mymistake Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 My dog doesn't believe in gods. Is she an Atheist? Yes. Anything that doesn't believe in gods or have a religion is an atheist. And you don't need to capitalize a common word such as atheist. All dogs are technically atheist. All babies are atheists. Every believer is a former atheist. And of course your definition of Atheism depends on the definition of a god which itself is problematic. How about a fictional character created by humans which is said to have great magical powers? That seems to fit all the gods. Or to a believer, it fits all the gods but their personal favorite. I can give a very simple definition of Atheism. Atheism is the set of beliefs held by at least 90% of those who call themselves Atheists. That is the opposite of simple. Your ideas are needlessly complicated. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in the supernatural or superstition. By this definition, Atheism includes liberalism, feminism, and many other evils. You have failed to establish that any of those things are evil. You are bearing false witness. Isn't that a sin according to the Old Testament? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 He did not hold the insane views that most Atheists hold today. The Old Testament commands that you not bear false witness. How can you claim the Old Testament for your religion when you constantly bear false witness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Apologies for the misunderstanding. But my point still stands, and your point goes both ways. You don't get to define atheism either. What an atheist thinks, beyond not believing in gods, has nothing to do with the definition of atheism. Once you start talking about anything beyond the dictionary definition of atheism you are no longer talking about atheism. You start talking about an atheist, or group of atheists. We don't agree on everything. As far as the atheist umbrella is concerned, everyone is an individual undefined by those around them, the only thing that connects us, the only thing at all, as far as atheism is concerned, is that we don't believe in gods. What anyone, or group, decides to do beyond that, no longer concerns atheism. [Edit:] No matter how much anyone might want it to. You're a human male correct? Clearly we all agree on everything because we all have a penis. Right? Your definition of Atheism includes a much larger set than the set of those who consider themselves Atheists, so your definition is no good. My dog doesn't believe in gods. Is she an Atheist? What about Buddhists? In my link, you can see that they reject the Atheist label, but they don't believe in gods. And of course your definition of Atheism depends on the definition of a god which itself is problematic. Is a spirit a god? Is my interpretation of God a god by your definition? Your definition of Atheism is unworkable and doesn't match the set of people who actually call themselves Atheist. I can give a very simple definition of Atheism. Atheism is the set of beliefs held by at least 90% of those who call themselves Atheists. This is a definition grounded in reality. By this definition, Atheism includes liberalism, feminism, and many other evils. I'd say that yes, your dog is an atheist. Considering the kind of theism you present here, I have to say I can't blame her. Is a spirit a god? you ask. That's a hoot. Show me a spirit, as in show me that there is such a thing besides in a pep rally or the human will. I also have to wonder how many gods you don't believe in. I'd bet there are thousands. You are pushing some kind of religion you (or somebody like you) made up, and that is no different than any other man made religion. Without solid proof, your crap doesn't deserve any more consideration or respect than any of the others, and you have no proof. No evidence. Go buy a compound in Texas, genocide everyone with tats (at least in theory), and in general have yourself an idiotic good time! Meanwhile, Faceshit, I stand by the nickname I gave you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Like I said earlier in this thread, this one is full of himself and full of shit. Not worth the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOutsider Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 My brain is borked for the night, have a song. (To the tune of the song, add a fuck(for first in a row) me(second) every time you hear the horns. That's how I'm feeling right now...) I need sleep... And may Dread Lord Cthulhu torment fschmidt in his dreams for the rest of his life... I'm not feeling very kind right now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 My brain is borked for the night, have a song. (To the tune of the song, add a fuck(for first in a row) me(second) every time you hear the horns. That's how I'm feeling right now...) I need sleep... And may Dread Lord Cthulhu torment fschmidt in his dreams for the rest of his life... I'm not feeling very kind right now... No thanks, I just had a song. Why can't you sleep lately? Are you OK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha okay then... bunny... pancake, it's all I got folks Hahahahhaaaaa! You're awesome! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castiel233 Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 So your contention boils down to the following: 1) I find atheism distasteful. 