Raf

1776 "Winning that ticket, Rose, was the best thing that ever happened to me... it brought me to you. And I'm thankful for that, Rose. I'm thankful. You must do me this honor. Promise me you'll survive. That you won't give up, no matter what happens, no matter how hopeless. Promise me now, Rose, and never let go of that promise." "I promise." "Never let go." "I'll never let go, Jack. I'll never let go."

You were not right.

"To the beat of the ..., dance until the morning light Forget about the worries on your mind, you can leave them all behind."

I should add: I'm really interested in what you mean by "associated with," because my response is taking it one way, while you may mean something else entirely. What I read: "Associated with" means if you're atheist, by extension you should also hold these beliefs/positions. THAT is specifically what I'm arguing against. In that regard, there are no dogmas "associated with" atheism in the A therefore B sense. What you could also mean: "Associated with" means there's a correlation between certain belief/belief systems and atheism. I would not argue with that at all. But a correlation is not an A therefore B proposition. I'll give some obvious examples. Evolution, abortion and life after death. There is nothing about being atheist that requires one to accept evolution. Nothing. At all. Throw in Big Bang cosmology (first proposed by a theist, by the way) and heliocentrism (the belief that the earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around). Atheism addresses none of these things. You can be an atheist who believes life doesn't evolve, the sun revolves around the earth and the universe has always existed in, pretty much, its present form. On the other hand, you can believe in evolution, the Big Bang and heliocentrism while still believing in God. Heck, some people believe in all those things AND believe in Yahweh! They're not mutually exclusive. BUT, if you were to tell me you're an atheist, I would bet dollars to donuts that you also believe in evolution et al. There's a correlation there. Similarly, there is a correlation between being a pro-lifer and being a theist. But would it surprise you to learn that there are pro-life atheists? There are. Many. What is it about atheism that precludes someone from believing that life begins at conception? Or that even if we quibble over the word "life," that a zygote or fetus is worthy of protection? Nothing in atheism says you can't believe an unborn child, whether conceived nine seconds or nine months ago, is worthy of legal protection. Here's one interesting article on it: http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/28/confessions-of-a-pro-life-atheist-why-i-fight-abortion/ But if you were to tell me you're an atheist, I would sooner predict you are pro-choice than pro-life. Finally, life after death. Atheism means you don't believe in gods. That doesn't mean you don't believe in souls or something like them that survive beyond out bodies. You can believe in ghosts, spirits, leprechauns, fairies, Spice Girls and astrology while still being an atheist because you don't believe in gods. Is there something in atheism that precludes someone from believing in reincarnation? Absolutely not. Atheism simply doesn't address any of those issues unless you expand the definition of the term. But once you expand the definition of atheism, you're no longer talking about it. You're talking about atheism AND... Whatever the AND represents. But if you were to tell me you were an atheist, I would predict you don't believe in ghosts or life after death. So, a correlation? Yeah, I'd agree with that. But a statement that atheism necessitates certain other beliefs? No. Atheism necessitates one answer to one question. Do you believe in God? If your answer is not "yes," you are an atheist. If your answer is "maybe," you're still an atheist, because your answer wasn't yes, but you might be more comfortable with the term "agnostic." Fine. If that makes you happy.

"One can't be a Republican." Ever hear of a guy named Christopher Hitchens? Ok, how's about... http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/06/16/yes-there-are-republican-atheists-out-there-heres-why-im-one-of-them/ or http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2015/0305/Young-conservative-and-atheist-A-test-for-the-GOP or http://thehumanist.com/commentary/wait-youre-an-atheist-and-a-conservative There are some atheists who are of the OPINION that being Republican is incompatible with being atheist. There are some black people who believe that being Republican is incompatible with being black, and gay people who believe being Republican is incompatible with being gay. Those are opinions, not facts. You can be atheist and Republican. Heck, you can be a gay, black, atheist Republican. The only thing required of atheism is, when someone asks you whether you believe in the existence of God, you must not answer "yes." That's it. You can be pro-choice or pro-life. You can be a communist or a Reaganomics capitalist. You can favor government spending or be a Rand Paul libertarian. Atheism requires no position on any of those issues. "People who believe in God can't be rational." That is, of course, a caricature of what many atheists really do think. But let's be real: theists can be rational. Most theists are. If theists were not capable of being rational, there would be no point in starting threads challenging theists on issues of morality or exploring the fact that scriptures contradict each other. Of COURSE theists can be rational! But the notion that atheists think theists cannot be rational makes an excellent strawman. Not only do I know that believers can be rational, I'm counting on it. I would not be initiating or participating in dialogue if I did not think believers could be rational. [added thought: One can also be atheist and bat-crap crazy/ utterly irrational. Atheism doesn't make you rational.]

