THOTH

OK understood - and good for you...but at the same time you must admit that the "system" in Turkey - and dominating belief - set forth from Ataturk - is that there are no minorities in Turkey - that this is a myth. Yes. Of course we know this to be unture - but this essentuially has been state policy (and more - a foundation for Turkey)...and minority expression has been extremely supressed. Perhaps it is somewhat emerging now - and I can see that from my encounters with Kurds from this last summer in Turkey as opposed to 12-13 years ago when the Kurds I spoke to were hushed about being Kurdish and were full of warnings etc...where now they were proud of their Kurdishness - talked openly of such and of their music etc - so yes things are certainly changing. But the reality - the reality of your history has been much different. And these were the type odf attitudes that doomed the Armenians - who were clearly not Turk. And still to this day Armenians are seen as an Island of not-Turk - in the midst of all this Turkishness. And like TwiBark has said there still exists this denial - denail of even such a thing as Armenian. etc etc So I contend that Turks must come to terms with the idea of Armenians and with their aborrant and unwarrented treatment of such - consequences of exactly the opposite of what you claim - which was the prevailing view (Ottoman idealized sensitivites aside..and admittedly not all bad - but not such a paradise either...certainly) - that this is required before your culture has indeed achieved this level of integration and openess - inclusiveness that you are trying to claim.

I havent yet had time to read your overly long post Domino - but if you feel this is what you need to post to expalin your position - OK - I think I already understand yoru position - but I will try to rerad it at some point - perhaps next weekend...lol Yes Domino - you and I hold perhaps entirely the opposite view. Where you accept everything and say all is true because it is based on our believf. I contend that it is the opposite (most) everythign we believe is wrong. It is clear to me that it is entirely beyond our capacity - our conciousness does not even function on the proper plane for understanding - we cannot know - it is impossible. So any attempt to presuppose that one does know - that one's beliefs are right - and another's are wrong is pointless (maybe we actually agree on that part). But clearly I do not believe that anyt evidence or such has been put forth to compell one to at all believe in a diety or dieties per se - nor is there any need it seems - and even if so - the comprehension of such is entirely beyond me - so yes I willfully cchoose to reject - not to believe - becsue what is it that I could believe in - somethign that I know to be false? That is hypocritical. And I certainly do not believe that through our thoughts alone we can make it happen - that any reality which we can concieve is anything more then a figment of imagination - perhaps a lens that colors our empiracle perceptions - but this does not drive or control reality. I mean if it did = where all all these gods and fairies and beings and such running around? And is any wacko's word good enough? Should David Berkowitz be set free? Are his voices real - in the sense that other beings originated such and - thorugh his belief - he was compeled to follow such etc etc insufficient....

Last summer when I travelled to Turkey I stayed at a very nice B&B in Cappadocia - in the city of Mustfa***** - a place called the Old Greek House (highly recommended - wonderful place and about the best food I've ever had in Turkey). Anyway - when I informed the owner that i was Armenian - he spoke of knowing Armenians in Kayseri - now - currently - so I would surmise that there are and were Armenians in Kayseri. As for Sinan - it seems that both the Greeks and Armenians claim him..could he have perhasp been both? Who really knows it would seem...

Well Sasun...I've read the entire old & new testements several times..probably several before you were even born...in addition to reading versions of many other religious texts (monotheistic & otherwise) - as well as analysis and such - such as pretty much the entire works of Joeseph Cambell and other works such as Frasier's "on Golden Bough" and such..again much of this prior to turning 16...a great many years ago i might add...as well as obseving Shaman and other mystics (levitating/flying & doing other supernatural things) etc etc - so please...don't assume that you alone have done such searching etc...

Yes rat - the king of incorrent and meaningless posts...

Anon - such a joke...eh...

Thank you Seaphan - brings back many memories...I used to be able to quot efrom that entiure movie verbatum (including of course that passage) ..and when pressed I imagine I still could...I'm not old BTW...LOL...I'm 37...good enough....etc seriosly though...I fond it quite amusing those who are pre-supposing how and what and why a non-believer feels like they do etc...all I will say is that I do not need the crutch...if you do...or if indeed you have had soem revelation..thjat is beyond me...OK..well..yeah OK...I'll give you that...but do not suppose that you understand what I amy or may not believe and how moral I may or may not be...and if you presume to attempt to given an inadequate and unsubstantiated and untrue explanation don't be suprised if I jump on your case...otherwise show some respecr...eh...because in not doing so you are showing your true colors..and we are not impressed...