2) Cultures generally become more atheistic as they move into decline. 3) We should all behave as if the correlation identified in #2 is a causal link, because I say so. I asked you for an argument justifying #3. Your failure to present one is noted. There is absolutely no way to prove a causal link in history because there is no way to conduct controlled experiments. Do you agree or disagree? If you agree, then why are you attacking me for failing to prove a causal link? If you disagree, I expect a full explanation. Assuming the above is true, how should a person go about choosing his ethics? As I said, morality is relative but that doesn't mean that morality can't be influenced by facts. I grew up with liberal atheist ethics which I now completely reject. This change came from both personal experience and studying history. As a person who greatly values culture and intellectual achievement, I couldn't possible accept ethics that correlate with cultural decline. Even without proof, I will generally prefer ethics that correlate with rising cultures. It is a pity that historians haven't paid more attention to the question of which ethics correlate with rising cultures. The only academic example that I am aware of is "Sex and Culture" by Unwin who was an anthropologist at Oxford. He asked the question of which behavioral characteristic most consistently correlates with cultural development, and he found that female premarital chastity is the answer. Since he was a liberal atheist, this quite upset him, but it fits perfectly with my natural views. I don't like to be uncharitable , but you are coming across like a drunk in the bar, who totally believes he is OK to drive and gets upset when the rest of us is trying to take his keys off him, for his own safety 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castiel233 Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 The whole idea that atheism is evil is laughable........ Atheists generally do not fly 747's into buildings, they don't strap bombs to themselves and blow up buses. Throughout history, they have not burnt witches, nor murdered women for having too many cats..... Followers of Judaism, Christianity and Islam on the other hand............... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yunea Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 What a thread. Correlation is not causation. If it were, we could say that firemen cause fire because they're so often seen at the scene when a building is burning. Or that old age can cause you to turn female because there are much more old females than there are old males. Feminism doesn't promote promiscuity. It promotes the idea that no one owns you or your sexuality except you. I am studying maths and physics myself and I see no similarities to religion at all. Mostly because especially in maths, it's very easy to prove things by myself, no need to take them on faith. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOutsider Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 My brain is borked for the night, have a song. [snip] (To the tune of the song, add a fuck(for first in a row) me(second) every time you hear the horns. That's how I'm feeling right now...) I need sleep... And may Dread Lord Cthulhu torment fschmidt in his dreams for the rest of his life... I'm not feeling very kind right now... No thanks, I just had a song. Why can't you sleep lately? Are you OK? Yeah, just really terrible sleeping habits is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Two things please, fschmidt. Could you please elaborate on how and why science is compatible with religion? Could you please say what your science education involved? Thanks, BAA. The compatibility of science and religion is a long topic. I will just give links to 2 of my articles: http://www.mikraite.org/God-for-Atheists-tp18.html This link goes to a page where we find the following statement. "The [Hebrew] Bible makes no demands of him [a skeptic] regarding belief." Sorry, but that's just false. Genesis 1 : 1 is either required to be accepted by faith (which a skeptic cannot give) or to be read as some kind of metaphor or allegory, because it cannot be read as a literal account of the origin of the universe. Since a skeptic is obliged to test everything, he will be obliged to choose between that which has been rigorously tested (the scientific explanation of the universe's origin) and that which does not lend itself to rigorous testing - a metaphorical/allegorical reading of the text. The skeptic will always choose what is testable and has been tested over what has not been, what cannot be or that which does not lend itself to rigorous testing. Thus, by a process of elimination, the skeptic will discard a faith-based reading of Genesis 1 : 1, will discard a metaphorical/allegorical reading and will discard a literal reading of it as well. None of these are acceptable to him because they fail his most basic requirement - that all things must be tested. Therefore, the claim on this page which reads, "...the Hebrew Bible is the most perfect book for the skeptic" must also be rejected as false. As demonstrated, a true skeptic could not make it past Genesis 1 : 1, ruling out the possibility