lacks belief in the existence" === "absence of belief". Agnosticism might as well be called 'undecided'. Being atheist does not mean you are a member of any group, following, or movement. But some atheists might form a group and become active in trying to lobby some idea. That does not mean other atheists are a member of that movement, nor are they followers of ideology. What you're trying to say is akin to saying gearheads are a part of a following because some of them form groups.

Atheism is the absence of belief, without a structure, membership base, etc. The commonality they share is the lack of religion. That does not make it a following. But I can see how you get confused when there are groups of more extreme or vocal atheists who form groups under that label. I don't think we have a word for that and probably should. Atheist activists? They're more of an anti-religion group than a group of people who lack belief.

Is teaching them physics indoctrination? No, because they're usually taught the scientific method and how those principles were derived. They also explain the concept of theories, and why they aren't considered indisputable. I'm not aware of any well recognized alternative system of belief. And a good teacher will cover why they should consider the alternative. Rules of the road? In some ways it can be, yes. I have a real big problem with people who teach and expect blind obedience without question. For example, just because the law says you have the right of way does not mean you should exercise it. As for consequences, I'm not sure there's an alternative. Teach them that actions don't have consequences and raise a sociopath? Religion used 'correctly' isn't the worst way to raise a moral child. A lot of what was linked earlier models basic parenting direction, minus all the god stuff. We just disagree on whether you need to answer to god, or feel part of some greater good to live life. The French father seems to have failed at parenting, so that is surely not the outcome he wanted. My issue is that religion wasn't the only other way. It's an option. And if presenting children with religion, I think it's unfair not to present that there are many religions, and people who live without it, and work hard not to bias it. I think we're on the same page that religious text is abused and misused to steer people in the wrong direction. But that's one of my core problems with how abuse-prone it is. Especially on weak minded people. RE: Kim Davis, I'm fine with striking the word marriage from any state law. I won't be surprised when she refuses to sign licenses for civil unions as well.

I think there's a difference between discussing/debating it and attacking. Also, I have a really strong issue with the idea that people should mind their own business, when someone like Kim Davis is refusing to mind her own, and you don't hear much from the rest of her crowd telling her to shut up or get out of the way. The real game changer isn't social media, it's that more people are losing their religion. And maybe social media plays a role in exposing the indoctrinated to a different way of life. Discovering that not having god doesn't mean you end up in the gutter. For the record, my development pre-dates social media. And I always had these discussions. I don't find it unreasonable for someone to question my own belief, though I do find it unreasonable for someone to attack it.

I did not read it fully, but took a quick look. Any thing I should pay close attention to? Because this looks like indoctrination to me. Even if we overlook the controversy in teaching children this young about religion without examining other ones (or none at all), it teaches the kid to listen to god. "To strengthen each child’s desire to obey Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and to obey his or her parents. (..) Politely ask the children to do several actions, such as stand up, turn around, reach up high, touch their toes, and sit down. Thank them for doing as you asked. Explain that they were being obedient. They obeyed your instructions. (..) Explain that our parents love us and want us to do things that will keep us safe and happy. (..) Explain that when we obey our parents, we can feel happy. Our parents are also happy when we obey. (..) Explain that one of Heavenly Father’s commandments is that we pray only to him. We do not pray to other people or to images, which are like statues. Explain that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego knew Heavenly Father’s commandments and wanted to obey them. Heavenly Father protected these men from the fire because they obeyed him. The fire did not burn them. " This entire thing is centered around teaching children to obey religion, and I'm not seeing anything that even acknowledges the possibility of any other way. It links this concept to the family structure and implies that it is what holds the family together, and makes everyone happy. In other words, the child is a bad person for not participating in this. I realize LDS is not the only one who does this, but this is indoctrination.

Maybe a late 2000's hardtail and put 50-50 tires or slicks on it? Try to find a fork that has a lock-out though if you'll be doing a lot of paved sections. The hybrid bike seems like the type a lot of people buy with grand plans and it collects dust in the basement, so you might just be able to find a barely used FX.

Her name is BMW, and he sells her any chance he gets. Hussein blew up his car, parted it.

He didn't say it wasn't...

You might like this: http://archive.trekbikes.com/ie/en/ It'll show you all the factory spec for your bike so you don't have to keep checking. I don't have strong opinions on tires. General rule of thumb is that bigger pronounced knobs grip better in the looser stuff, but increase your rolling resistance. If you ride any pavement with the bike, pronounced knobs feel buzzy, and tall knobs on the edge will feel sketchy in hard turns as they flex. I'm betting based on the kind of riding you'll be doing, you don't want anything that looks super aggressive as if it's a dirtbike tire. Playing with tire pressure can change your traction too. If you're on the high side, try going lower until it starts to wallow, pogo bounce, or you think the rim is going to pinch the tube (#1 reason people go tubeless). Is the traction issue in the rear, front, or both?

Of course not. Catholics figured out long ago that guilt and the fear of god was just as damaging.