(and another excerpt from the work of an eminant biologist) ..so Mouse tell us - is science just all bullshit? Douglas Futuyma Evolution as Fact and Theory Is evolution a fact, a theory, or a hypothesis? In science, words are often used with precise meanings and connotations that differ from those in everyday life. This is an exceedingly important point, and we will encounter many examples in this book (e.g., fitness, random, correlation). Among such words are hypothesis and theory. People often speak of a "mere" hypothesis (as in "it is merely a hypothesis that smoking causes cancer") as if it were an opirtion unsupported by evidence. In science, however, a hypothesis is an informed statement of what might be true. It may be poorly supported, especially at first, but as we have seen, it can gain support to the point at which it is effectively a fact. For Copernicus, the revolution of the earth around the sun was a hypothesis with modest support; for us, it is a hypothesis with strong support. Likewise, a theory in science is not an unsupported speculation. Rather, it is a mature, coherent body of interconnected statements, based on reasoning and evidence, that explains a variety of observations. Or, to quote the Oxford English Dictionary, a theory is "a scheme or system of ideas and statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are known to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." Thus atomic theory, quantum theory, and the theory of plate tectonics are not mere speculations or opinions, nor are they even well-supported hypotheses (such as the hypothesis that smoking causes cancer). Each is an elaborate scheme of interconnected ideas, strongly supported by evidence, that accounts for a great variety of phenomena. Because a theory is a complex of statements, it usually does not stand or fall on the basis of a single critical test (as simple hypotheses often do). Rather, theories evolve as they are confronted with new phenomena or observations; parts of the theory are discarded, modified, added. The theory of heredity, for instance, consisted at first of Mendel's laws of particulate inheritance, dominance, and independent segregation of the "factors" (genes) that affect different characteristics. Exceptions to dominance and independent segregation were soon found, but the core principle of particulate inheritance remained. Building on and adding to this core throughout the twentieth century, geneticists have developed a theory of heredity far more complex and detailed than Mendel could have conceived. Parts of the theory are exceedingly well established, other parts are still tentative, and we may expect many additions and changes as the mechanisms of heredity and development are plumbed further. In light of the preceding discussion, evolution is a scientific fact. But it is explained by evolutionary theory. In The Origin of Species, Darwin propounded two large hypotheses. One was descent, with modification, from common ancestors, or, for simplicity, the hypothesis of descent with modification. I will also refer to this as the "historical reality of evolution." The other large hypothesis was Darwin's proposed cause for descent with modification: that natural selection sorts among hereditary variations. Darwin provided abundant evidence for the historical reality of evolution—for descent, with modification, from common ancestors. Even in 1859, this idea had considerable support. Within about 15 years, all biological scientists except for a few diehards had accepted this hypothesis. Since then, hundreds of thousands of observations, from paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy, embryology, genetics, biochemistry, and molecular biology, have confirmed it. Like the heliocentric hypothesis of Copernicus, the hypothesis of descent with modification from common ancestors has long held the status of a scientific fact. No biologist today would think of publishing a paper on "new evidence for evolution," any more than a chemist would try to publish a demonstration that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen. It simply hasn't been an issue in scientific circles for more than a century. Darwin hypothesized that the cause of evolution is natural selection acting on hereditary variation. His argument was based on logic and on interpretation of many kinds of circumstantial evidence, but he had no direct evidence. More than 70 years would pass before an understanding of heredity and the evidence for natural selection would fully vindicate his hypothesis. Moreover, we now know that there are more causes of evolution than Darwin realized, and that natural selection and hereditary variation themselves are more complex than he imagined. Much of this book will be concerned with the complex body of ideas—about mutation, recombination, gene flow, isolation, random genetic drift, the many forms of natural selection, and other factors—that together constitute our current understanding of the causes of evolution. This complex of interrelated ideas about the causes of evolution is the theory of evolution, or "evolutionary theory." It is not a "mere speculation," for all the ideas are supported by evidence. It is not a hypothesis, but a body of hypotheses, most of which are well supported. It is a theory in the sense defined in the preceding section. Like all theories in science, it is incomplete, for we do not yet know the causes of all of evolution, and some details may turn out to be wrong. But the main tenets of evolutionary theory are so well supported that most biologists accept them with confidence.

Some (perhaps) useful excerpts worth reading...(note also the direct references to Popper's falsibility argument....did you happen to read this when i posted it the first time rat?) Evolution as Fact and Theory by Stephen Jay Gould ... In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was." Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered. Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations." Thus Darwin acknowledged the provisional nature of natural selection while affirming the fact of evolution. The fruitful theoretical debate that Darwin initiated has never ceased. From the 1940s through the 1960s, Darwin's own theory of natural selection did achieve a temporary hegemony that it never enjoyed in his lifetime. But renewed debate characterizes our decade, and, while no biologists questions the importance of natural selection, many doubt its ubiquity. In particular, many evolutionists argue that substantial amounts of genetic change may not be subject to natural selection and may spread through the populations at random. Others are challenging Darwin's linking of natural selection with gradual, imperceptible change through all intermediary degrees; they are arguing that most evolutionary events may occur far more rapidly than Darwin envisioned. Scientists regard debates on fundamental issues of theory as a sign of intellectual health and a source of excitement. Science is—and how else can I say it?—most fun when it plays with interesting ideas, examines their implications, and recognizes that old information might be explained in surprisingly new ways. Evolutionary theory is now enjoying this uncommon vigor. Yet amidst all this turmoil no biologist has been lead to doubt the fact that evolution occurred; we are debating how it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy. Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand. Secondly, creationists claim that "the dogma of separate creations," as Darwin characterized it a century ago, is a scientific theory meriting equal time with evolution in high school biology curricula. But a popular viewpoint among philosophers of science belies this creationist argument. Philosopher Karl Popper has argued for decades that the primary criterion of science is the falsifiability of its theories. We can never prove absolutely, but we can falsify. A set of ideas that cannot, in principle, be falsified is not science. The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting supposed contradictions among its supporters. Their brand of creationism, they claim, is "scientific" because it follows the Popperian model in trying to demolish evolution. Yet Popper's argument must apply in both directions. One does not become a scientist by the simple act of trying to falsify a rival and truly scientific system; one has to present an alternative system that also meets Popper's criterion — it too must be falsifiable in principle. (skiped a bit) Our confidence that evolution occurred centers upon three general arguments. First, we have abundant, direct, observational evidence of evolution in action, from both the field and laboratory. This evidence ranges from countless experiments on change in nearly everything about fruit flies subjected to artificial selection in the laboratory to the famous populations of British moths that became black when industrial soot darkened the trees upon which the moths rest. (Moths gain protection from sharp-sighted bird predators by blending into the background.) Creationists do not deny these observations; how could they? Creationists have tightened their act. They now argue that God only created "basic kinds," and allowed for limited evolutionary meandering within them. Thus toy poodles and Great Danes come from the dog kind and moths can change color, but nature cannot convert a dog to a cat or a monkey to a man. The second and third arguments for evolution—the case for major changes—do not involve direct observation of evolution in action. They rest upon inference, but are no less secure for that reason. Major evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation on the scale of recorded human history. All historical sciences rest upon inference, and evolution is no different from geology, cosmology, or human history in this respect. In principle, we cannot observe processes that operated in the past. We must infer them from results that still surround us: living and fossil organisms for evolution, documents and artifacts for human history, strata and topography for geology. The second argument—that the imperfection of nature reveals evolution—strikes many people as ironic, for they feel that evolution should be most elegantly displayed in the nearly perfect adaptation expressed by some organisms—the camber of a gull's wing, or butterflies that cannot be seen in ground litter because they mimic leaves so precisely. But perfection could be imposed by a wise creator or evolved by natural selection. Perfection covers the tracks of past history. And past history—the evidence of descent—is the mark of evolution. Evolution lies exposed in the imperfections that record a history of descent. Why should a rat run, a bat fly, a porpoise swim, and I type this essay with structures built of the same bones unless we all inherited them from a common ancestor? An engineer, starting from scratch, could design better limbs in each case. Why should all the large native mammals of Australia be marsupials, unless they descended from a common ancestor isolated on this island continent? Marsupials are not "better," or ideally suited for Australia; many have been wiped out by placental mammals imported by man from other continents. This principle of imperfection extends to all historical sciences. When we recognize the etymology of September, October, November, and December (seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth), we know that the year once started in March, or that two additional months must have been added to an original calendar of ten months. The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common—and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of mammals only one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by step, in mammalian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the back of the jaw. The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammalian ear are descendants of these nubbins. How could such a transition be accomplished? the creationists ask. Surely a bone is either entirely in the jaw or in the ear. Yet paleontologists have discovered two transitional lineages of therapsids (the so-called mammal-like reptiles) with a double jaw joint—one composed of the old quadrate and articular bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamosal and dentary bones (as in modern mammals). For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larder body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby? and more follows....

Ok so Gravity is a belief, I also believe in magnetism, in the fact that if I don't eat, drink and breath I will die...etc etc...I totally fail to see your point...other then you have no real point.

No evolution is science - and it is good scisnce...that is the point... And I've read Popper (Open Society and Its enemies - etc) probably before you were even born...! Face it mouse - there is probably little that you have read in your life that I have not read already...not to discourage such - as I would never presume to discourage reading...just I continue to be surprsed how little you truly seem to understand - having read so much of value...