that he would find the Hebrew bible to be the most perfect book for him. http://www.mikraite.org/Human-Evolution-tp17.html Note that the second article is written for a religious audience, but should be understandable by an intelligent Atheist. This intelligent atheist rejects the argument on that linked page, because fschmidt should never have made it. Having grown up around science, having a father who was a professor of physics, loving science, reading scientific American and many science books, majoring in math and having a fairly deep understanding of physics, chemistry and biology, fschmidt breaks the first rule of science by introducing the supernatural God of the OT as the causative agency in the natural phenomena of evolution. Science concerns itself only with investigation of the natural universe and must never invoke supernatural causes to explain any observed phenomenon, mechanism or process. Science never invokes the supernatural to explain anything. Period. Furthermore, this intelligent (and skeptical) atheist rejects the argument that evolution and the contents of the Hebrew bible are in anyway compatible. He does so for the very reason cited on the previous page. That a true skeptic must test everything. By invoking the supernatural to explain aspects of evolution, fschmidt puts these things beyond testing. By definition, the supernatural is beyond empirical testing. Therefore, since a true skeptic cannot accept what is untestable, said skeptic must reject the argument that the Hebrew bible and evolution are compatible. This argument is untestable. I grew up around science. My father was a professor of physics. Most conversation at my home revolved around science. I loved science then and I still love it today. I was a regular reader of Scientific American and I read many books about science. My university major was math, but I have a fairly deep understanding of all the hard sciences (physics, chemistry, and biology). (bumped for fschmidt's attention.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted October 17, 2015 Super Moderator Share Posted October 17, 2015 ...liberalism, feminism, and many other evils. Anyone remaining who doesn't think this is just a mega-troll? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Fschmidt mentioned that he is a reader of the Scientific American magazine. So am I. If he is disinclined to accept what I say about the incompatibility of science and religion, then perhaps he might accept what Michael (the Skeptic) Shermer has to say about it? http://www.scientificamerican.com/author/michael-shermer/ (also http://www.skeptic.com/) Or what SciAm's regular bloggers have to say about it? http://www.scientificamerican.com/author/caleb-a-scharf/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/author/dan-schlenoff/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/author/felicity-muth/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/author/seth-fletcher/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/author/kalliopi-monoyios/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/author/evelyn-lamb/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/author/dana-hunter/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/author/julie-hecht/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/author/darren-naish/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/author/john-r-platt/ . . . Or what these three scientists have to say about it? (He's already been in dialog with two of them.) http://www.ex-christian.net/user/20773-bhim/#.ViJQaH6rRD8 http://www.ex-christian.net/user/21021-roguescholar/#.ViJQoX6rRD8 http://www.ex-christian.net/user/21179-theredneckprofessor/#.ViJQ0X6rRD8 . . . Thanks, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOutsider Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 ...liberalism, feminism, and many other evils.Anyone remaining who doesn't think this is just a mega-troll? You know what, fuck it. I'm not going to try to refute that accusation anymore. I don't know what he is, but I still think troll isn't exactly the right term. At least trolls don't usually believe the shit they spew... If he does turn out to be a troll, my nonexistent god... I can't help but applaud the effort put into the charade, and the dedication to it all. It's beautiful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted October 17, 2015 Super Moderator Share Posted October 17, 2015 I don't know what he is, but I still think troll isn't exactly the right term. At least trolls don't usually believe the shit they spew... We can't know if he believes any of the silliness of his statements. Really, who could? If a troll, it's not your average troll, for sure. The trollish posts themselves, at least, are certainly designed to offend or rile anyone with an IQ in the double digits. Either way, there is something seriously wrong with this one. When everyone tires of responding to his insanity he will likely move on to a new audience to amaze and amuse. For now, the lions are still playing with their food, as non-nutritive as it may be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 In principle, no, nothing wrong with presenting all sides of an issue. However you're not presenting anything related to the definition of atheism, as atheism. You're presenting things