"Associated with" is an interesting choice of words. Atheism means one thing and one thing only: I don't believe in God. It doesn't make me liberal or conservative. It does not make me moral or immoral. It does not make me reasonable or unreasonable. It does not make me angry or happy. There are NO assumptions "associated with" atheism. And there is certainly no dogma. However, because many atheists agree on certain issues, people assume that those issues are part of their atheism. They aren't. It's kind of the other way around. Those issues lead to atheism. They are not assumptions or dogma. Dogma is when something is true because someone says so. "Thus saith the Lord." Atheism doesn't have that. No one gets "because I said so" in atheism. So, yeah, let me just ask: What assumptions and dogma are "associated with" atheism? Evolution? Neither an assumption nor dogma. Naturalism? Neither an assumption nor dogma. Science? Neither an assumption nor dogma. Do tell, what assumptions and dogma are associated with atheism? This ought to be fun.

Nikita by Elton John. Free post.

No. More like, it depends on how you're defining "religion."

Raf is enjoying Christmas vacation. Patience or free post.

Sorry. Busy. Oh ... you will never know Anything about my home I'll never know how good it feels to hold you

No, seriously, do not even THINK of reading this thread unless you have seen the new Star Wars movie.

The second character's age, and closeness to retirement, is a recurring theme. His repeated line... "I'm too old for this $#!+"

Santa Claus. Though I should get credit for the previous answer. :)

"Away put your weapon! I mean you no harm!"

He would have been a prisoner if he hadn't escaped. The Fugitive

Nicholas of Turkey

Ok. Let's parse this. "Stubborn and rebellious." That could be very serious. Depending on what the kid is stubborn and rebellious about, I suppose you might have a case for the death penalty. So, let's see. Won't respond to discipline. Ok. Let's get some examples though. He's a... glutton and a drunkard?!?!?! That's IT? That's what gets the death penalty? By STONING? Ever stop to think what a horrible form of execution this is? This... is... torture. And Yahweh prescribed this penalty for stubborn and rebellious children. And what is an example of stubborn rebelliousness? Drunken gluttony. This is the only example cited in the context. What do apologists say about this verse? To save our link-posters some time, I'll share a couple. https://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/stone-rebellious-son Now, I don't know about you, but I do not threaten my children with execution if they don't obey me. And I don't need to. Neither do you, I'll bet. How, in anyone's name, is this savagery "necessary"? It's not. http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?com=mhc&b=5&c=21 So KILL THEM! Right? Now, you might argue (as the first link does) that there's no record of anyone actually being sentenced to die under this law. And we all know why. It's because there were no disobedient children throughout the history of Israel. What? You think there were? Well, then, why wasn't anyone ever put to death under this law? Because even THEY knew this was not a just punishment for the "crime"! But this was Yahweh's law! Now, it is true that Yahweh commanded his people to honor their mothers and fathers. And it is true that this is, generally speaking, a good law. But disobedience to that law does not merit the death penalty, and you are not a moral person if you think it does. You are a threat to your children if you think this is the case. Why would a moral god institute a law that, if enforced and carried out, makes the enforcers sociopaths?

Yes Yes

Hey, ..., is it cold in your little corner of the world?

"This place reminds me of Santa's workshop. Except it smells like mushrooms and everyone looks like they want to hurt me."

The Hunger Games

Take the Long Way Home Supertramp Oh ... is the other side of any given line in time Counting ten tin soldiers in a row Oh no, ... you'll never know

Supergirl's "winter finale" was pretty damn good. The show, overall, is as silly as a Supergirl show must be. But it really does seem like the writers/showrunners finally decided to be, well, good. To trust their audience to grow a little. This was, finally, good storytelling. Not just passable. Not just ok. Actively good. Arrow was born with its footing, and the storyline in the first season was terrific. The show had to change to accommodate the fantastical elements the became necessary when Flash was introduced as part of the same universe. Flash didn't find its footing until a few episodes in, but it was clearly and obviously planned from the start. I honestly think episode 8 is a turning point in the Supergirl series, though. It's the episode where the writers say "Thanks for sticking with us. Now let's have some real fun." Kudos. '

We're at Ned Beatty.

We did. I used it. And shockingly, it took a while for them to get it.