Is that the best you can do? Silly semantics? You aren't worth the argument rat - your just not. I'm suprised that you even know how to read - as you certainly haven't shown the capacity for it. Ok - so again - you tell us you reject science and scientific knowledge - that "believeing" in such is the same thing as faith (not) - well I just want to give you one bit of advice...I hope that what you save on medical costs by going to yoru local shaman versus an MD might be put to use getting yourself a proper education....

I will believe in evolution as the best explanation for life (and the history of life on this planet) as we see it until some better explanation - based on better knowledge/understanding comes along....just as with other scientific theories and understandings of reality and the world around us...but until some better explanation come s along - and its got to be better then "the good book says" or "this is what i beleive because I choose to - with no evidence or as you say potential for proof one way or another - ultimate falsibility of you ask me) - well then I will more or less accept it as such - and I will also more or less laugh at your ignorance in the meantime...next...

NOT! - OK here we go again Adamantium for brains... (since you obviously failed to read the first time..) - Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981: "Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. ... There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination." Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986: "...in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution": (http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml) "...evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun." And yes please check here - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ "... there are many reasons why you might not understand [an explanation of a scientific theory] ... Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that [scientists] have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. [A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd. I'm going to have fun telling you about this absurdity, because I find it delightful. Please don't turn yourself off because you can't believe Nature is so strange. Just hear me all out, and I hope you'll be as delighted as I am when we're through. " - Richard P. Feynman (1918-1988), from the introductory lecture on quantum mechanics reproduced in QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (Feynman 1985). Here is a good one (and from a Christian site no less!) Various U.S. court decisions have concluded that "creation science" is not actually science. This is because the beliefs of creation scientists cannot be falsified. i.e. it would be impossible for a creation scientist to accept a proof that naturalistic or theistic evolution is true. That is because their fundamental, foundational belief is that the Book of Genesis is inerrant. All physical evidence is judged by comparing it to Genesis. No evidence from nature can disprove this belief. Once a person accepts a religious text as the basis of their scientific studies, they no longer are free to follow where the data leads; they cease being a scientist. http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_over.htm Oh and at the very bottom of the page: Only 0.15% of earth and life scientists subscribe to one of the creation science belief systems. LOL http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/2948/gould.html http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ etc

I just finished watching the special on Frontline - Ghosts of Rwanda. I thought it was a very powerful program and well worth watching - particularly for Armenians...many lessons I think...and very very sad...In fact almost exactly a year ago I met a survivor of the Rwandan Genocide who lives near me now - and we have struck up a friendship where we occasionally talk on the phone and share our (family/emotional) experiences...educate each other and such...anyway...I urge all to watch this program... http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ghosts/

Perhaps..but not as easy as it sounds..and requires much oversite to avoid fraud etc and coruption - through intimidation (as well). And who assures that referuendums are put together in watsfair & accessable to the public..etc etc...not knocking your proposal (whiuch is quite intriguing) - but not so simple I think...and yes ultimatly - why not (for same/many things) - and not just for small nations...

Angel - did you actually read my post - or is it that you just can't understand? You speculate what an Atheist must think (without understanding much it seems) - and I counter - as I see things quite differently - so why so personal eh? And please consider who looks like an ass here. Yeah I'm sharing my opinions to....

Angel - don't assume that I (or other Atheists) believe in nothing....just not in a diety...singular, plural or what have you. And I alos do not believe that the ethics and moral values came from any particualr religion - quite the opposite in fact...and while I understand the need for people to be reassured when they do not know the answers - i fail to see how believeing in somethign that one cannot know to be true as sufficient for reassurance..and is this all that it is - the need for an explanation - and you (and other believers) are so easily satisfied by just anything - regardless of its real representation of reality...and you pity and fail to understand Atheists - HA!

...thats nearsighted? I'm -12+ ...

Not sufficient to be considered a religion. Of course you subscibe to the ever expanding multiple- disbelief set of religions which have perpetuated the multiverse these days. By last count I was an adherent to 2.796 of these..and growing...isnt it funny how we are all adherents to som maany (non) religions...no wonder we have no time for anything else...hold it for a minute if you please...I have another set of bylaws to draft up - to make sure that my new religion of one is self consistant...

One can hypothise anything...like the Pink Pony for instance. Real scientists don't deal with absurdaties.

Thanks for the input Marsuvan - please tell us more. And welcome to the forum. You will find that most Armenians are not haters...even if we be atheists...

