Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Soft Atheism is anything but ...

neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 2:45:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

We get the nominal work of atheism here, and again, its tough to separate atheism from the nascent anti-theism and nihilism that profoundly influences modern atheism.

The work above is clearly an attempt to be reasonable, and yet, as is common, it is a claim that rest upon no actual evidence and openly contradicts itself.

The claim, as is typically seen in atheist circles, is that there is no true religion because there are different religions ... you see? Thus it is impossible to choose a religion, who's doctrines both are and are not important. It somehow culture alone that drives religious choices, which completely ignores the reality of religion in the world.

#1 - Obviously, if someone is willing to die rather than renounce the faith they chose, there is probably more to it than nothing and the inability to make a discerning choice because they are all different.

http://www.bbc.com...

#2 - The idea of culture being of paramount importance, as if somehow accepting a religion and its doctrine means you accept a culturally altering history and practice. That is clearly not the case in the world. Islam is obviously different in Indonesia rather than Saudi Arabia, were nomadic desert and tribal conditions heavily influence the former and completely different cultural processes drive Indonesia. Yet they both accept that Mohammed was a Prophet of God and the general history of the Koran. (I also accept the history of the Koran ... what does this make me?)

#3 - the idea that its impossible to choose, and that in choosing you reject all others as false, thus you don't is wantonly ignorant. In choosing Christianity, I certainly disagree with parts of Islam, but that does not mean I disrespect it or reject in its entirety.

In a typical modern atheist pretense, a man you rejects everything is some how more logical than a man who accepts one as MOST correct. Primus Inter Pares, first among equals, has long been a established concept (at least since Rome anyway), and the idea that its illogical to look at Islam and say, "Wow, this is really good. I agree with 99.9% of it, but there is that remaining bit that causes me to remain Christian," is wrong? Illogical? Impossible? Instead of, "Thank you for sharing this with me, what an incredible story and insight into your culture and you as a person," it apparently makes for more logical sense to walk into a room and say, "Both you idiots are wrong, and my goal is to ride the world of your nonsense!" (He actually states that as a goal in the article.)

As a tangent, do you see why religious people have such a hard time voting for atheists? When you openly proclaim that your goal is to eliminate our beliefs? Really?

#4 - In typical atheist fashion, he then blames centuries of persecution of Jews on just the simple fact that early Christians blamed Jews rather than Rome for the death of Christ.

a. This ignores the entire concept of atonement, in which the death of Jesus IS NECESSARY.

b. The fact that Christians were heavily persecuted until almost the bitter end of the Roman Empire.

c. That the Diaspora was caused by Rome, whose legions crushed the Jewish insurgency and then brutally divided the Jews throughout the empire to prevent another insurgency.

d. In those communities, the Jews, who retained a distinct cultural identity and prevented inter-marriage or assimilation, were often confined to economic fringes like money lending - the collection of which made them easy targets for hatred.

e. Ignores the changing winds of CENTURIES of political shifting, in which the rise of Empires at the expense of others in which tolerance, like Frederick the Great's for these same Jews, comes at the expense of others, like Russia, whose persecution of the Jews drove away capitol and expertise in favor of local strongmen.

f. Ignores other wide spread persecution throughout Europe, like the French Huguenots. There is little or know analysis about political processes and competition from which actual lessons can be derived to avoid what has been a long standing global problem of intolerance and the stoking of it for political purposes - Serbia dissent into madness, for example, cannot be explained by persecution of the Jews at all - yet there is hangs in open defiance to such simplistic analysis.

Even in brief, we can see the ignorance of atheists on the subject of religion. We can see the biases of atheism which drives atheist analysts to accept millennia long historical process with grotesquely simplistic answers that serve little purpose but to slam religion, and, we see quite clearly here, the desire of atheism to eliminate, even in soft atheism, rather than merely disagree with religion.

Simply put, guys like this are looking to pick a fight. Eventually, they will get one. When your goal is to simplify complexity and deny the basics of history to deliberately misunderstand religion so you can eliminate it?

I daresay that such people will eventually reap exactly what they have sewn.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 4:56:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/17/2014 2:45:11 AM, neutral wrote:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

We get the nominal work of atheism here, and again, its tough to separate atheism from the nascent anti-theism and nihilism that profoundly influences modern atheism.

Untrue. More and more atheists are involving themselves with groups like the Humanist Association. Nihilism is not and has never been a primary or even significant aspect of atheists' social attitudes in general.

The work above is clearly an attempt to be reasonable, and yet, as is common, it is a claim that rest upon no actual evidence and openly contradicts itself.

The claim, as is typically seen in atheist circles, is that there is no true religion because there are different religions ... you see? Thus it is impossible to choose a religion, who's doctrines both are and are not important. It somehow culture alone that drives religious choices, which completely ignores the reality of religion in the world.

I don't think you're understanding the claim. The objection is a justification for incredulity, based on the fact that competing religions make competing claims of the same degree of credibility. There is no contradiction to this and the only evidence required is indisputably present; there are different religions and they are making truth claims with similar degrees of supporting evidence and coherence.

#1 - Obviously, if someone is willing to die rather than renounce the faith they chose, there is probably more to it than nothing and the inability to make a discerning choice because they are all different.

Untrue. People die for all sorts of things. That doesn't mean they're true, merely that they believe them to be true or simply care about them a great deal.

#2 - The idea of culture being of paramount importance, as if somehow accepting a religion and its doctrine means you accept a culturally altering history and practice.

Are you saying that to adopt a religion isn't to also adopt the socio-cultural practices of that religion? In what sense have you adopted that religion then, if not in practice? What informs that practice, if not the historical traditions of that religion?

That is clearly not the case in the world. Islam is obviously different in Indonesia rather than Saudi Arabia, were nomadic desert and tribal conditions heavily influence the former and completely different cultural processes drive Indonesia. Yet they both accept that Mohammed was a Prophet of God and the general history of the Koran. (I also accept the history of the Koran ... what does this make me?)

So you're saying there're no shared cultural practices between Muslims in Saudi Arabia and Indonesia? That there aren't sub-sects within religions?

#3 - the idea that its impossible to choose, and that in choosing you reject all others as false, thus you don't is wantonly ignorant. In choosing Christianity, I certainly disagree with parts of Islam, but that does not mean I disrespect it or reject in its entirety.

You either accept or reject a religion, because you either consider it to be 'right' and 'true' or you do not. There's no middle ground on that.

In a typical modern atheist pretense, a man you rejects everything is some how more logical than a man who accepts one as MOST correct.

No-one is suggesting the rejection of anything, this is a strawman. There is no requirement that any one of a multitude of incredible claims be accepted simply because one might be the 'least wrong'. If someone tells me five lies, I do not have to pick the most believable and act with credulity towards it. To do so would be the act of an idiot.

Primus Inter Pares, first among equals, has long been a established concept (at least since Rome anyway), and the idea that its illogical to look at Islam and say, "Wow, this is really good. I agree with 99.9% of it, but there is that remaining bit that causes me to remain Christian," is wrong? Illogical?

Either you believe a religion to be true or you do not. If two religions make conflicting claims then they cannot both be the 'true' religion. If two theories make similar claims, but one is 100% in line with the data and the other is only 99.9% in line with the data, we know that the latter theory has been falsified by the 0.1% variation from observed evidence. Just because it is similar to the one that turned out to be true doesn't give it a vicarious truth of its own. So yes, it would be illogical and wrong.

Instead of, "Thank you for sharing this with me, what an incredible story and insight into your culture and you as a person,"

If it were simply being offered as a personal and/or cultural insight, it would not be an issue. I have never, ever had someone try to discuss their religion in either of those ways though.

it apparently makes for more logical sense to walk into a room and say, "Both you idiots are wrong, and my goal is to ride the world of your nonsense!" (He actually states that as a goal in the article.)

It certainly doesn't make sense to humour or actively encourage people who believe something you consider to be highly damaging to society at large.

As a tangent, do you see why religious people have such a hard time voting for atheists? When you openly proclaim that your goal is to eliminate our beliefs? Really?

As opposed to the theist goal of an identical nature, you mean?

b. The fact that Christians were heavily persecuted until almost the bitter end of the Roman Empire.

Uh... Constantine? A thousand years or more of continued existence in the eastern empire?

Even in brief, we can see the ignorance of atheists on the subject of religion.

You do realise that a LOT of stuff is still heavily debated by academics and as such simply holding a differing opinion on it isn't 'ignorance' but 'disagreement', right? And that it's just ONE atheist you're quoting, not all?

even in soft atheism, rather than merely disagree with religion.

I think you've badly misunderstood the sense of 'soft' as it is used here. It is simply to contrast against the 'hard' claim that there definitely isn't a god. It doesn't mean 'fuzzy and impressionable' or anything like that and certainly doesn't preclude being against organised religion in general. I'm not sure why you'd think it would.

Simply put, guys like this are looking to pick a fight. Eventually, they will get one.

By 'eventually' you mean 'already have', I assume; atheists have been persecuted for centuries. Now there are more of them and in more positions of power, it is going to be a lot harder for religious groups to do so again, although it quite obviously hasn't stopped them from trying.

I daresay that such people will eventually reap exactly what they have sewn.

Yes, science and secularism certainly are starting to bear fruits, aren't they?
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 7:04:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/17/2014 4:56:39 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
Untrue. More and more atheists are involving themselves with groups like the Humanist Association. Nihilism is not and has never been a primary or even significant aspect of atheists' social attitudes in general.

In that, I would have to disagree with you. Its an easy claim to make that this is not an influence, but there are two reasons I disagree:

1. My drift from atheism began exactly in questioning posts like this. The conclusion that there is no God, in and of itself is neither irrational nor harmful. Its the inferences that can be damaging, as in, "If there is no God, then ... all these religious people are friggin' nuts!" wherein the actuality of softer atheism would be, as I so often hear in the refrain, "I merely don't believe in God, but I could be wrong, and I see many beneficial aspects toward religion, social, charity, and compassion among them - even if I disagree with the source of those characteristics - I respect the right to disagree" That is not a sentiment often encountered in atheism these days (reference the OP source). It is also a stance I took, as I drifted from atheism that drew incredible scorn.

The bottom line is that there is a difference between atheism and anti-theism that SHOULD be drawn, but rare is.

2. Dawkins, and Hitchens polemics are misconstrued in the OP. They are the solid rejection of ALL religion, not just the rejection of extremism. Not only does he get the claims of atheism wrong, he then fails to address the major tenets of any of the religions he rejects. To support one in favor of the otters is unsupportable, to reject them all and seek their elimination positive - even desirable.

To disagree is wrong. To disrespect to the point of seeking annihilation is fine. Indeed, a softer and gentler kind of atheism?

As a theist, that does not seem the case.


I don't think you're understanding the claim. The objection is a justification for incredulity, based on the fact that competing religions make competing claims of the same degree of credibility.

Each religion stands of sinks on its own merits. Some clearly are doing better than others.

The idea that many different opinions means that all opinions are wrong, and somehow I am right is not terribly tenable as a position.


Untrue. People die for all sorts of things. That doesn't mean they're true, merely that they believe them to be true or simply care about them a great deal.

How many people are faced with a decision to renounce a faith or die? I have, routinely on this forum, had atheists tell me that when faced with such a choice they would covert and then later renounce.

To defend your faith as more important than you life? There is something there that is perceived as more valuable than even life itself. If we are all just wrong?

Are you saying that to adopt a religion isn't to also adopt the socio-cultural practices of that religion? In what sense have you adopted that religion then, if not in practice? What informs that practice, if not the historical traditions of that religion?

Yes. The ethical values of a religion are rarely, if ever, in conflict with the culture. Islam influenced by Pashtunwali is very different than the rest of Islam. Catholicism in Ireland, with a history of anti-English sentiment is different than Catholicism in Africa.

Values and culture are not the same thing. And the question? I accept the entire history of Mohammed save that I hold opinion on him being a Prophet. How has that conclusion changed my American culture?

You either accept or reject a religion, because you either consider it to be 'right' and 'true' or you do not. There's no middle ground on that.

Then you need to read the explanation rather than present me with a fallacy brother.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

Simply because you claim black or white as the only possibilities does not mean it is so, and indeed, it is not so. This is one of the things that is wrong at the most basic levels of analysis in the OP story.

No-one is suggesting the rejection of anything, this is a strawman.

It is not straw man, the author in the OP strongly rejects all religions. Indeed, he seeks there elimination.

How is that not utter rejection in every sense of the word? I wish your opinion to be destroyed.


Primus Inter Pares, first among equals, has long been a established concept (at least since Rome anyway), and the idea that its illogical to look at Islam and say, "Wow, this is really good. I agree with 99.9% of it, but there is that remaining bit that causes me to remain Christian," is wrong? Illogical?

Either you believe a religion to be true or you do not.

Well, I just gave you a case above where that is not so. That I can walk into Mosque and pray with them as we worship the same God, or a Jew in a synagogue, is proof positive that your black or white fallacy is just wrong.

I disagree about the final conclusions of other religions, but, just as I do with atheism, I acknowledge that it is a valid and tenable point of view subject to PERSONAL CHOICE.

I certainly am not calling for the elimination of everything that disagrees with me as the OP author is.

If it were simply being offered as a personal and/or cultural insight, it would not be an issue. I have never, ever had someone try to discuss their religion in either of those ways though.

Then you might want to examine your interactions grain. No offense intended, but one of the problems of atheism, which you deny, is that of nihilism. If someone attempts to share their faith with you and you bite their head off? Again, all other religious points of view cannot be utterly meritless to the point than none can be shared civilly.


It certainly doesn't make sense to humour or actively encourage people who believe something you consider to be highly damaging to society at large.

You start by denying nihilism, and now embrace it. I am religious, and here you are telling me that a constitutionally protected choice is actually a dire threat to society?

Again, I walked from atheism because of sentiment like that.


As opposed to the theist goal of an identical nature, you mean?

So our diversity is our own disproof, and now we are all alike?

The point: people will not vote for someone who is publicly demanding their destruction. It would be silly to think that this would garner votes.

Uh... Constantine? A thousand years or more of continued existence in the eastern empire?

How much longer did Rome last? And the other 1600 years after Rome?

You do realise that a LOT of stuff is still heavily debated by academics and as such simply holding a differing opinion on it isn't 'ignorance' but 'disagreement', right? And that it's just ONE atheist you're quoting, not all?

I suggest you apply that sentiment to the atheist in the OP who wants us all eliminated.


I think you've badly misunderstood the sense of 'soft' as it is used here. It is simply to contrast against the 'hard' claim that there definitely isn't a god.

Oh know, he's pretty certain there is no God. To the point of wanting all who think differently eliminated. That is not probability verses certainty - that is certainty. Its simply 'soft' in terms of tone vice Dawkins. Same thing though.


By 'eventually' you mean 'already have'.

What happened when Britain attempted to remove Catholicism from Ireland? When guys like this enact policy to 'eliminate' religion? You will see the real fight then brother.

Right now, he's just a KKK member, best ignored. If it becomes more than that? Atheists will not be the victims grain.

Yes, science and secularism certainly are starting to bear fruits, aren

Secularism is not atheism, and religious people don't reject science.

That is bli
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 8:43:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Going to do a bit of chopping for word count reasons.

At 5/17/2014 7:04:32 AM, neutral wrote:
In that, I would have to disagree with you. Its an easy claim to make that this is not an influence, but there are two reasons I disagree:

Not 'no influence', but not a significant one.

"I merely don't believe in God, but I could be wrong, and I see many beneficial aspects toward religion, social, charity, and compassion among them - even if I disagree with the source of those characteristics - I respect the right to disagree" That is not a sentiment often encountered in atheism these days (reference the OP source). It is also a stance I took, as I drifted from atheism that drew incredible scorn.

I think the problem is in part down to the rather vociferous nature of religious extremists and literalists. I know that - in the west, at least - those people are minorities in the religious communities, but they're also often the most politically outspoken and active. That means the given statement (as much as I'd like to just leave it as you've worded it) needs adjusting to include "but it also acts as a motivator and enablement mechanism for some very dangerous, socially harmful and morally reprehensible concepts and the promoters thereof".

The rise in so-called 'militant atheism' or 'militant secularism' is a direct response to attempts at suppressing atheists expressing and sharing their ideas or anti-secularist movements amongst what amount to theocratic fascist elements of society. I'm not disputing that atheism has its share of twats, because it certainly does (cf. the intellectual stillbirth that was Atheism Plus), but do believe that the rise in perceived belligerence is a response to external factors rather than the manifestation of some inherent propensity.

Not only does he get the claims of atheism wrong, he then fails to address the major tenets of any of the religions he rejects.

I don't really see why he would need to address them; if they have failed to convince then that is the failing of the religious arguments and the people who make them. It's not up to atheists to then excuse their dissent.

Each religion stands of sinks on its own merits. Some clearly are doing better than others.

That speaks only of their appeal, not the veracity of their claims.

The idea that many different opinions means that all opinions are wrong, and somehow I am right is not terribly tenable as a position.

I've not seen this argued. The fact that not all of them can be true, whilst all having similarly justified cases for truth, is the problem. It suggests that they all formed the same way, which when the majority of them must be wrong by definition suggests that they're all wrong because they appear to have a shared origin; i.e. they're fabricated.

How many people are faced with a decision to renounce a faith or die? I have, routinely on this forum, had atheists tell me that when faced with such a choice they would covert and then later renounce.

Well yes, but atheists don't believe they're losing anything by doing so. Religious believers do; they're invested in a way that atheists by definition aren't. That is to say, atheism isn't a faith and therefore it'd be profoundly stupid to die for it unless there were a major motivating factor such as systematic oppression etc. Even then I would argue that it wouldn't be dying for the lack of faith, but dying for principles such as freedom of expression, defiance of tyranny and so forth.

To defend your faith as more important than you life? There is something there that is perceived as more valuable than even life itself. If we are all just wrong?

I would say dying for a religious belief outside of the kind of contexts given above is as futile as dying for nothing at all. However, I can also see how to the believer that would not seem to be the case at all. But yes, I would say that anyone who dies for belief alone is making a mistake because I do believe all people who hold such are wrong.

Yes. The ethical values of a religion are rarely, if ever, in conflict with the culture. Islam influenced by Pashtunwali is very different than the rest of Islam. Catholicism in Ireland, with a history of anti-English sentiment is different than Catholicism in Africa.

Yet the religions are recognisably the same because they do share some common practices. From an atheist perspective, I'd say this cultural variation is just further proof that many believers will only believe what suits them.

Values and culture are not the same thing. And the question? I accept the entire history of Mohammed save that I hold opinion on him being a Prophet. How has that conclusion changed my American culture?

Culture is the sum total of a socio-geographic group's values and the ways in which they express them through practice. Since you are not a practising Muslim, the example is unsuitable; just accepting a historic account is very different from practising the teachings of a religion.

Simply because you claim black or white as the only possibilities does not mean it is so, and indeed, it is not so. This is one of the things that is wrong at the most basic levels of analysis in the OP story.

There is no false dilemma here, only definitional criteria; either you believe a religion to be the correct one or you do not. I'm not talking about whether there may be elements of truth in accounts, as that is obviously a possibility. I am uninterested in those kinds of incidental fact, as the meat of the issues is whether the metaphysical and moral claims made by the religion in question are indeed true or not. On this account they either are or are not, in accordance with the law of non-contradiction.

It is not straw man, the author in the OP strongly rejects all religions. Indeed, he seeks there elimination.

Oh yes, all religions. Just not everything. When offered only falsehoods, the wisest course is to reject them all.

Well, I just gave you a case above where that is not so. That I can walk into Mosque and pray with them as we worship the same God, or a Jew in a synagogue, is proof positive that your black or white fallacy is just wrong.

Again, there is no false dilemma involved at all. Either you believe something to be true or you do not. If two religions teach different accounts, they cannot both be teaching the truth. This is a fundamental matter of logical necessity. What you are describing is your own personal belief that all those religions reflect the same underlying message. This is a matter of interpretation and is in that sense a religion in itself; you could not believe and disbelieve it at the same time. Which is my point - you only believe one account to be true, which is that which you describe here.

I certainly am not calling for the elimination of everything that disagrees with me as the OP author is.

Hyperbole. He wants to see an end to a set of ideas he considers damaging to human society, not just dissent in general.

If someone attempts to share their faith with you and you bite their head off?

If someone attempts to force their faith on me then I will, yes. Otherwise it's more a case of being deeply disinterested in once again hearing the same old arguments, which is what it tends to be. Not always though and in such cases I am both interested and respectful. Mostly though it's just a matter of being frustrated by the imposition of very poor arguments that I've heard a thousand times, once again being presented as new and interesting when they're anything but. In all but the rarest of circumstances has it been offered as personal or cultural insight.

In short, unless someone has something interesting/insightful to say, I don't want them to try and share their faith with me. They can have it, but I don't want to have t
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 8:55:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/17/2014 2:45:11 AM, neutral wrote:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

We get the nominal work of atheism here, and again, its tough to separate atheism from the nascent anti-theism and nihilism that profoundly influences modern atheism.

The work above is clearly an attempt to be reasonable, and yet, as is common, it is a claim that rest upon no actual evidence and openly contradicts itself.

The claim, as is typically seen in atheist circles, is that there is no true religion because there are different religions ... you see? Thus it is impossible to choose a religion, who's doctrines both are and are not important. It somehow culture alone that drives religious choices, which completely ignores the reality of religion in the world.

#1 - Obviously, if someone is willing to die rather than renounce the faith they chose, there is probably more to it than nothing and the inability to make a discerning choice because they are all different.

http://www.bbc.com...

#2 - The idea of culture being of paramount importance, as if somehow accepting a religion and its doctrine means you accept a culturally altering history and practice. That is clearly not the case in the world. Islam is obviously different in Indonesia rather than Saudi Arabia, were nomadic desert and tribal conditions heavily influence the former and completely different cultural processes drive Indonesia. Yet they both accept that Mohammed was a Prophet of God and the general history of the Koran. (I also accept the history of the Koran ... what does this make me?)

#3 - the idea that its impossible to choose, and that in choosing you reject all others as false, thus you don't is wantonly ignorant. In choosing Christianity, I certainly disagree with parts of Islam, but that does not mean I disrespect it or reject in its entirety.

In a typical modern atheist pretense, a man you rejects everything is some how more logical than a man who accepts one as MOST correct. Primus Inter Pares, first among equals, has long been a established concept (at least since Rome anyway), and the idea that its illogical to look at Islam and say, "Wow, this is really good. I agree with 99.9% of it, but there is that remaining bit that causes me to remain Christian," is wrong? Illogical? Impossible? Instead of, "Thank you for sharing this with me, what an incredible story and insight into your culture and you as a person," it apparently makes for more logical sense to walk into a room and say, "Both you idiots are wrong, and my goal is to ride the world of your nonsense!" (He actually states that as a goal in the article.)

As a tangent, do you see why religious people have such a hard time voting for atheists? When you openly proclaim that your goal is to eliminate our beliefs? Really?

#4 - In typical atheist fashion, he then blames centuries of persecution of Jews on just the simple fact that early Christians blamed Jews rather than Rome for the death of Christ.

a. This ignores the entire concept of atonement, in which the death of Jesus IS NECESSARY.

b. The fact that Christians were heavily persecuted until almost the bitter end of the Roman Empire.

c. That the Diaspora was caused by Rome, whose legions crushed the Jewish insurgency and then brutally divided the Jews throughout the empire to prevent another insurgency.

d. In those communities, the Jews, who retained a distinct cultural identity and prevented inter-marriage or assimilation, were often confined to economic fringes like money lending - the collection of which made them easy targets for hatred.

e. Ignores the changing winds of CENTURIES of political shifting, in which the rise of Empires at the expense of others in which tolerance, like Frederick the Great's for these same Jews, comes at the expense of others, like Russia, whose persecution of the Jews drove away capitol and expertise in favor of local strongmen.

f. Ignores other wide spread persecution throughout Europe, like the French Huguenots. There is little or know analysis about political processes and competition from which actual lessons can be derived to avoid what has been a long standing global problem of intolerance and the stoking of it for political purposes - Serbia dissent into madness, for example, cannot be explained by persecution of the Jews at all - yet there is hangs in open defiance to such simplistic analysis.

Even in brief, we can see the ignorance of atheists on the subject of religion. We can see the biases of atheism which drives atheist analysts to accept millennia long historical process with grotesquely simplistic answers that serve little purpose but to slam religion, and, we see quite clearly here, the desire of atheism to eliminate, even in soft atheism, rather than merely disagree with religion.

Simply put, guys like this are looking to pick a fight. Eventually, they will get one. When your goal is to simplify complexity and deny the basics of history to deliberately misunderstand religion so you can eliminate it?

I daresay that such people will eventually reap exactly what they have sewn.

This topic seems much more civil than your other ones, at least it's progress.

Well done.
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 8:55:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
atheism
G2;e=8;_2;=8;=8;z(ə)m/
noun
noun: atheism

disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

Try to keep up.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 9:00:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Cont.

Again, all other religious points of view cannot be utterly meritless to the point than none can be shared civilly.

I am not saying they are entirely meritless. I don't think anyone is. I'm saying I think they bring more problems than they do value. I'm saying I don't believe them to be true. Most of all, I'm saying that 99.9% of the time it's nothing to do with sharing insight but just reiterating the same points as I've heard countless times before. Usually with a rather arrogant "you stupid atheists will burn in hell if you don't listen to the wisdom I alone have ever thought to share with you" tone to it.

As I said, I don't mind people having their own beliefs. I just really, really don't want to keep being lectured on them or to have people try and force me to live in accordance with them.

None of which has anything to do with nihilism though, which is the belief there is no value or meaning to anything.

You start by denying nihilism, and now embrace it. I am religious, and here you are telling me that a constitutionally protected choice is actually a dire threat to society?

I'm not sure that nihilism means what you think; it's the belief that there is no value, no morality, no meaning, from any source whatsoever. I do not hold that position and the majority of atheists I know don't either. I am simply saying that I think there are concepts inherent to religion - at least in every instance I've encountered - that have the potential for being deeply harmful. Not just potential in the prospective sense, but the tried-and-tested one of it having already occurred and being something that could happen again.

So our diversity is our own disproof, and now we are all alike?

Not at all; I understand there are religious sects that teach exclusivism, rather than evangelical universal redemption style preaching. But there are plenty - the vast majority - of theists who believe their faith should be spread to as many as possible, which has the logical conclusion of ideally being spread to everyone.

It would be silly to think that this would garner votes.

Yet religious politicians do this all the time.

How much longer did Rome last? And the other 1600 years after Rome?

Well the Eastern Empire lasted until 1400-something.

I suggest you apply that sentiment to the atheist in the OP who wants us all eliminated.

Whatever makes you think I'm not?

Oh know, he's pretty certain there is no God.

Then he isn't even a 'soft' atheist...

What happened when Britain attempted to remove Catholicism from Ireland?

We shipped over a load of Scottish Protestants. It wasn't anything to do with atheism at all.

When guys like this enact policy to 'eliminate' religion? You will see the real fight then brother.

Threatening polemic is neither convincing nor suggestive of a strong argument. I also don't see anyone in any position of power attempting to eliminate religion. A few people may support it, but not the majority and it isn't something I ever foresee happening. I also don't think it necessary, as religion is busy eating itself as it is and will burn out over time all on its own. It strikes me as deeply paranoid to think anyone is going to try taking Bibles from people or anything of the sort.

I'd also like to point out that the places it has been tried - Soviet Russia, China etc. - there was no fearsome backlash by religious communities, as you seem to be suggesting will happen. This is, I suspect, because most believers don't actually care enough about their faith to put themselves at risk over it. You'll get a few hotheads, as you do in any group of a certain size or greater, but that'd be it.

Right now, he's just a KKK member, best ignored. If it becomes more than that? Atheists will not be the victims grain.

I guess I don't need to worry, then. Good news!

Secularism is not atheism, and religious people don't reject science.

They're deeply rooted in the development of atheist thought, though. Many religious people do indeed reject science, to quite an absurd and frankly scary degree. There are tens of millions of people in America alone who rejected huge amounts of scientific knowledge, entirely because it doesn't mesh with what they want to be true. That's a problem. A huge problem.
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 9:34:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/17/2014 7:04:32 AM, neutral wrote:
As an atheist what was your opinion of god? Did you have one? Or didn't you know of one? Did you even know that people believed in a god? Why did you not believe in a god? Why did you not believe in Zeus?
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 10:30:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/17/2014 2:45:11 AM, neutral wrote:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

We get the nominal work of atheism here, and again, its tough to separate atheism from the nascent anti-theism and nihilism that profoundly influences modern atheism.

It's only tough for those that lack the intellectual faculties to let go of their own preconceptions and biases.

The work above is clearly an attempt to be reasonable, and yet, as is common, it is a claim that rest upon no actual evidence and openly contradicts itself.

Aren't you the one that states that contradicting scholarship from a standpoint of ignorance is just plain wrong? Is there any open, solid refutation you can offer, here? Nope. Any examples of self-contradiction? Of course not. Your say-so is sufficient, right?

The claim, as is typically seen in atheist circles, is that there is no true religion because there are different religions ... you see? Thus it is impossible to choose a religion, who's doctrines both are and are not important. It somehow culture alone that drives religious choices, which completely ignores the reality of religion in the world.

Again, you miss the point... Culture and family greatly influence the original choice. That's all that was stated...

#1 - Obviously, if someone is willing to die rather than renounce the faith they chose, there is probably more to it than nothing and the inability to make a discerning choice because they are all different.

http://www.bbc.com...

No, this is called fealty, and it is not exclusive to the religious. Remember the Salem Witch hunts? How about the Inquisitions (Both Roman and Spanish)? Those that refused to confess crimes (most of which were not even crimes) died the same way. Of course, you also failed to notice the fact that the evil being committed in your linked article was at the hands of religious zealotry... Just an "oversight," on your part? Not likely.

#2 - The idea of culture being of paramount importance, as if somehow accepting a religion and its doctrine means you accept a culturally altering history and practice. That is clearly not the case in the world. Islam is obviously different in Indonesia rather than Saudi Arabia, were nomadic desert and tribal conditions heavily influence the former and completely different cultural processes drive Indonesia. Yet they both accept that Mohammed was a Prophet of God and the general history of the Koran. (I also accept the history of the Koran ... what does this make me?)

I'm pretty sure you intended to convey a point with all of this... Would you care to share that specific point?

#3 - the idea that its impossible to choose, and that in choosing you reject all others as false, thus you don't is wantonly ignorant. In choosing Christianity, I certainly disagree with parts of Islam, but that does not mean I disrespect it or reject in its entirety.

And this is evidence or proof of what, precisely?

In a typical modern atheist pretense, a man you rejects everything is some how more logical than a man who accepts one as MOST correct. Primus Inter Pares, first among equals, has long been a established concept (at least since Rome anyway), and the idea that its illogical to look at Islam and say, "Wow, this is really good. I agree with 99.9% of it, but there is that remaining bit that causes me to remain Christian," is wrong? Illogical? Impossible? Instead of, "Thank you for sharing this with me, what an incredible story and insight into your culture and you as a person," it apparently makes for more logical sense to walk into a room and say, "Both you idiots are wrong, and my goal is to ride the world of your nonsense!" (He actually states that as a goal in the article.)

I, for one, hope that he is successful. Once religion is gone, we can get on with the business of being human, and cease with the wasting of brain cycles on stupendously worthless fairy tales...

As a tangent, do you see why religious people have such a hard time voting for atheists? When you openly proclaim that your goal is to eliminate our beliefs? Really?

As a tangent? Do you ever post anything other than tangential, pointless attacks on atheism? You are the Don Quixote of anti-atheist martyrdom... Yes, really. Your beliefs cause an huge reduction in the use of critical faculties. How much further would this world be if religion had not squashed Galileo in the west, and outlawed "manipulation of numbers," in the middle east?

#4 - In typical atheist fashion, he then blames centuries of persecution of Jews on just the simple fact that early Christians blamed Jews rather than Rome for the death of Christ.

As self-professed "doctor" of history, you should know this to be fact...

a. This ignores the entire concept of atonement, in which the death of Jesus IS NECESSARY.

Only to believers in the jeebus myth.

b. The fact that Christians were heavily persecuted until almost the bitter end of the Roman Empire.

The romans failed the world...

c. That the Diaspora was caused by Rome, whose legions crushed the Jewish insurgency and then brutally divided the Jews throughout the empire to prevent another insurgency.

OK... That's minuscule by comparison to what the catholic church has done... Oh, yeah... The church took over Rome, didn't it? Hmmmm... Rome >> Roman Catholic >> Jewish persecution through the ages >> religious fracturing >> ...

d. In those communities, the Jews, who retained a distinct cultural identity and prevented inter-marriage or assimilation, were often confined to economic fringes like money lending - the collection of which made them easy targets for hatred.

And the prestidigitation begins...

e. Ignores the changing winds of CENTURIES of political shifting, in which the rise of Empires at the expense of others in which tolerance, like Frederick the Great's for these same Jews, comes at the expense of others, like Russia, whose persecution of the Jews drove away capitol and expertise in favor of local strongmen.

Most political shifting began in the religious strongholds, "historian."

f. Ignores other wide spread persecution throughout Europe, like the French Huguenots. There is little or know analysis about political processes and competition from which actual lessons can be derived to avoid what has been a long standing global problem of intolerance and the stoking of it for political purposes - Serbia dissent into madness, for example, cannot be explained by persecution of the Jews at all - yet there is hangs in open defiance to such simplistic analysis.

Again... I'm pretty sure you intended to convey a point with all of this... Would you care to share that specific point?

Even in brief, we can see the ignorance of atheists on the subject of religion. We can see the biases of atheism which drives atheist analysts to accept millennia long historical process with grotesquely simplistic answers that serve little purpose but to slam religion, and, we see quite clearly here, the desire of atheism to eliminate, even in soft atheism, rather than merely disagree with religion.

More "wounded puppy syndrom..." Poor, poor little religious persecution victims.. <sniff sniff>

Simply put, guys like this are looking to pick a fight. Eventually, they will get one. When your goal is to simplify complexity and deny the basics of history to deliberately misunderstand religion so you can eliminate it?

No, they're not picking a fight. They're discussing things on an intellectual level. You should try it, sometime...

I daresay that such people will eventually reap exactly what they have sewn.

Veiled threat, or just posturing? Are you 'makin' a list, and checkin' it twice?'
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 10:41:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/17/2014 8:55:16 AM, Envisage wrote:

This topic seems much more civil than your other ones, at least it's progress.

Well done.

Civility requires two sides, not just one. Please apply your standards to ... say, bully boy, then I will respect the atheist demand for simple civility or their appreciation of it.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 11:07:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/17/2014 8:43:02 AM, Graincruncher wrote:

Not 'no influence', but not a significant one.

I disagree completely. Even you, while denying it resort to the claim that we are a threat to society. Religion has been around since before 'civilization' and to say its suddenly become a threat to the very thing its evolved alongside?

It is widespread in atheism brother.

And please consider for a moment, who is a threat to whom? Secular Christian societies that embrace tolerance? Neither religion nor atheism is a threat. However, YOU perhaps a threat to Saudi Arabian embrace of Islam? Correct?


I think the problem is in part down to the rather vociferous nature of religious extremists and literalists.

Two problems:

1. Most religious people disagree with religious extremism.

2. Even in extremists areas, extremism is a minority. You should visit them.

Al Shabaab is a minority in Somalia - and the 'secular' forces in Somalia are hardly any less brutal. There are other things besides religion that drive these things.


The rise in so-called 'militant atheism' or 'militant secularism' is a direct response to attempts at suppressing atheists expressing ...

BS

Atheism is tolerated, and if what you say is true, you should be rising up where you are oppressed - like Saudi Arabia.

Atheism these days is the result of an atheist education process. Atheism is not being victimized in the West, I know, I was an atheist. Johovah's Witnesses face far more derision and intolerance than the average atheist.


I don't really see why he would need to address them; if they have failed to convince then that is the failing of the religious arguments and the people who make them. It's not up to atheists to then excuse their dissent.

Then he should be able to explain them. You are embracing the reality of Creationism.

Evolution just failed to convince me, right? It begs the question, why?

And again, its these excuses that leave religious people with the inescapable conclusion that atheists have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to religion.

Just like Creationists have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to evolution.

Its bad either way.

That speaks only of their appeal, not the veracity of their claims.

A billion people can't all be idiots.


I've not seen this argued.

Its argued by the atheist in the OP. He is SO right, that he seeks the elimination of all other opinions. You should not be saying you do not see such a thing when it is on the record being said.


Well yes, but atheists don't believe they're losing anything by doing so.

Then there isn't much to atheism, and the angry denunciation of religion, portraying it as poison, seems utterly without merit then doesn't it. It contrasts sharply with people who believe that their position is so correct that death would be a better alternative than renunciation.

THAT, in contrast to what you state above, says a GREAT DEAL about the veracity of the claims being made.



I would say dying for a religious belief outside of the kind of contexts given above is as futile as dying for nothing at all.

You have obviously never had a relationship with God then. To you its nothing. But the failure here is your inability to grasp of comprehend just how terribly important it is to other people. Other people are allowed to have their opinions and exercise them freely.

So when we have an atheist publicly calling for the elimination of religion? We are clearly on the wrong side of tolerance, respect, and Western values/jurisprudence.

Yet the religions are recognisably the same because they do share some common practices.

That is not the same thing as fundamentally adopting a different culture, which is what the OP article claims. Indian converts to Christianity, for example, still eat the same food, still gather in the same places, still ... pretty much everything the same. They simply go to a different place of worship and have concluded that Jesus makes more sense than Ram.

Again, what has changed about my culture by accepting the basic tenets of Islam as valid?

Not a damb thing.

So why make a claim that is clearly at odds with reality? Ethnicity, cultural history and anthology, lineage, customs, etc, do not change with conversion. Its why you cannot tell who is Christian and who is atheist simply by looking at them. Yet, here we are claiming that one has adopted an entirely different culture anyway?

Culture is the sum total of a socio-geographic group's values

You are splitting apples to real effect brother.

There is no false dilemma here,

I just gave a valid third option.

Indeed, if what you say is true, then I should not be able to pray with Muslims and Jews ... Yet I do.

I should not be able to pray with Catholics or other Protestant denominations. Yet I do.

Etc. etc. etc.

You views have lead you to false dilemma. Its a dilemma that I do not share, and many other Christian SECULARISTS do not share.

The only point that rejects all other choices appears to be atheism.


Oh yes, all religions. Just not everything. When offered only falsehoods, the wisest course is to reject them all.

So, prove scientifically that there is no God.

Again, what do you gain by crapping on intelligent, worthy people, ridiculing them and deriding them? Nothing.

And now you know why I left atheism. Because I was treating good and worthy people like crap because they had a different opinion than me.

I too, just like you do, claimed that religion is intolerant, etc.

Yet as an atheist, when General Mohammed, after months of fighting and a growing friendship, invited my into a Mosque to pray with him ... would I have accepted as an atheist? No.

Religion has made me FAR more tolerant and open.


Again, there is no false dilemma involved at all. Either you believe something to be true or you do not. If two religions teach different accounts, they cannot both be teaching the truth.

Truth is not always black or white. That is a basic premise of logic. But examine it.

Do Muslims think there is God. Yes. Do Christians. Yes. Where is the disagreement logically there?

There are details of minutia, but if your friend drives a Toyota Tundra and you drive a F-150 ... the thing that makes one better than the other is a matter of taste, correct? The guy driving the F150 is not WRONG is he?

Indeed, scientifically, in the absence of a true false test, which applies to God, then the inductive strength of the argument is what matters. Probability. To say one in 98% correct and another 99% would be an accurate way of looking at religion.

Conversely, all religions are wrong because ... er, they are all wrong ... is not a terribly strong inductive case. To call for the elimination of all other options from such a position? Silliness.


Hyperbole. He wants to see an end to a set of ideas he considers damaging to human society, not just dissent in general.

So, if I think black people are damaging to society, I have no duty to prove it, just advocate it? The Hyperbole here is clear.


If someone attempts to force their faith on me then I will, yes.

You are coming voluntarily to a religion forum Grain. The idea that people are forcing religion on you would be a strong case of hyperbole.

Freedom of expression is protected, even when people disagree with you. There are no atheists being drug into basements and being beaten into conversion. That would be force. Listening to a different opinion is not 'force'.

In fact, its attempting to shut down dissenting opinions by claiming they are 'force' that is the oppressive stance, correct?

In short, unless someone has something interesting/insightf

Free speech is prot
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 11:13:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/17/2014 10:30:53 AM, irreverent_god wrote:


It's only tough for those that lack the intellectual faculties to let go of their own preconceptions and biases.


No reason to read beyond that. Douche clearly didn't read the main article in the OP, and is, as usual, just bloviating in opposition.
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 11:55:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/17/2014 11:13:14 AM, neutral wrote:
At 5/17/2014 10:30:53 AM, irreverent_god wrote:


It's only tough for those that lack the intellectual faculties to let go of their own preconceptions and biases.


No reason to read beyond that. Douche clearly didn't read the main article in the OP, and is, as usual, just bloviating in opposition.

Of course the article was read (in its entirety). As was the OP, as evidenced by the fact that each segment was addressed, individually. Your response indicates your understanding of the fact that your position is untenable, and simply a continuation of your insistence on attributing your interpretation of one atheist/agnostic discussion to all atheists and agnostics. As is typical of your "points," you seek to condemn methodology for everyone but you. You seek to condemn across the board, make blanket statements, and assert untruths, without substantive corroboration.

Same old narrative, same old target, next superficial "source."
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 12:58:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/17/2014 11:55:46 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 5/17/2014 11:13:14 AM, neutral wrote:
At 5/17/2014 10:30:53 AM, irreverent_god wrote:


It's only tough for those that lack the intellectual faculties to let go of their own preconceptions and biases.


No reason to read beyond that. Douche clearly didn't read the main article in the OP, and is, as usual, just bloviating in opposition.

Of course the article was read (in its entirety). As was the OP, as evidenced by the fact that each segment was addressed, individually. Your response indicates your understanding of the fact that your position is untenable, and simply a continuation of your insistence on attributing your interpretation of one atheist/agnostic discussion to all atheists and agnostics. As is typical of your "points," you seek to condemn methodology for everyone but you. You seek to condemn across the board, make blanket statements, and assert untruths, without substantive corroboration.

Same old narrative, same old target, next superficial "source."

Which is why your first line got the complete synopsis wrong.

You tell me bigot, what is the difference between ... oh, anti-theism and wanting to eliminate all religion.

Use that superior insight of yours to explain the difference, and entertain use the semantics of bigoted irrationality.

You still haven't read the article have you. Notice its not a question.
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 2:02:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/17/2014 12:58:27 PM, neutral wrote:
At 5/17/2014 11:55:46 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 5/17/2014 11:13:14 AM, neutral wrote:
At 5/17/2014 10:30:53 AM, irreverent_god wrote:


It's only tough for those that lack the intellectual faculties to let go of their own preconceptions and biases.


No reason to read beyond that. Douche clearly didn't read the main article in the OP, and is, as usual, just bloviating in opposition.

Of course the article was read (in its entirety). As was the OP, as evidenced by the fact that each segment was addressed, individually. Your response indicates your understanding of the fact that your position is untenable, and simply a continuation of your insistence on attributing your interpretation of one atheist/agnostic discussion to all atheists and agnostics. As is typical of your "points," you seek to condemn methodology for everyone but you. You seek to condemn across the board, make blanket statements, and assert untruths, without substantive corroboration.

Same old narrative, same old target, next superficial "source."

Which is why your first line got the complete synopsis wrong.

You tell me bigot, what is the difference between ... oh, anti-theism and wanting to eliminate all religion.

It is in the basic of every ideology to dominate other ideologies. Even religions say that there should be one religion ( their own one).

Atheism is a concept of equality. Religion is more like a caste system. There are so many sects in religion , so many religions also. Religion is all divide and rule.
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 2:21:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/17/2014 2:02:14 PM, debateuser wrote:
At 5/17/2014 12:58:27 PM, neutral wrote:
At 5/17/2014 11:55:46 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 5/17/2014 11:13:14 AM, neutral wrote:
At 5/17/2014 10:30:53 AM, irreverent_god wrote:


It's only tough for those that lack the intellectual faculties to let go of their own preconceptions and biases.


No reason to read beyond that. Douche clearly didn't read the main article in the OP, and is, as usual, just bloviating in opposition.

Of course the article was read (in its entirety). As was the OP, as evidenced by the fact that each segment was addressed, individually. Your response indicates your understanding of the fact that your position is untenable, and simply a continuation of your insistence on attributing your interpretation of one atheist/agnostic discussion to all atheists and agnostics. As is typical of your "points," you seek to condemn methodology for everyone but you. You seek to condemn across the board, make blanket statements, and assert untruths, without substantive corroboration.

Same old narrative, same old target, next superficial "source."

Which is why your first line got the complete synopsis wrong.

You tell me bigot, what is the difference between ... oh, anti-theism and wanting to eliminate all religion.

It is in the basic of every ideology to dominate other ideologies. Even religions say that there should be one religion ( their own one).

Atheism is a concept of equality. Religion is more like a caste system. There are so many sects in religion , so many religions also. Religion is all divide and rule.

Atheism y definition wants all other opinions gone - as the OP explains. Atheism is JUST the rejection of God correct?

So where the hell is this equality BS coming from?

Right, from the trolls screaming under the bridge.

But you go ahead an explain how wanting, indeed actively preaching, the elimination of ALL other opinions about God is in any way shape or form ... equality. That is douchey even for you bully boy.

Something, something ... dark side.
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 4:46:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/17/2014 2:21:45 PM, neutral wrote:
At 5/17/2014 2:02:14 PM, debateuser wrote:
At 5/17/2014 12:58:27 PM, neutral wrote:
At 5/17/2014 11:55:46 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 5/17/2014 11:13:14 AM, neutral wrote:
At 5/17/2014 10:30:53 AM, irreverent_god wrote:


It's only tough for those that lack the intellectual faculties to let go of their own preconceptions and biases.


No reason to read beyond that. Douche clearly didn't read the main article in the OP, and is, as usual, just bloviating in opposition.

Of course the article was read (in its entirety). As was the OP, as evidenced by the fact that each segment was addressed, individually. Your response indicates your understanding of the fact that your position is untenable, and simply a continuation of your insistence on attributing your interpretation of one atheist/agnostic discussion to all atheists and agnostics. As is typical of your "points," you seek to condemn methodology for everyone but you. You seek to condemn across the board, make blanket statements, and assert untruths, without substantive corroboration.

Same old narrative, same old target, next superficial "source."

Which is why your first line got the complete synopsis wrong.

You tell me bigot, what is the difference between ... oh, anti-theism and wanting to eliminate all religion.

It is in the basic of every ideology to dominate other ideologies. Even religions say that there should be one religion ( their own one).

Atheism is a concept of equality. Religion is more like a caste system. There are so many sects in religion , so many religions also. Religion is all divide and rule.

Atheism y definition wants all other opinions gone - as the OP explains. Atheism is JUST the rejection of God correct?

So where the hell is this equality BS coming from?

Right, from the trolls screaming under the bridge.

But you go ahead an explain how wanting, indeed actively preaching, the elimination of ALL other opinions about God is in any way shape or form ... equality. That is douchey even for you bully boy.

Something, something ... dark side.

Atheism is rejection of God and ranks allegedly given by God also. An atheists will not claim to differentiate between commoners and clergy. If a person belongs to a particular religion, he will favour his own religion. For example in Britain , the monarch is required to marry a Protestant. So much favouritism. The clergy are given seats in house of lords. The bloody house of lords is an insult to the common people, telling them that since we are lords we don't need to be elected (God has given the clergy the right by birth to remain in the parliament). Religion is by no way even close to equality.

In India too, we see many ranks given based on religiuos afiliation. Its more like a cast system. The Brahman are considered superior in India.

Whereas in State atheism, a politician rejects his previous faith. His faith would be to just represent the people of his country. That's equality. If a Muslim is a head of state, Christians dont accept it. If a christian is head of state , Muslims don't accept. The solution for any politician would be to leave his faith and then serve the people.

We saw during the world war 2 , Jews in USA were the target of religious hatred. The clergy used to come to radio stations and utter hared against Jews. Before Jews it were other religious minorities. Now a days the clergy is fascinated with muslims. It seems like a trend. In a religious country , its not long before you become a religious minority. There were many christian and Muslim sects around the world, who were once in majority but now they have to be in minority because of creation of more sects among them. In a religious society everybody is unsafe. The very concept of religion strives on divide and rule. Crusades were a divide of Muslims and Christians. In the middle east now a days it is a divide of Jews, Shia, Sunni. In USA it is a divide of Christians and Muslims to benefit the war effort. Even the US army contains sectarian teachings againat Muslims. Its a shame that good people who promote equality in USA are kept away and only fundamentalists get to rule.
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 6:10:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/17/2014 12:58:27 PM, neutral wrote:

Same old narrative, same old target, next superficial "source."

Which is why your first line got the complete synopsis wrong.

My first line wasn't about the synopsis... It was about your commentary.

You tell me bigot, what is the difference between ... oh, anti-theism and wanting to eliminate all religion.

Nothing. I'm an anti-theist, and I would love to eliminate religion. I want it eliminated at the intellectual level. I would love to see all humans come together, and that will not happen until three things disappear:

1) Greed / power lust
2) Religion
3) Social envy

Wanting the intellectual need for religion eliminated is not bigotry, though you will never seen a contrary opinion as anything else.

Use that superior insight of yours to explain the difference, and entertain use the semantics of bigoted irrationality.

This sentence makes no sense, "doctor." However, since you and I agree that there is no difference, I don't really need to attempt to decipher you actual meaning from the "Engrish" that you use. Anti-theism is an opposition to theistic views. It encompasses the desire to see the foolishness of religion eliminated. You see it as bigotry, though it is an intellectual desire for improvement.

You still haven't read the article have you. Notice its not a question.

It's (not "its") worded like a question, but (incorrectly) punctuated like a statement. Though I actually have, you won't accept the truth of that fact, so it doesn't really matter, now, does it? While that is a question, it's (not "its") actually rhetorical.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 2:11:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/17/2014 4:46:18 PM, debateuser wrote:


Atheism is rejection of God and ranks allegedly given by God also. An atheists will not claim to differentiate between commoners and clergy. And which sect of atheism are you? Gnostic? Agnostic? Wierdo?

In India too, we see many ranks given based on religiuos afiliation. The caste system in India has drivers other than religion. Nor indeed does this somehow reflect ALL religion.

Whereas in State atheism, a politician rejects his previous faith. In state atheism, if you reject atheism ... you die. Like North Korea.

We saw during the world war 2 , Jews in USA were the target of religious hatred. Are you on crack? The Halocaust was in Germany!
DB:
Are you attempting to prove that:

a. You have no idea what you are talking about.

b. You are not reading what people write before jumping in with a sermon.

1. You don't think atheists divid themselves? Lets take a look:

Clergy: What are Hitchens and Dawkins? Paid millions to be quoted and revered by lower atheists?

http://firstchurchofatheism.com...

Look at that! No cost! Not Questions! No bothersome Seminary or Education, why any idiots can become an ordained minister in the first church of atheism!

http://news.yahoo.com...

I wonder who is running those atheist mega-churches? Not any kind of clergy right? Certainly not ordained ministers with no education whatsoever!

Sects:

http://commonsenseatheism.com...

17 different kinds of ways of saying, "there is no God!" And gosh darn it if you atheists won't fight about it too! The gnostic atheist screaming defiance and certainty and the agnostic (when you can get him to actually say it) that its merely improbable!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Your churches are ALREADY splitting too boot!

"the "atheist" movement keeps shooting itself in the foot by failing to reach a consensus regarding the meaning of "atheism."

http://www.truefreethinker.com...

And therein lies the rub. It was ... yesterday? ... that the same atheists perching about equality were lecturing me, and everyone else that we are all a bunch of dolts because we don't understand atheism, see! Its JUST the belief that there is no God. Yet here you are today, lecturing us about the grand convention of egalitarian atheism - making claims that are clearly at odds with facts. You not only have divisions, ordained ministers, etc. you have ordained ministers with no education or certification, and you have divisions that make viral inflections look downright stable.

