I read it on the BBC website a couple of years ago, I'll try to find it. In the meantime how about you linking us to the census figures?

The National Census did not give out anything on race that I can find (probably Political Correctness over-ruling our right to information), but maybe you can dig out something from here :

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/taxonomy/index.html?nscl=Identity

I have been given figures from some friends in the local Uni., but I don't have the provenance. I will ask.

Your 'local Uni', being Cambridge, probably IS the provenance!

As well as the world-famous Cambridge University, with all the kudos of producing many of the leading scientists, doctors and Russian spies in Europe, we have Anglia-Ruskin University and a branch of the Open University.

My friends are from all three establishments, which is sometimes confusing, as I don't know the root source of much they say when huddled over a pint of the Abbott in the Green Dragon.

An atheist is someone who does not believe in any God. (Greek a- = not, theos = God)

No, you can't be a Christian atheist or a Hindu atheist.... but you can be a Jewish atheist, because Jewish is a racial descriptor as well as a religious descriptor.

Doubtless our atheist friends will argue with me; they do about practically everything else!

Are Jews a race?

Not quite! An atheist may or not have had a religion previously, but has come to a definite conclusion that there is no God.

No, it is a rejection of a claim and this 'way' is used the world over. If you are on a jury then you with have to decide on 'guilty' or 'not guilty' and not 'guilty' or 'innocent'. If someone is on a jury and does not know the difference then they should not be on the jury.

Can someone define "Higher Power" for me please?

I'm having difficulty understanding the term across all the religious groups in particular.

You would be ignostic mate

Ignosticism or igtheism is the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism and atheism) assumes too much about the concept of God and many other theological concepts.

It can be defined as encompassing two related views about the existence of God:

1.The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term "God" is considered meaningless.

2.The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking "What is meant by 'God'?" before proclaiming the original question "Does God exist?" as meaningless.

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

Are Jews a race?

No.

Are Jews a race?

No.

I agree.

What gets me is that so many people will use a certain term without understanding what it means! How can someone posit an argument when at the very base it is not understood?

For example.....

Not quite! An atheist may or not have had a religion previously, but has come to a definite conclusion that there is no God.

No, it is a rejection of a claim and this 'way' is used the world over. If you are on a jury then you will have to decide on 'guilty' or 'not guilty' and not 'guilty' or 'innocent'. If someone is on a jury and does not know the difference then they should not be on the jury.

Theism and atheism address belief while gnosticism and agnosticism address knowledge ergo. agnostic atheist. Logic 101

An agnostic does not know if there is a God or not. Thus is passive.

An atheist denies that there is a God. Thus is actvely hostile.

An agnostic does not know if there is a God or not. Thus is passive.

An atheist denies that there is a God. Thus is actvely hostile.

What is the difference between gnosticism and theism?

An agnostic does not know if there is a God or not. Thus is passive.

An atheist denies that there is a God. Thus is actvely hostile.

What is the difference between gnosticism and theism?

Gnosticism is an eclectic philosophy which taught the redemption of the spirit from matter by spiritual knowledge; the term was used in the early Christian centuries, but is not normally in use nowadays

Are Jews a race?

No.

Yes.

If I make a speech about Jews and use the word 'Kike' or similar, I will be prosecuted for racial abuse, not religious abuse. Therefore in legal terms being a Jew must mean that one is a member of a particular race.

Are Jews a race?

No.

Yes.

If I make a speech about Jews and use the word 'Kike' or similar, I will be prosecuted for racial abuse, not religious abuse. Therefore in legal terms being a Jew must mean that one is a member of a particular race.

Are you saying you say Kike a lot?

Anyway ... you're a but confused.

Many forms of antisemitism (most extremely Nazi style) are a form of racism as it projects the false idea that Jews are a race. That doesn't ACTUALLY make Jews a race!

An agnostic does not know if there is a God or not. Thus is passive.

An atheist denies that there is a God. Thus is actvely hostile.

Agnostics believe that the existence or not of god is unknowable/unprovable, though some agnostics believe this is either only a current situation may change, or is a belief personal to them.

Atheists do not believe in the existence of god and either hold that as a fact or an individual belief ( ie god might exist but not for them). Not sure where the hostility comes in, unless you want to sell some " controversial" books, eg Dawkins etc

You could classify Buddhists as atheists as they do not believe in an individual god.....

Are Jews a race?

No.

Yes.

If I make a speech about Jews and use the word 'Kike' or similar, I will be prosecuted for racial abuse, not religious abuse. Therefore in legal terms being a Jew must mean that one is a member of a particular race.

Are you saying you say Kike a lot?

Anyway ... you're a but confused.

