>>It's not my classification<<

>>It is a term that has been in common usage for a while.<<

One which you're only too happy to adopt. Labelling people New Atheists or True Atheists or Orthodox Atheists or Atheists of the First Definitely Not a Church of Definitely Not a Saint Pericles seems silly and needlessly divisive: it's only going to help foster intolerance. How is that a good thing? But I see you're happy to run with the idea. That strikes me as the action of a man is spoiling for a schism.

>>You are probably right in your conclusion, though.<<

I am definitely right for I have seen the future: it was on South Park. I can therefore say with complete certainty that fostering schisms amongst the atheist community is a very bad idea.

>>tell me out of this section that you quote, which bits are inaccurate?<<

This bit:

>>Religion has attempted to keep women as a second class, it denies homosexuals equality, it prevents effective sex-education for the young, it encourages a them and us mentality, it would like to control women's fertility, it is against stem-cell research, it prevents the vast population who wants the ability to end it all if the pain is unbearable<<

I'm a theist: I'm pretty sure my faith hasn't done any of those things let alone try. It should read more like this:

Some religion has attempted to keep women as a second class, some religion denies homosexuals equality, some religion prevents effective sex-education for the young, some religion encourages a them and us mentality, some religion would like to control women's fertility, some religion is against stem-cell research, some religion prevents the vast population who wants the ability to end it all if the pain is unbearable.

Some religion does not. Many religious people are tolerant, open-minded and liberal in their philosophies. Some atheists are not. It seems to me that religion doesn't necessarily have a lot to do with being a narrow-minded dick. Chris: are you sure you're really against religion? Maybe you're just against narrow-minded dickery.

Cheers,

Tony

it just sounds so counter-intuative..[pureoh]

quote/..""if you feel gravity's influence,
you must be accelerating.""

and that is cause that is wrong
its not 'you'..accelorating..but the electons etc orbiting arround the atom...[each acting by a centrifical force]..much like a unicycle[time quadrillians[if not googliians of atoms..making up you[or any thing!

weight it trilions of centrifical forces
from the bits orbiting the atom

these bits...may lead to the string theory
[that i combined with the ball lightening factoid]

""...Einstein was able to invoke..the equivalence principle to profound effect""

thanks[will look into that''principle'.]
''Since gravity..and acceleration are equivalent,""

it still sounds wrong
there has to be a better word

""Einstein understood that gravity itself.must be nothing but warps and curves in the fabric of spacetime.""

i try to visualise words as i read
spacetime..is an absurdity[it cant be conmstant..thus has no place in science as definitive anything[lert alone a measure of space or time

""Of equal importance""

why?

""since general relativity..specifies the detailed mechanism
by which gravity works,it provides a mathematical framework for determining..how fast it transmits its influence.""

oh dear its getting complicate
are you refering to air soil/vacume..'resistance factors..
frictions..atominc omnipolar..perpetual motion's of electrons/neutrons etc?

.. The speed of transmission""

of what..[generally relitive..;gravity?]
comes down,,to the question of how fast..the shape of space can change..""[what space//air pace..mud space..vacume space]

what is
''the shape..of space..[lol]..in time.''?

say a ball falling..[or a feather falling
it falls by moving through*..whatever..till it cant fall*..no more

think like a nuke melt down
or liquifacation...[osmosis like affect..its a main life principle]

""That is,..how quickly can warps/ripples...
race from place to place..through space.""

the waves..of whatever..was displaced
slapping back..to where they were

[intresting point]..at atomic level..
each sepperate molicule..rotates..within its place..
bumping into its others..a knock-on affect..of action/reaction..

as that displaced
seeks to resume..its rightfull place..[as spsce]

?""He found..that warps/ripples=gravity""

waves?
see waves..isnt any prime'cause'..

its affect..[re-action..[of a motion/type..
that determins..the re-action..affect

""gravities warps/ripples..do not travel..from place to place instantaneously,..as they do..in Newtonian calculations..of gravity.""

Instead..they travel..at exactly the speed of light...fully in keeping..with the speed limit..set by relativity...."

im suss..on them last two statements
but said..too/much..allready

what proof?

OUG,

I'm not a scientist, which is why I was quoting Brian Greene from his book "The Fabric of the Cosmos".

Regarding acceleration and our conscious experience of the equivalence between gravity and acceleration. In the book he gives the example of moving in a car. Ordinarily we aren't aware that we are hurtling through space and time on our planet - because we are accelerating at a "constant" speed. If, for instance, you are travelling in a car at a constant speed there would no noticeable feeling of acceleration if you couldn't look out the window and notice the objects you are passing - yet if you speed up, slow down or turn a corner, you feel the impact of the change in acceleration. turning a corner you feel the effect in being pressed to one side - speeding up, you are pressed back in your seat.

Regarding gravity travelling at the speed of light. Greene uses the analogy about what would happen if suddenly the moon was to disappear: - "...Newton's law predicts that the water would start to recede from high tide because of the loss of the moon's gravitational pull, about a second and a half 'before you saw the moon disappear from the sky'...instantaneously....Yet, since it takes light a second and a half to travel the quarter million miles between the moon and the earth, you wouldn't immediately see that the moon had disappeared. For a second and a half it would seem that the tides were receding from a moon that was still shining...." Einstein's theory found that if [for example] the moon disappeared, "...the tides would recede a second and a half later, at exactly the same moment we'd see that the moon had vanished...."

'...schisms among the atheist community.' Now we are a formal community?

There are already schisms because atheists are human beings first and are not a homogenous group in the same way Christians cannot agree and the result is thousands of different denominations.

Do some atheists really feel it is necessary to go around pushing atheism just because they simply don't have a belief in the supernatural.

I dont' speak for atheism and certainly don't perceive atheists as a part of a community separate from any other community. Haven't we all had enough of proselytising?

Sure why not have atheist gatherings of the like-minded but what is the purpose of 'officialising' it with government grants and formal conventions. You are of course free to do so and I suppose given the governments largesse in funding religion why NOT the atheists.

It seems contradictory though given secularists have argued to keep personal beliefs private and for the home, and rally against undue influence on governments.

Theists and non-theists alike cannot have it both ways in arguing for bans against interference from governments but then wishing, by contrast, to have undue influence on governments.

Given that is one of the biggest criticisms of theism coming from the Atheist Foundation it seems hypocritical to then mirror that behaviour or sense of entitlement.

pureoh/quote''..or turn a corner,..you feel the impact..
of the change in acceleration...you feel the effect""

impact?
affect?

its a law...that a mass in motion seeks to continue..on its line
untill an equal or oppisite force stops it..

[usually,,by some form of friction]
or,,*containment[like ball lightening/matter]...
or missdirection like a force that pushes[resists]..its forward motion..enough to force a partial change of imputus
""in being pressed to one side
you are pressed back in your seat.""

action/reaction
the force is affecting your body mass motion

""Regarding gravity
travelling at the speed of light.""

thats pure bull

gravity..is an affect of the light
mass is 'containment'..of the light

""you saw the moon disappear..from the sky'...instantaneously....""

but its mass must still have its affect

think like a darkmoon
its trickery

wordspin

not science theory?

""Yet,since it takes light a second and a half
to travel the quarter million miles between the moon and the earth, you wouldn't immediately see...that the moon had disappeared.""

but you know its affect
mass is still there[cause mass is subject to FRICTIONS

...." Einstein's theory found..that if[for example]
the moon disappeared,"...

MASS CANT "DISAPPEAR"
YET ITS LIGHT REFRACTION CAN

but NOT its MASS[E=mc2]
E=mass[entraped light]

think..""the tides would recede a second and a half later,
at exactly the same moment..we'd see that the moon had vanished...."

wait twenty8..days following a full moon..[0]
lol
[.]

test HIS theory*
gravity aint light
its an affect[quality]..of the light

E=el

Pelican, I would go along with the point you make - if people with a secular or atheist outlook were not copping the rough end of the pineapple. They have been getting that from pushy proseltysing religions for generations, and the push is not subsiding. I doubt if Dawkins et al would be making a peep about the pulpit if aggressive religion was not running down his genes.