Total Posts:102|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Devout Atheists

wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2010 10:08:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The following is a satirical remake of:
http://www.debate.org...

Sorry if this offends anyone but from my limited exposure to devout atheists I have found the following tendencies.

1: Arrogance, usually to a high degree
2: Ignorance, usually to a nauseating degree
3: A blunt, often purposeful misinterpretation of scripture
4: A tendency to be close-minded in discussion
5: A reliance on non-applicable similes
6: A history of drug use
7: A habit of self-promotion
8: The blind determination and hard-headedness of an elderly man
9: A tendency to make broad generalizations about theists

I am beginning to wonder if many of them suffer from some sort of classifiable personality disorder?
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2010 10:12:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/8/2010 10:08:41 PM, wjmelements wrote:
The following is a satirical remake of:
http://www.debate.org...

At least his were generally true.
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2010 10:21:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/8/2010 10:08:41 PM, wjmelements wrote:
The following is a satirical remake of:
http://www.debate.org...

Sorry if this offends anyone but from my limited exposure to devout atheists I have found the following tendencies.

1: Arrogance, usually to a high degree

Warranted.

2: Ignorance, usually to a nauseating degree

Sometimes.

3: A blunt, often purposeful misinterpretation of scripture

Far from it. Christians are the ones who pick and choose what to follow from the Bible, while simultaneously claiming that it's the infallible word of God. If that were so, there would be no need to dismiss or ignore certain verses.

4: A tendency to be close-minded in discussion

Sometimes.

5: A reliance on non-applicable similes

??

6: A history of drug use

??

7: A habit of self-promotion

Not really a bad thing.

8: The blind determination and hard-headedness of an elderly man

I prefer militant atheists rather than passive atheists.

9: A tendency to make broad generalizations about theists

This is a misconception. Atheists attack the extreme beliefs of the Bible, and assume that all believers follow the entire Bible. It's those, cherry-picking luke-warm Christians who cry out that they're being grouped with extreme Christians. Sorry to say, but the Bible is extreme, and if you're not extreme, you're probably not following the Bible.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2010 10:42:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/8/2010 10:40:27 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
lol, how can one be a "devout atheist" when Atheism isn't a religious belief, but rather the lack of religious belief?

I think he might mean so-called strong atheists ("I believe there is no god") as opposed to so-called weak atheists (I don't believe in a god"). I think that's the distinction?
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2010 11:05:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
9: A tendency to make broad generalizations about theists

This is a misconception. Atheists attack the extreme beliefs of the Bible, and assume that all believers follow the entire Bible. It's those, cherry-picking luke-warm Christians who cry out that they're being grouped with extreme Christians. Sorry to say, but the Bible is extreme, and if you're not extreme, you're probably not following the Bible.

Nine was a direct reference to http://www.debate.org...
Nothing more.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
omelet
Posts: 416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2010 11:23:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/8/2010 10:08:41 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Sorry if this offends anyone
Of course you are.

1: Arrogance, usually to a high degree
Arrogance is not necessarily a bad thing. When I know I am justified in a belief and someone else is unjustified in theirs, I have no problem being arrogant about my position.

2: Ignorance, usually to a nauseating degree
Ignorance of what, your scriptures? Should we be required to read all scripture from people claiming they have divinely inspired words? I think not.

3: A blunt, often purposeful misinterpretation of scripture
Sometimes, perhaps. The fact that this is possible shows just how faulty scripture really is. Often my own point when I do this is that scripture can be interpreted to mean whatever.

Of course, there's plenty that need not be interpreted. Plenty of injustice, plenty of scientific falsehoods, plenty of contradictions.

4: A tendency to be close-minded in discussion
Not being swayed by your appeals to "just believe" does not constitute closed-mindedness. Most atheists would be convinced if you were able to produce a rationally well-grounded and persuasive argument for God. It just happens that such arguments are usually based on fallacies and dubious assumptions.

5: A reliance on non-applicable similes
I don't think you realize what similes are. For instance, if I say "Jesus is like santa claus for adults," I don't mean that the two are equivalent in every way. Usually, a simile is only making a statement about one or two common attributes of the two objects - in this case, it might be the fact that both are imaginary characters used by those in authority to control the behavior of the masses.