your father believed, and expressed, and you are claiming that is atheism. When in reality what your father believed and expressed where simply the views of a single man that didn't believe any god/s exist, regardless of how prominent his atheism was to his identity, speaking for himself alone. Some of us may or may not agree with things he thought, or said, but not because either of us are atheists. He was not presenting anything inherently atheistic, besides not believing god/s exist. Anything beyond that are his own personal views. You built a straw man of atheism, based on what your father thought. And you're doing what anyone that builds a straw man inevitably does, and burning it. Your presentation of atheism is consistently wrong, and as of yet you seem to be unwilling to correct it. The moment you try to define atheism as anything more then not believing any god/s exist, you are simply wrong. Stop being wrong, at least about this. Actually my father was far better than modern Atheists. He did not hold the insane views that most Atheists hold today. If he had, I would have rejected Atheism far earlier when I was growing up. In fact I rejected Atheism based on the kind of Atheists one finds in forums like this one. You can define Atheism however you want, but that doesn't make your definition true. North Korea may call itself "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea" but that doesn't make it democratic or a republic. The true definition of a group is what actually describes that group, not how they choose to describe themselves. I have more about Atheism here: http://www.mikraite.org/Atheism-tp103.html What truly describes a group and how they describe themselves need not be mutually exclusive conditions. Asserting that they are is committing the informal logical fallacy of a false dilemma (aka false dichotomy). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Apologies for the misunderstanding. But my point still stands, and your point goes both ways. You don't get to define atheism either. What an atheist thinks, beyond not believing in gods, has nothing to do with the definition of atheism. Once you start talking about anything beyond the dictionary definition of atheism you are no longer talking about atheism. You start talking about an atheist, or group of atheists. We don't agree on everything. As far as the atheist umbrella is concerned, everyone is an individual undefined by those around them, the only thing that connects us, the only thing at all, as far as atheism is concerned, is that we don't believe in gods. What anyone, or group, decides to do beyond that, no longer concerns atheism. [Edit:] No matter how much anyone might want it to. You're a human male correct? Clearly we all agree on everything because we all have a penis. Right? Your definition of Atheism includes a much larger set than the set of those who consider themselves Atheists, so your definition is no good. My dog doesn't believe in gods. Is she an Atheist? What about Buddhists? In my link, you can see that they reject the Atheist label, but they don't believe in gods. And of course your definition of Atheism depends on the definition of a god which itself is problematic. Is a spirit a god? Is my interpretation of God a god by your definition? Your definition of Atheism is unworkable and doesn't match the set of people who actually call themselves Atheist. I can give a very simple definition of Atheism. Atheism is the set of beliefs held by at least 90% of those who call themselves Atheists. This is a definition grounded in reality. By this definition, Atheism includes liberalism, feminism, and many other evils. 85,9 % of statistics are made up on the spot. This assertion (like the highlighted one above) can be summarily dismissed because both are unsupported by independently verified sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted October 17, 2015 Super Moderator Share Posted October 17, 2015 I think this guy doesn't really believe most of what he says; he only believes he believes it. That's actually a worrisome thought. Otherwise rational people often do insanely irrational things, not because of what they believe, but because of what they believe they believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOutsider Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 I don't know what he is, but I still think troll isn't exactly the right term. At least trolls don't usually believe the shit they spew... We can't know if he believes any of the silliness he statements. Really, who could? If a troll, it's not your average troll, for sure. The trollish posts themselves, at least, are certainly designed to offend or rile anyone with an IQ in the double digits. Either way, there is something seriously wrong with this one. When everyone tires of responding to his insanity he will likely move on to a new audience to amaze and amuse. For now, the lions are still playing with their food, as non-nutritive as it may be. True, we can't really know anything about him, or what he actually believes. Only what he presents in public. And either way he's a sick individual, hopefully he doesn't end up doing too much damage to the lives of others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disillusioned Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 So your contention boils down to the following: 1) I find atheism distasteful. 