Many forms of antisemitism (most extremely Nazi style) are a form of racism as it projects the false idea that Jews are a race. That doesn't ACTUALLY make Jews a race!

no matter how often you repeat your opinion JT... a fact is that many, not all, Jews show clearly that they belong to a certain ethnicity. present randomly 100 persons, among them 20 persons with Jewish ancestry and i will pick 15 of them without a big effort and that without addressing them in Yiddish or Hebrew and waiting for a response.

sei gesund Haver!

no matter how often you repeat your opinion JT... a fact is that many, not all, Jews show clearly that they belong to a certain ethnicity. present randomly 100 persons, among them 20 persons with Jewish ancestry and i will pick 15 of them without a big effort and that without addressing them in Yiddish or Hebrew and waiting for a response.

sei gesund Haver!

It would have been better if you read the thread before which clearly addressed the differences between ethnicity and race.

As far as a so called "opinion" that Jews are NOT a race, I challenge you to present one credible/legitimate modern anthropologist of our era that suggests that they are a race.

Gnosticism is an eclectic philosophy which taught the redemption of the spirit from matter by spiritual knowledge; the term was used in the early Christian centuries, but is not normally in use nowadays

Fits in with....

Theism and atheism address belief while gnosticism and agnosticism address knowledge ergo. agnostic atheist.

Now we get to theism and atheism which is belief (or lack of), not knowledge.

You go to a summer fair or a country fair and they have the usual lucky dip etc. but there is also a chap with a large jar filled with gumballs. I think we can both agree that there is either an even number of gumballs in the jar or there is an odd number in the jar? Some fella claims that there are an odd number of gumballs in the jar.

We are now at the point where some people such as HB get lost.

An atheist denies that there is a God. Thus is actvely hostile.

I reject the claim that there are an odd number of gumballs in the jar, I DO NOT claim that there are an even number of gumballs in the jar, I simply reject the claim. In EXACTLY the same way I reject the claim of theism which makes me an atheist.

Hence..

No, it is a rejection of a claim and this 'way' is used the world over. If you are on a jury then you will [edit sp.) have to decide on 'guilty' or 'not guilty' and not 'guilty' or 'innocent'. If someone is on a jury and does not know the difference then they should not be on the jury.

On knowledge I am agnostic and on belief (or lack or) I am atheist... Therefore I am an agnostic atheist.

I don't want to go off topic but I have spent quite a considerable amount of time over the last few years to ascertain why such a large number of people do not, cannot or will not understand this point of logic. No luck as yet.

notmyself:

By rejecting the claim there are an even number of gumballs in the jar, wouldn't you be accepting, by process of elimination, that there are in fact an odd number of gumballs in the jar?

There are only two possible solutions so when you rejected the even number you were left with only one other option.

Your other choice is to reject the jar and the gumballs completely and pretend they don't exist at all.

It would seem your mistake was ever getting into the conversation about gumballs to begin with.

PS: I tried to quote your post but am entirely too stupid to figure out the new quote function.

PS: I tried to quote your post but am entirely too stupid to figure out the new quote function.

Not stupid at all. I do it manually now.

Your other choice is to reject the jar and the gumballs completely and pretend they don't exist at all.

No way am I getting into the presuppositional argument on a TV thread.

By rejecting the claim there are an even number of gumballs in the jar, wouldn't you be accepting, by process of elimination, that there are in fact an odd number of gumballs in the jar?

There are only two possible solutions so when you rejected the even number you were left with only one other option.

[...]

It would seem your mistake was ever getting into the conversation about gumballs to begin with.

No, I reject the claim (atheist) and remain agnostic about odd or even number of gumballs.

I use the two options to simplify but I could use any example. You say that you have a coin in your pocket. I reject your claim but that does not mean I claim you have a coin in your other pocket or a lion or sunglasses. I just reject your claim, nothing more.

notmyself:

By rejecting the claim there are an even number of gumballs in the jar, wouldn't you be accepting, by process of elimination, that there are in fact an odd number of gumballs in the jar?

There are only two possible solutions so when you rejected the even number you were left with only one other option.

Your other choice is to reject the jar and the gumballs completely and pretend they don't exist at all.

It would seem your mistake was ever getting into the conversation about gumballs to begin with.

It would seem your mistake was ever getting into the conversation about gumballs to begin with.

As you approach the table with the jar on I suggest you would be in a default position or agnostic position, which would be..... I don't know.

Atheism is the opposite of accept, it is not the acceptance of the contrary. That is as simple as I can make it.

We are now at the point where some people such as HB get lost. (notmyself)

An atheist denies that there is a God. Thus is actvely hostile.

Atheists are often hostile to religion. I wonder whether this is comparable with those violent homophobes who are crypto-gays themselves; the violent atheists are indeed crypto-theists. They may not realise this themselves, though. St Paul, of course, is a classic example.

notmyself:

By rejecting the claim there are an even number of gumballs in the jar, wouldn't you be accepting, by process of elimination, that there are in fact an odd number of gumballs in the jar?

There are only two possible solutions so when you rejected the even number you were left with only one other option.

Your other choice is to reject the jar and the gumballs completely and pretend they don't exist at all.

It would seem your mistake was ever getting into the conversation about gumballs to begin with.

>It would seem your mistake was ever getting into the conversation about gumballs to begin with.

As you approach the table with the jar on I suggest you would be in a default position or agnostic position, which would be..... I don't know.

Atheism is the opposite of accept, it is not the acceptance of the contrary. That is as simple as I can make it.

As I approach the table with the jar on top I do so with an open mind, only wishing the jar would be filled with peanut M&Ms.

The odd/even question would come up only in conversation...and to that there are still only two answers.

A closed mind would see the jar and simply not acknowledge its existence.

I was talking to a US civilian medic last night that said he was an atheist, I asked had ever ever believed? He said yes but my job put an end to that.

I was talking to a US civilian medic last night that said he was an atheist, I asked had ever ever believed? He said yes but my job put an end to that.

Thomas More 1478-1535 burned people at the stake for owning a Bible in their own language. He knew that if people were allowed to read and understand it there would be a great chance that they would not believe it.

We are now at the point where some people such as HB get lost. (notmyself)

An atheist denies that there is a God. Thus is actvely hostile.

Atheists are often hostile to religion. I wonder whether this is comparable with those violent homophobes who are crypto-gays themselves; the violent atheists are indeed crypto-theists. They may not realise this themselves, though. St Paul, of course, is a classic example.

lol

Atheists are often hostile toward people who think they can bully said atheists and are also often hostile toward people who think they have the right to tell others what to do, eat or think. Religion just 'happens' to fall foul of this.

The odd/even question would come up only in conversation...and to that there are still only two answers.

I'll try another angle. If you ask me if there are an odd or even number peanut M&Ms in the jar I would have to be honest and say I don't know. I then ask you how many and you state that there an odd number. If I don't believe you then I still don't know. Why should my rejection of your claim suddenly mean that I know there is an even number?

We are now at the point where some people such as HB get lost. (notmyself)

An atheist denies that there is a God. Thus is actvely hostile.

Atheists are often hostile to religion. I wonder whether this is comparable with those violent homophobes who are crypto-gays themselves; the violent atheists are indeed crypto-theists. They may not realise this themselves, though. St Paul, of course, is a classic example.

As with so many issues it boils down to the individual's level of tolerance for others and their different belief sets.

Faith or not is an individual choice. Atheists are no more likely to be hostile than say evangelicals. Hostile atheists (Dawkins etc) are clever marketers who know that controversy sells. Lack of faith does not.

The odd/even question would come up only in conversation...and to that there are still only two answers.

I'll try another angle. If you ask me if there are an odd or even number peanut M&Ms in the jar I would have to be honest and say I don't know. I then ask you how many and you state that there an odd number. If I don't believe you then I still don't know. Why should my rejection of your claim suddenly mean that I know there is an even number?

So you wouldn't be curious enough to count them and find out?

Or would you prefer to stay in the dark, not ever knowing the real answer.

Polytheist atheists are groovier, they don't believe in gods with several arms.

The odd/even question would come up only in conversation...and to that there are still only two answers.

I'll try another angle. If you ask me if there are an odd or even number peanut M&Ms in the jar I would have to be honest and say I don't know. I then ask you how many and you state that there an odd number. If I don't believe you then I still don't know. Why should my rejection of your claim suddenly mean that I know there is an even number?

So you wouldn't be curious enough to count them and find out?

Or would you prefer to stay in the dark, not ever knowing the real answer.

Your thoughts on what I have said remain distinctly opaque. Are you willing to accept that atheism is a rejection of a claim or are you not?

The odd/even question would come up only in conversation...and to that there are still only two answers.

I'll try another angle. If you ask me if there are an odd or even number peanut M&Ms in the jar I would have to be honest and say I don't know. I then ask you how many and you state that there an odd number. If I don't believe you then I still don't know. Why should my rejection of your claim suddenly mean that I know there is an even number?

So you wouldn't be curious enough to count them and find out?

Or would you prefer to stay in the dark, not ever knowing the real answer.

Your thoughts on what I have said remain distinctly opaque. Are you willing to accept that atheism is a rejection of a claim or are you not?

Nope. I consider it a minor religion.

The odd/even question would come up only in conversation...and to that there are still only two answers.

I'll try another angle. If you ask me if there are an odd or even number peanut M&Ms in the jar I would have to be honest and say I don't know. I then ask you how many and you state that there an odd number. If I don't believe you then I still don't know. Why should my rejection of your claim suddenly mean that I know there is an even number?

So you wouldn't be curious enough to count them and find out?

Or would you prefer to stay in the dark, not ever knowing the real answer.

Your thoughts on what I have said remain distinctly opaque. Are you willing to accept that atheism is a rejection of a claim or are you not?

No. Atheism is a belief that there is no god.

Acceptance of our ignorance on the topic is agnosticism.

Isn't it?

SC