6: A history of drug use
I have not noticed this. I personally have no such history. Of the five or so "devout" atheists I know, I would say one of them has a history of drug use. Perhaps your data are a bit more convincing.

7: A habit of self-promotion
So?

8: The blind determination and hard-headedness of an elderly man
"Anyone who doesn't agree with my faith-based reasoning is blind and hard-headed."
That sounds pretty modest of you.
omelet
Posts: 416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2010 11:40:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/8/2010 11:38:28 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
...because attacking your opponents is--of course--the best way to convince people.

Nice job assuming convincing people was the point.
Don't you know that the point of debating in general is to gain a smug sense of superiority?
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2010 11:43:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/8/2010 11:40:52 PM, omelet wrote:
At 1/8/2010 11:38:28 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
...because attacking your opponents is--of course--the best way to convince people.

Nice job assuming convincing people was the point.
Don't you know that the point of debating in general is to gain a smug sense of superiority?

My mistake. Continue on. Don't mind me. My apologies.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2010 12:04:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
The Fundamentalist Atheist

What are they?
FA's are people educated enough to be cynical about religion, yet not intelligent enough to understand science and philosophy, as a result they unwittingly view the world with a modus that is essentially identical to a religious person. As the doors to religion are denied them by their arrogant cynicism they embrace science, and like any good fundamentalists, be they Christians, Jews and Muslims the religion they adopt is entirely of their own creation.

Or to put it another war, they are just intelligent enough to realise that they are not as intelligent as they would like to be, as people of a primarily 'nerdy' disposition this deficiency gives them a deep seated inferiority complex. By adopting opinions and views that they do not quite understand but they know are associated with intelligence and/or anti-religion (the latter they assume to be intelligent) they are able to construct a self-empowering religion for themselves.

How to spot them?
1: They are unable to construct arguments for evolution, despite believing in it with religious fervour.
2: They will generally fixate their attacks on the religion most relevant to their culture and extrapolate from there. This is simply because they do not have the education to know much about other faiths, and do not have the intelligence to construct objective arguments.
3: They attacks on religion will generally consist of the same questions that religious people asked their parents and/or Sunday school teacher when they were seven years old. The difference being an FA will not listen to the reply.

e.g.
Atheist: How can evil exist if God is good?
Translation: I have singlehandedly destroyed Christianity by demonstrating a logical paradox for which there is no possible rebuttal or counter-argument thus proving my superiority.

4: They will constantly appeal to notions such scientific consensus as if that meant scientific fact.
5: They do not understand nor get the scientific method.
6: They feel a need to preach, and fail to understand the similarity between this and religious preaching.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2010 12:21:00 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/9/2010 12:04:15 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
2: They will generally fixate their attacks on the religion most relevant to their culture and extrapolate from there. This is simply because they do not have the education to know much about other faiths, and do not have the intelligence to construct objective arguments.

Well, this has to do with the fact that atheists don't intrinsically dislike Christians, just as citizens don't dislike politicians for their existing. Citizens dislike politicians because their existence--and more particularly, their actions--affect their liberties and freedom. Similarly, most atheists in the Western world concentrate on Christianity, because Christianity affects them most--through the laws and politics of government.

I'll put it another way. If the beliefs of Christians didn't affect atheists, I doubt most atheists would care.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
MikeLoviN
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2010 12:43:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/8/2010 10:21:58 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/8/2010 10:08:41 PM, wjmelements wrote:
9: A tendency to make broad generalizations about theists

This is a misconception. Atheists attack the extreme beliefs of the Bible, and assume that all believers follow the entire Bible. It's those, cherry-picking luke-warm Christians who cry out that they're being grouped with extreme Christians. Sorry to say, but the Bible is extreme, and if you're not extreme, you're probably not following the Bible.

And??

This is the point that I take issue with. This notion that says "If you say you're a Christian, then you must believe every word of the Bible because Christian doctrine is based on the Bible and therefore Christianity and all its 'followers' can be completely characterized by any particular verse(s) I randomly decide to cite to further my position. Furthermore, if you tell me that these citations are out of context or are somehow irrelevant, then you are not really a Christian and I'm not talking to you, so you shouldn't be offended."