2) Cultures generally become more atheistic as they move into decline. 3) We should all behave as if the correlation identified in #2 is a causal link, because I say so. I asked you for an argument justifying #3. Your failure to present one is noted. There is absolutely no way to prove a causal link in history because there is no way to conduct controlled experiments. Do you agree or disagree? If you agree, then why are you attacking me for failing to prove a causal link? If you disagree, I expect a full explanation. Assuming the above is true, how should a person go about choosing his ethics? As I said, morality is relative but that doesn't mean that morality can't be influenced by facts. I grew up with liberal atheist ethics which I now completely reject. This change came from both personal experience and studying history. As a person who greatly values culture and intellectual achievement, I couldn't possible accept ethics that correlate with cultural decline. Even without proof, I will generally prefer ethics that correlate with rising cultures. It is a pity that historians haven't paid more attention to the question of which ethics correlate with rising cultures. The only academic example that I am aware of is "Sex and Culture" by Unwin who was an anthropologist at Oxford. He asked the question of which behavioral characteristic most consistently correlates with cultural development, and he found that female premarital chastity is the answer. Since he was a liberal atheist, this quite upset him, but it fits perfectly with my natural views. I did not ask you for proof, I asked you for an argument. Your failure to present one is very telling. Look, I agree that you can't, strictly speaking, prove anything in history. But historians make all kinds of convincing arguments all the time. If they didn't, they wouldn't have jobs. Now, you're probably not an historian, so perhaps you are not equipped to construct the argument that I'm asking for. But if this is the case, then you should refrain from making objective claims such as the one that I identified in 3) above. You came here and asserted that atheism is evil. On further investigation, it turns out that what you really mean is that you don't like it very much. Fine. I'll let that one slide. But you also made an objective claim about the role that atheism has played in history. And you did not present any justification for this claim. When I asked you for justification (not proof), and expressed my skepticism that you would be able to provide it, you called me arrogant, and then admitted that you have no such justification. Despite this, you continue to contend that everyone should agree with you, for no apparent reason. Which of us is being arrogant here? yunea has pointed out above (post #210) that correlation and causation are not the same thing. You seem happy enough to admit this, yet you still maintain that we should rather adhere to ethics which correlate with rising cultures than to those which correlate with declining cultures. By this kind of reasoning, we could similarly arrive at the conclusion that since old people generally have more money saved than children, we should choose the financial plan which correlates with youth, and throw our caution and savings to the wind. Surely I don't need to convince you that this would not be sound financial advice. Similarly, I see no reason to accept your conclusions about rejecting atheism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 You're OK with genocide, but not with tats? Seems reasonable. To you. I'll look for you in the news someday. Yes and I am particularly OK with the genocide of those with tats. However, I am sorry to disappoint you, but I probably won't make the news since I have no plans to be personally involved with genocide. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deidre Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 As Christians often do, you make up your own senses of words and then argue from premises based on them. Few will agree that a mature system of ethics is what you describe. Are you intending to be funny, or did you do this by accident? I mean clearly you must be redefining the word "mature" because no system of ethics on earth is more mature than that of the Old Testament since none is older. Um...spirituality, religion, etc...and a moral 'code' didn't begin and end with the OT. As a Christian, you should know this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deidre Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 You're OK with genocide, but not with tats? Seems reasonable. To you. I'll look for you in the news someday. Yes and I am particularly OK with the genocide of those with tats. However, I am sorry to disappoint you, but I probably won't make the news since I have no plans to be personally involved with genocide. I'm starting to think he is a 'troll' as well. Never have been very good at detecting trolls myself, but... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator TrueFreedom Posted October 17, 2015 Moderator Share Posted October 17, 2015 * finds annoying troll mildly irritating**hopes for something more interesting* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts