I guess, he actually refers to himself as a "non theist".  I don't think it 
matters much.   

 What is odd, is that people here, on this site, are across the spectrum when 
it comes to "believers", with a heavy concentration on the non traditional end.

 But never mind that, with Barry, it's all about the "rant".

 He seems to have a self imposed "rant" quota every day.

 And we all pretty much know the "rant" by heart, especially the "moral of the 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <punditster@...> wrote :

 On 10/27/2014 8:10 AM, steve.sundur@... mailto:steve.sundur@... 
[FairfieldLife] wrote:

   It's a funny place for Barry to roll out his new initiative, this "New 
Approach for Atheists in Dealing With Believers", but I guess it hi-lights the 
dearth of other places where he has any standing.  You'd think this manifesto 
would be better placed on an atheist site (of which I am sure there are 
plenty), but he could run into a little trouble if they check his bona fides.  
Actually, I guess that explains it.  (-:

 These are obviously just planted messages from Barry in order to get angry 
responses - typical trollish stuff. 
 In Barry's case, it's interesting because everyone knows he believes in 
Buddhas, karma and reincarnation. But, he doesn't want to talk about it because 
it's so confusing. 
 We need to keep it real simple for Barry - things are either black or white; 
there are no shades of grey with Barry. He is not very  subtle or nuanced. 
 He probably doesn't even realize that a belief in free-will is opposed to a 
belief in karma. Maybe he is actually thinking he has complete control over his 
circumstances and that he is not affected by his past or present actions. 
 Maybe Barry got confused when he read about Sam Harris and his Tibetan 
Buddhist teacher. 
 Go figure.
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
<steve.sundur@...> mailto:steve.sundur@... wrote :
 It sounds like you've found a new vocation, Barry. 
 Go for it.
 Put up posters, or something.  Organize some introductory lectures.
 What do we call it?  "The New Atheism, by Barry W"

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
<turquoiseb@...> mailto:turquoiseb@... wrote :
 Intelligent and well-written article about the religious apologetics that is 
rampant these days, and why intelligent people shouldn't stand for it. The 
author makes many good points, but among my favorites are the following, in 
which I've highlighted my favorite section in red:

 How are we to rid ourselves of religion? I don’t know a nonbeliever who 
considers it likely that we will. Even Christopher Hitchens likened it to the 
rats of Camus’ “The Plague,” always scurrying about in a city’s sewers, ready 
to spring forth on us when we have forgotten about the pestilence they carry. 
But we can take action to ensure that we do not unwittingly favor religion’s 
continuation by taking stances, both public and private. (I wrote about this 
previously for Salon here 
 Nonbelievers need to approach faith as a subject like any other, one we can 
talk about and criticize without fear of causing offense – or, in the case of 
Islam, concern for our physical safety.
 This is in fact our constitutional right. The First Amendment forbids Congress 
from establishing an official religion and protects free speech – including 
speech that offends the sentiments of believers. If we disbelieve what 
religion’s canon tells us, we need to say so openly, and in mixed company, 
pointing out that no rational person could believe it or accept it as true and 
valid, were it not for indoctrination, immaturity, willful abandonment of 
reason, fear, or simple feeblemindedness.
 We can also cease displaying knee-jerk respect for those who propagate faith. 
A priest, rabbi, or imam should merit no more deference than a witch doctor – 
all traffic in gullibility, human misery and vulnerability, and none can prove 
the efficacy of their ministrations. We must point out the inherent 
dangerousness of faith itself – of believing things to be true without 
evidence. The British poet Perce Bysshe Shelley, writing two centuries ago, put 
it bluntly: “God is an hypothesis, and, as such, stands in need of proof: the 
onus probandi” – the burden of proof – “rests on the theist.” Claims made on 
the basis of religion should be met by demands for evidence.

 Reza Aslan’s atheism problem: “Fundamentalist” atheists aren’t the issue, 
apologists for religions are

 Reza Aslan’s atheism problem: “Fundamentalist” atheists ... Major religions 
all contain macabre fables, explicit injunctions for vile behavior no civilzed 
person should accept

 View on www.salon.com
 Preview by Yahoo





  • [FairfieldLife]... TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
    • [Fairfield... steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
      • [Fairf... steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
        • [F... fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
          • ... steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
        • Re... 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]
          • ... steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
            • ... awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
              • ... steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
    • Re: [Fairf... TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
      • Re: [F... 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]
    • Re: [Fairf... 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]

Reply via email to