The way I see it is that atheists need this generalization for their attacks to hold any glimmer of credibility. If along comes a 'Christian' who isn't a fundamentalist, they suddenly have a much harder time portraying Christianity in a bad light. At best you could argue against the existence of God, which in itself does absolutely nothing to portray Christianity as 'evil' or whatever the hell you want to call it.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2010 1:03:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/9/2010 12:43:51 AM, MikeLoviN wrote:
At 1/8/2010 10:21:58 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/8/2010 10:08:41 PM, wjmelements wrote:
9: A tendency to make broad generalizations about theists

This is a misconception. Atheists attack the extreme beliefs of the Bible, and assume that all believers follow the entire Bible. It's those, cherry-picking luke-warm Christians who cry out that they're being grouped with extreme Christians. Sorry to say, but the Bible is extreme, and if you're not extreme, you're probably not following the Bible.

And??

This is the point that I take issue with. This notion that says "If you say you're a Christian, then you must believe every word of the Bible because Christian doctrine is based on the Bible

Christianity is defined by the Bible. I don't understand why you object to this. And the Bible requires that Christians follow every word of the Bible.

"If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD" - Deuteronomy 28:58

and therefore Christianity and all its 'followers' can be completely characterized by any particular verse(s) I randomly decide to cite to further my position. Furthermore, if you tell me that these citations are out of context or are somehow irrelevant, then you are not really a Christian and I'm not talking to you, so you shouldn't be offended."

The way I see it is that atheists need this generalization for their attacks to hold any glimmer of credibility. If along comes a 'Christian' who isn't a fundamentalist, they suddenly have a much harder time portraying Christianity in a bad light. At best you could argue against the existence of God

Ever heard of Deism? You somehow confuse Deism with Christianity, and assume that people who believe in God are Christians (it appears that you implied that). I know Dawkins even mentioned that Deism is worthy of debate, whereas Theism (Christianity) is not. Most Theist apologists and debaters can't even defend Christianity. They think that by using cosmological arguments for God, somehow think that it proves Christianity. However, Deism =/= Christianity. Biblical theology = Christianity.

I find it laughable that you think Christians who don't follow the Bible, are more equipped to defend Christianity than fundamentalists. If anything, those luke-warm Christians, who take the Bible metaphorically, could make better arguments for Atheism than Christianity. Why? Because they obviously reject Christian theology for certain reasons.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2010 1:07:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/9/2010 12:43:51 AM, MikeLoviN wrote:
The way I see it is that atheists need this generalization for their attacks to hold any glimmer of credibility. If along comes a 'Christian' who isn't a fundamentalist, they suddenly have a much harder time portraying Christianity in a bad light. At best you could argue against the existence of God, which in itself does absolutely nothing to portray Christianity as 'evil' or whatever the hell you want to call it.

Hey now, Geo doesn't represent, and apparently barely knows, what atheists do and do not think. I mean, if there is one thing Geo isn't, its an atheist. So don't nitpick his response and generalize it right back - it hurts my feelings.

Anyways, as an atheist I have no problem per se with established religion. I mostly see it as the most logical expression of human angst about reality, life and the unknown, which is perfectly sensible in a lot of ways. I don't see religion condoning any more horrific massacres and immoral acts than what would be expected of any human society or culture. People like Geo use religion as a scapegoat for human nature, in order to elevate themselves above others as some sort of example of morality, which is another common act of human nature. Its ridiculous, and it doesn't represent atheist views.

I agree with PoeJoe for sure; most atheists don't care about religion, as long as it doesn't start infringing on their lives. Most Christians themselves think the same way. If people could simply stress that, instead of the fanatics, then maybe we'd be a little better off, aye.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2010 1:11:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/9/2010 12:04:15 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:


e.g.
Atheist: How can evil exist if God is good?
Translation: I have singlehandedly destroyed Christianity by demonstrating a logical paradox for which there is no possible rebuttal or counter-argument thus proving my superiority.


Yeah, Yeah... we concluded the Christian God isn't, by your
definition "good".
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2010 1:12:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/9/2010 1:03:06 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/9/2010 12:43:51 AM, MikeLoviN wrote:
At 1/8/2010 10:21:58 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/8/2010 10:08:41 PM, wjmelements wrote:
9: A tendency to make broad generalizations about theists

This is a misconception. Atheists attack the extreme beliefs of the Bible, and assume that all believers follow the entire Bible. It's those, cherry-picking luke-warm Christians who cry out that they're being grouped with extreme Christians. Sorry to say, but the Bible is extreme, and if you're not extreme, you're probably not following the Bible.

And??

This is the point that I take issue with. This notion that says "If you say you're a Christian, then you must believe every word of the Bible because Christian doctrine is based on the Bible

Christianity is defined by the Bible. I don't understand why you object to this. And the Bible requires that Christians follow every word of the Bible.

"If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD" - Deuteronomy 28:58

and therefore Christianity and all its 'followers' can be completely characterized by any particular verse(s) I randomly decide to cite to further my position. Furthermore, if you tell me that these citations are out of context or are somehow irrelevant, then you are not really a Christian and I'm not talking to you, so you shouldn't be offended."

The way I see it is that atheists need this generalization for their attacks to hold any glimmer of credibility. If along comes a 'Christian' who isn't a fundamentalist, they suddenly have a much harder time portraying Christianity in a bad light. At best you could argue against the existence of God

Ever heard of Deism? You somehow confuse Deism with Christianity, and assume that people who believe in God are Christians (it appears that you implied that). I know Dawkins even mentioned that Deism is worthy of debate, whereas Theism (Christianity) is not. Most Theist apologists and debaters can't even defend Christianity. They think that by using cosmological arguments for God, somehow think that it proves Christianity. However, Deism =/= Christianity. Biblical theology = Christianity.

I find it laughable that you think Christians who don't follow the Bible, are more equipped to defend Christianity than fundamentalists. If anything, those luke-warm Christians, who take the Bible metaphorically, could make better arguments for Atheism than Christianity. Why? Because they obviously reject Christian theology for certain reasons.

An exception being the 3 Jesus changed/"refined".
'sup DDO -- july 2013
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2010 1:27:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/9/2010 1:07:06 AM, Volkov wrote:
Hey now, Geo doesn't represent, and apparently barely knows, what atheists do and do not think. I mean, if there is one thing Geo isn't, its an atheist. So don't nitpick his response and generalize it right back - it hurts my feelings.

You're right, I'm not an Atheist, nor do I represent them.

Anyways, as an atheist I have no problem per se with established religion. I mostly see it as the most logical expression of human angst about reality, life and the unknown, which is perfectly sensible in a lot of ways.

You and I both know that's not true.

I don't see religion condoning any more horrific massacres and immoral acts than what would be expected of any human society or culture.

Oh really? Would you expect an enlightened society of philosophers, PhDs, and people of reason committing massacres and immoral acts? I think not!

People like Geo use religion as a scapegoat for human nature,

Religion is NOT, should NOT, and NEVER will be part of human nature. I don't use religion as an excuse for human nature. You have a bias against human nature and have no problem assuming religion is part of it. You view religion as the stupidity of human nature (though it kind of contradicts what you said earlier, but this is what you imply), while I view religion as a poison that infects human nature, not something that is inherent within it.

in order to elevate themselves above others as some sort of example of morality,

No. I am against religion because really, it's a tragedy. As David Icke said, "Religion is the greatest form of mind control." And as everyone knows, I am against any and all forms of control, especially mind control. I know that a world populated by critically minded, enlightened, philosophically aware, and scientifically inclined people of reason, would be much better than the disastrous society we have now predominantly populated by religious people.

It has nothing to do with "elevating myself as an example of morality."

which is another common act of human nature.

There you go, condemning human nature again.

Its ridiculous, and it doesn't represent atheist views.

I can guarantee you, it represents the leaders of the "Atheist movement" (Dawkins, Hitchins, and Harris), and thus, I'd imagine many others (though not all) share similar views. My views on religion are just as harsh as Hitchins and Dawkins, in fact, they're two of my influences.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2010 1:51:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/9/2010 1:27:18 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
You and I both know that's not true.

I think its very true. Before secular society and science, what else did humanity have? Religion is the manifest of authority, of answers, and of structure to life and reality. Its simply how humans work - we need answers, and we will find any way to get them, even if it means making them up.

Oh really? Would you expect an enlightened society of philosophers, PhDs, and people of reason committing massacres and immoral acts? I think not!