From Websters: Main Entry: re·li·gion Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n Function: noun Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY 1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance 2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices 3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith - re·li·gion·less adjective Now - how is being an atheist to "practice", commit or observe some supernatural belief? - etc etc How is it an institutionalized system...how is such a belief observed? What are the rituals for such? Where are the common elements? how can it even be defiend as a system of beliefs - as it professes only the lack of belief in something else which is postulated. Again - you are attempting to define and catagorize something which does not fit. As any profession of disbelief in something could be considered a religion based on the defination you are attempting to proscribe. What is this "faith" of atheism? It is in fact the opposite - profession that faith alone is insufficient and a skeptisim that any explanation offered by man (outside of know/accepted sceintific priciple) is sufficient for belief in something that is unknown. And by your defintion professing adherence to scientific principles and explanations is an equal act of faith as compared to "other" religions...if this is so (if this is yoru belief - your "religion" - lol) - then what leg have to to stand on when arguinmg against Mouse and others who reject scientific understanding - what makes your "belief" any better - any more worthy of being an explanation for the truth of things? You often accuse me of not being consistent - well yoru argument - attempt at such - regarding atheism - and your position - is at odds with your proffesed belief in scientific understanding and explanations. You cannot have both. Main Entry: 1faith Pronunciation: 'fAth Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/ Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE 1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions 2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust 3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs Main Entry: be·lief Pronunciation: b&-'lEf Function: noun Etymology: Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelEafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lEafa; akin to Old English lyfan 1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing 2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group 3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence synonyms BELIEF, FAITH, CREDENCE, CREDIT mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. BELIEF may or may not imply certitude in the believer <my belief that I had caught all the errors>. FAITH almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof <an unshakable faith in God>. CREDENCE suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent <a theory now given credence by scientists>. CREDIT may imply assent on grounds other than direct proof <gave full credit to the statement of a reputable witness>. Main Entry: sci·ence Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; probably akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split -- more at SHED 1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding 2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science> 3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena Main Entry: scientific method Function: noun : principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses Main Entry: 1re·li·gious Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&s Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Old French religieus, from Latin religiosus, from religio 1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes> 2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances 3 a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful Funny I don't see atheism on this list - http://web.ask.com/redir?bpg=http%3a%2f%2f...ml&qte=0&o=8001 And this is what I came up with when I "asked Jeeves" if Atheisim is a religion - please read.. http://web.ask.com/redir?bpg=http%3a%2f%2f...tm&qte=0&o=8001

OK Domino - you win - I am not an Atheist - I am a multi-anti-theist - by your definition...shall we count (perhaps some of) my religions/non-beliefs? (and let me add that it is not surprising to me that you think along these lines as its a very dirtect outgrowth of the multi-universe theory...I see that now...) 1) non - belieif in Zeus and the gods of Olympus 2) non - belieif in Odin and the gods of Valhalla 3) non - belieif in Mithraism 4) non - belieif in Allah 5) non - belieif in Buddah (godhood of and/or worship of etc) 6) non - belieif in yahwe, elohim, Jehovah and all the rest 7) non - belieif in Christ 8) non - belieif in the Great Spirit 9) non - belieif in Vishnu (incl all claimed encarnations) 10) non - belieif in Osirus 11) non - belieif in RA (OK perhaps THOTH I believe in..LOL) 12) non - belieif in Anu 13) non - belieif in Dagda 14) non - belieif in Quetzalcaotl 15) non - belieif in Tlaloc 16) non - belieif in Cthulhu 17) non - belieif in Arioch (blood and souls for my lord A...etc) 18) non - belieif in the Valar 19) non - belieif in Enlil (but Enki is cool...) 20) non - belieif in Mithra 21) non - belieif in Marduk 22) non - belieif in the nameless one... ....and I can go on and on - you get the idea - but I have so many religious beliefs you know... Oh and I should add I don't believe in Heaven, Hell, Elysium, Nirvana, Olympus, Valhalla, the Abyss, Gehenna, or any of the other various supposed Hells (besides Camden), and heaven like places (excepting that which resides between...well lets not go there for fear of censorship shall we....)

After my responses to the most recent atheisim posts (by Gevo) were deleated I was told that the reason my post were deleated was that they contained personal attacks - well I dispute this - but OK - then why was not this post deleated? It consistes only of personal attacks against me - including a very direct implied threat (the English usage is so muddled that I admit that perhaps he was trying to make an apology at the end there - don't know). But what is clear is the double standard being practiced here. And I'm also curious as to this recent offer by Mosjan of a sort of High Noon justice where Bell the cat and I have x # of hours to go at it unrestrained etc etc....and let me add that I protest this - who says I am giving up my rights to not be insulted? And where in the forum guidlines is this sort of arrangement allowed?