But Geo - there is no such society. There will never be such a society. That rests in some sort of dreamland, alongside with "peaceful anarchy." We're all bigoted freaks who hate our neighbors. The only thing stopping us is the authority we follow, which makes religion such an obvious man-made thing - it has the marks of regional authorities and law which manifest themselves dependent upon the different situations cultures are in. There is a reason why the OT rabbles on about the Moabites and Assyrians - Israel as subjugated by these empires in the past!

Religion is NOT, should NOT, and NEVER will be part of human nature. I don't use religion as an excuse for human nature. You have a bias against human nature and have no problem assuming religion is part of it. You view religion as the stupidity of human nature (though it kind of contradicts what you said earlier, but this is what you imply), while I view religion as a poison that infects human nature, not something that is inherent within it.

But it is, lol. It fills the same gap that secular society and authority does, just based on divine law and guidance, instead of rule of law and democracy. The only difference lies in how they decide to derive their legitimacy's and how it manifests itself. Religion isn't a poison - its just humanity's way of reconciling with itself.

No. I am against religion because really, it's a tragedy. As David Icke said, "Religion is the greatest form of mind control." And as everyone knows, I am against any and all forms of control, especially mind control. I know that a world populated by critically minded, enlightened, philosophically aware, and scientifically inclined people of reason, would be much better than the disastrous society we have now predominantly populated by religious people.

Can you prove this assertion? Can you prove that the "enlightened" will somehow bring humanity more peace than it has now? Is it only because they're "enlightened"? Thats a fallacy, I believe.

Let me ask you this, Geo: Do you watch South Park? Ever seen that episode where Cartman is essentially a Buck Rogers imitator? If you haven't, I suggest you do. It'll explain a lot.

It has nothing to do with "elevating myself as an example of morality."

So why do you constantly cast down the religious, even though many are apart of the "enlightened" you speak of, including scholars, scientists, and leaders, who are quite inclined to peace and progress?

There you go, condemning human nature again.

I'm not condemning human nature - I'm exposing it.

I can guarantee you, it represents the leaders of the "Atheist movement" (Dawkins, Hitchins, and Harris), and thus, I'd imagine many others (though not all) share similar views. My views on religion are just as harsh as Hitchins and Dawkins, in fact, they're two of my influences.

Hitchens and Dawkins are great, to be sure. In fact, they were my original sources of inspiration as well. But, to call them "atheist leaders" is quite silly. Atheism has no "movement," it has no "leaders." Those that claim to be are either trying to gain attention, or are corrupting what it means to be an atheist. It isn't about creating some "enlightened" world, populated with "Brights" and other assorted nonsense. Its about your beliefs, and how you choose to reconcile them, and live in the world.

Read some Paglia, or some Wright. They understand.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2010 2:25:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/9/2010 1:51:50 AM, Volkov wrote:
Before secular society and science, what else did humanity have? Religion is the manifest of authority,

There's your answer.

of answers, and of structure to life and reality. Its simply how humans work - we need answers, and we will find any way to get them, even if it means making them up.

Look at religious doctrines. Do you really think that those were attempts at philosophy and science? Or perhaps, your first notion was correct. The manifest of authority. I mean, just look at my signature. Napolean Bonaparte, who tried to take over the world, stated that religion is excellent for keeping the common people quiet. Constantine actually admits that he had a vision that he would rule using Christianity. Him and his Council of Nicea COMPILED THE BIBLE and he didn't even believe in it! He was a life-long pagan!

But Geo - there is no such society. There will never be such a society. That rests in some sort of dreamland, alongside with "peaceful anarchy."

If we keep thinking like that, we won't ever have the intent to achieve it.

We're all bigoted freaks who hate our neighbors. The only thing stopping us is the authority we follow,

Speak for yourself.

which makes religion such an obvious man-made thing - it has the marks of regional authorities and law which manifest themselves dependent upon the different situations cultures are in. There is a reason why the OT rabbles on about the Moabites and Assyrians - Israel as subjugated by these empires in the past!

No disagreement there.

But it is, lol. It fills the same gap that secular society and authority does, just based on divine law and guidance, instead of rule of law and democracy.

I'm opposed to all forms of authority, whether secular or religious. However, I don't think it's fair to automatically associate the rule of law and democracy with secularism. I think politics and religion are very much linked together.

The only difference lies in how they decide to derive their legitimacy's and how it manifests itself.

Religion isn't a poison - its just humanity's way of reconciling with itself.

Hitchins wrote an entire book about how religion is a poison.

Can you prove this assertion?

It's self-evident. An enlightened society is not brutal, barbaric, and violent. I mean, really it would go against the definition of enlightened.

Can you prove that the "enlightened" will somehow bring humanity more peace than it has now?

Like I said, you probably wouldn't call a barbaric, violent society an enlightened one.

Is it only because they're "enlightened"? Thats a fallacy, I believe.

Not one I've ever heard. It's a pretty reasonable notion if you ask me. And, if you would, think if a society was populated by a bunch of Volkovs, would it be violent and barbaric? lol.

Let me ask you this, Geo: Do you watch South Park? Ever seen that episode where Cartman is essentially a Buck Rogers imitator? If you haven't, I suggest you do. It'll explain a lot.

Watch it sometimes, never seen that episode though.

So why do you constantly cast down the religious, even though many are apart of the "enlightened" you speak of, including scholars, scientists, and leaders, who are quite inclined to peace and progress?

People like Francis Collins are in the minority, and people like that are probably well on their way to abandoning religion. They're not enlightened because of religion, but probably hindered it.

I'm not condemning human nature - I'm exposing it.

I'm not even gonna go there. That's getting into murky waters.

Hitchens and Dawkins are great, to be sure. In fact, they were my original sources of inspiration as well. But, to call them "atheist leaders" is quite silly.

I agree completely. However, I didn't know how else to describe them.

Atheism has no "movement," it has no "leaders."

Agreed. That's why I put "Atheist movement" in quotes.

Those that claim to be are either trying to gain attention, or are corrupting what it means to be an atheist. It isn't about creating some "enlightened" world, populated with "Brights" and other assorted nonsense.

Agreed.

Read some Paglia, or some Wright. They understand.

Recommend me some of their best works.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2010 2:46:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Oh really? Would you expect an enlightened society of philosophers, PhDs, and people of reason committing massacres and immoral acts? I think not!

Yes, because they are human. Unless the people all think the same an utopia is impossible; you should know this.

@ Atheism. To be an Atheist all you have to believe is that there is no God. Other than that it means nothing

I assume as an atheist you believe that you have no ascended superiority over theists.

You are something for a reason. So, Geo answer me this: As an atheist what do hope achieve/gain.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2010 2:53:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/9/2010 2:25:46 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
There's your answer.

And? I don't know what your issue with authority is, but its something that is pretty beneficial to society at large.

Look at religious doctrines. Do you really think that those were attempts at philosophy and science?

Philosophy? Yes. Science? Some were, but science was more or less an abstract concept when religions were being built up. Mind you, astronomy and mathematics and language and script, these things were all encouraged by, you know, religions.

Or perhaps, your first notion was correct. The manifest of authority. I mean, just look at my signature. Napolean Bonaparte, who tried to take over the world, stated that religion is excellent for keeping the common people quiet. Constantine actually admits that he had a vision that he would rule using Christianity. Him and his Council of Nicea COMPILED THE BIBLE and he didn't even believe in it! He was a life-long pagan!

What is your point, exactly? That religion has been used by dictators to bend popular will? Well, yeah. Religion is essentially a manifestation of authority, and those that are not only smart but opportunistic will use that authority to help their needs. However, this doesn't mean that religion has always been complicit, or that science or secular authority cannot be used the same way. I mean, look at Stalin, Hoxha, Mao. The key to battling this is making sure individuals understand that legitimacy of any authority is dependent upon them, and not the other way around.

If we keep thinking like that, we won't ever have the intent to achieve it.

I'd be afraid of how exactly you would intend to acheive it.

Speak for yourself.

No, I won't, because these aren't just my words. Must I give links to the many, much more qualified individuals, what can repeat the same?

I'm opposed to all forms of authority, whether secular or religious. However, I don't think it's fair to automatically associate the rule of law and democracy with secularism. I think politics and religion are very much linked together.

Of course they are, I don't think I've said they weren't. In fact, I think I implied that.

Hitchins wrote an entire book about how religion is a poison.

Yes, I'm aware. I'm looking at it right now.

It's self-evident. An enlightened society is not brutal, barbaric, and violent. I mean, really it would go against the definition of enlightened.

Alright... where is this "enlightened" society which is the basis for your claims? It isn't as self-evident as you claim, so I'd like to see the evidence.

Like I said, you probably wouldn't call a barbaric, violent society an enlightened one.

Why not? I'd classify an "enlightened society" as one which places rights and the rule of law as structure. Enlightenment isn't whether or not you have an absense of those things, its how you deal with them.

Not one I've ever heard. It's a pretty reasonable notion if you ask me. And, if you would, think if a society was populated by a bunch of Volkovs, would it be violent and barbaric? lol.

Probably, I can have a short temper at times. However, I know this society wouldn't be any different from a society of Geos, albeit less paranoid.

Watch it sometimes, never seen that episode though.

YouTube doesn't have it, you should see it though.

People like Francis Collins are in the minority, and people like that are probably well on their way to abandoning religion. They're not enlightened because of religion, but probably hindered it.

Thats a bold claim, especially when Collins himself spoke extensively on this, and didn't arrive at the same one: http://www.pbs.org...

I'm not even gonna go there. That's getting into murky waters.

Hey man - gotta get into the mud sometime.

Recommend me some of their best works.

I've mentioned this book before, but you should read Wright's "The Evolution of God." You'll agree with a lot of the conclusions he arrives to about what religion is - manifestation of authority.

As for Camille Paglia, she doesn't have any specific books on the subject, but mostly articles, speeches, and the like. This video (http://www.tvo.org...) is very informative, and whenever you have time, I'd recommend watching.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2010 2:55:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/9/2010 2:46:58 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
As an atheist what do hope achieve/gain.

Geo isn't an atheist. I am, however.

Tell me what you mean, and maybe I can answer.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2010 2:56:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/9/2010 2:46:58 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Oh really? Would you expect an enlightened society of philosophers, PhDs, and people of reason committing massacres and immoral acts? I think not!

Yes, because they are human. Unless the people all think the same an utopia is impossible; you should know this.

Name me one philosopher involved in atrocities and murder.

@ Atheism. To be an Atheist all you have to believe is that there is no God. Other than that it means nothing

Your point?

I assume as an atheist you believe that you have no ascended superiority over theists.

As I've just stated a few posts ago, I'm not an Atheist, nor do they like being associated with me.

You are something for a reason. So, Geo answer me this: As an atheist what do hope achieve/gain.

Again, not an Atheist, nor do I feel I need to achieve anything.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2010 3:11:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/9/2010 2:55:28 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/9/2010 2:46:58 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
As an atheist what do hope achieve/gain.

Geo isn't an atheist. I am, however.

Tell me what you mean, and maybe I can answer.

Geo isn't? Then what is he?

By being an atheist what do you hope to achieve/gain.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2010 3:15:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/9/2010 3:11:34 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Geo isn't? Then what is he?

He's Geo. Best not to ask. xD

By being an atheist what do you hope to achieve/gain.

Well, probably the same things as you, just without any 'God' factoring into the equation. I want to live my life as it comes, reach for my goals and experience everything I possibly could before I die, and try to leave my mark on the world.

The difference is that I have the audacity to believe that I can shape my own life without God. I don't need Him, and He certainly doesn't need me. Its been a good arrangement so far.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2010 3:20:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/9/2010 3:11:34 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Geo isn't? Then what is he?

Just go to my profile, under the "Beliefs" section, and you'll get an idea.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2010 3:44:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/9/2010 3:15:34 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/9/2010 3:11:34 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Geo isn't? Then what is he?

He's Geo. Best not to ask. xD

By being an atheist what do you hope to achieve/gain.

Well, probably the same things as you, just without any 'God' factoring into the equation. I want to live my life as it comes, reach for my goals and experience everything I possibly could before I die, and try to leave my mark on the world.

The difference is that I have the audacity to believe that I can shape my own life without God. I don't need Him, and He certainly doesn't need me. Its been a good arrangement so far.

Not in life, as an atheist.

Geo, because Geo is Geo my argument may not apply. Oh, well.
+Geo see wall.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2010 3:51:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/9/2010 3:44:48 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Not in life, as an atheist.

Exactly as I said - to live my life. What else is there? I don't care for actively converting people to atheism, because why should I? I'll talk if people want to listen, of course, but why would I want to convert others if I myself don't wish to be converted to their beliefs?

So, I reiterate - I hope to simply live my life as any other member of society. Thats about it.