How exactly can an you, as an atheist, stand there with a straight face one day saying, "We are JUST the belief that there is no God ... Maybe, unless you are a reformed agnostic atheist who is not saying God is improbable but nothing at all you see," and then turn around and tell us that your movement is somehow a grand relinquishment of prejudice and the embrace of equality ... while openly ignoring what is happening in atheism?

So you really think people are so stupid that we would not notice that?

2. Do you really think atheists don't favor atheism? We have a guy running roughshod, in the OP, over EVERY RELIGION ON EARTH. Wants them eliminated. You think he's being egalitarian? Or is that about as exclusive as it gets? Think like me or be destroyed!

Take a look at this forum. Civility. Can you explain why atheists will chastize non-atheists for any bit of incivility and then completely ignore bully boy? Why they skip over accusations of war crimes in others? Full on temper tantrums? How is that not favoritism?

Or is this just an appeal to emotion? We, like the FOX news of religion, just pick emotionally appealing words and then claim them - equality, patriotism, freedom, small kittens ... its easy to claim, hard to do ... and when actions clear violate the claim? Ruh Roh!

3. There is a hell of a difference between atheism being a rejection of God and those come from God. No atheist makes such a claim in any definition. One is atheism, the other is anti-theism. It is precisely the problem alluded to in the OP. Atheists CLAIM to be separating them:

"Atheism and anti-theism so often occur together at the same time and in the same person that it's understandable if many people fail to realize that they aren't the same. Making note of the difference is important, however, because not every atheist is anti-theistic and even those who are, aren't anti-theistic all the time. Atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods; anti-theism is a conscious and deliberate opposition to theism. Many atheists are also anti-theists, but not all."

http://atheism.about.com...

Yet here you are failing to make that very distinction.

Here you are failing utterly to lay out any kind of evidential case that God is CLEARLY not real, meaning you are a Gnostic atheist (only you won't call yourself one), because you believe that all other religions should be rejected with prejudice (the legal term).

Indeed, the attempt in the OP to 'soften' atheism still ends with the call to eliminate religion.

And yet the rebuttal of a position that is essentially calling for a war against all religions, a Crusade if you will, is rejected by atheists who proceed to fly into preachy and totally unsupportable positions ... while both agreeing and disagreeing with the case for war against religion.

We see what you atheists are up to, and the hanging question that no atheist will answer:

Why would you expect religious people to vote for you, give you political power, when you openly state that you seek to eliminate our beliefs?
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 2:56:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/17/2014 6:10:13 PM, irreverent_god wrote:

My first line wasn't about the synopsis... It was about your commentary.


And it completely missed the point of both the OP article and my response. That would indicate that you read neither and simple, as you tend to do, decided to take the opposite view ... without any explanation.

But go ahead atheist, what is the difference between nihilism and demanding the elimination of religion ...er, because its religion you see?

Right. Always skipped in favor of clownish insults and obfuscation. The New Atheism ... of wait, its not new at all ... even South Park has you guys nailed.

http://www.southparkstudios.com...

YOU are the proof. Unable to discuss atheism vs. anti theism, you pursue entirely negative interaction with every religious person on this forum. Yet you demand repeat and treatment as if rude ignorance is a respectable position ... like you' be happy if all religious people were just dead.

And what would you be left to rail against then atheist? There is nothing rational about this kind of atheism. I for one see no reason to pretend that it is.
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 5:46:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/18/2014 2:56:21 AM, neutral wrote:
At 5/17/2014 6:10:13 PM, irreverent_god wrote:

My first line wasn't about the synopsis... It was about your commentary.


And it completely missed the point of both the OP article and my response. That would indicate that you read neither and simple, as you tend to do, decided to take the opposite view ... without any explanation.

That's incorrect, but not at all unexpected. You tend to view the actions of those that disagree with you and project, quite a bit.

But go ahead atheist, what is the difference between nihilism and demanding the elimination of religion ...er, because its religion you see?

Wrong, "doctor." Nihilism seeks the destruction of all social institutions. I yearn for the day when all humans understand that all gods that have ever been worshiped on this planet, heretofore, are of human construct. I further wish for the removal of all authority, tax freedoms, and deference from all clergy. I want all of this done at the level of humans figuring out just how worthless and unnecessary the church is. Religion has had its time and it failed. It's time to give knowledge and understanding a chance.

Right. Always skipped in favor of clownish insults and obfuscation. The New Atheism ... of wait, its not new at all ... even South Park has you guys nailed.

http://www.southparkstudios.com...

I don't watch south park, so I don't care. Speaking of "...clownish insults and obfuscation...," let's move on to your next statement, since this one is quite useless...

YOU are the proof. Unable to discuss atheism vs. anti theism, you pursue entirely negative interaction with every religious person on this forum. Yet you demand repeat and treatment as if rude ignorance is a respectable position ... like you' be happy if all religious people were just dead.

No, I don't seek negative interaction with every religious person on this forum. I've had some very decent exchanges with others. However, those that tend to aim all of their frustration at all atheists to tend to stick in my craw, just a bit. And no, I don't want religious people dead. I would rather have them enlightened. Leave it to you to jump to such a vicious conclusion...

And what would you be left to rail against then atheist? There is nothing rational about this kind of atheism. I for one see no reason to pretend that it is.

Why not? You pretend to be a doctor... You pretend to be educated. You pretend to be christian. You pretend to be intelligent. You don't do any of those very well, but you do try. Even so, though, your definition of rational isn't important to me. I've seen how you "reason," and have found it to be severely lacking. Anything for which you can blame atheism (and even things for which you cannot), you will. No worries. It takes more than a handful of deluded haters like yourself to raise any eyebrows.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 7:49:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/17/2014 11:07:32 AM, neutral wrote:
I disagree completely. Even you, while denying it resort to the claim that we are a threat to society. Religion has been around since before 'civilization' and to say its suddenly become a threat to the very thing its evolved alongside?

Which has what to do with nihilism?

And please consider for a moment, who is a threat to whom? Secular Christian societies that embrace tolerance? Neither religion nor atheism is a threat. However, YOU perhaps a threat to Saudi Arabian embrace of Islam? Correct?

No, the anti-secular and rabidly aggressive fundamentalists. Why would you think I mean the secular Christian side of society? The only major difference between me and a secular Christian is that I don't believe the Bible to be true in the way they do. That's basically it. I've been told by a few people that I'm more Christian in action and sentiment than most Christians are. I'd feel fairly confident in saying that all my brothers and sisters on both sides of that tiny divide would also be very much against the form of Islam being practiced in KSA at the moment. There would be a tremendously strong moral bond, for starters.

Two problems:

Agreed. That doesn't change the fact that these groups are often well-funded and get a lot of coverage. Are they actually representative? No! Do they have a disproportionate impact? Certainly.

Atheism is tolerated, and if what you say is true, you should be rising up where you are oppressed - like Saudi Arabia.

Atheism is more tolerated now, but it's rather geographical and relative. Middle East? Forget it. Much of Africa? Nada. India? Haha. Which covers about half the global population, without mentioning the often aggressive fevour with which atheists are hounded in parts of the US. If that is your idea of tolerance, this is something we are not going to see eye-to-eye on.

Then he should be able to explain them. You are embracing the reality of Creationism.

I agree he should be able to. I just don't think it should be a requirement of every single statement he makes that he actually does explain it. I've no idea how this is tantamount to 'embracing the reality of Creationism'.

And again, its these excuses that leave religious people with the inescapable conclusion that atheists have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to religion.

I don't think theists actually understand atheists' position on religion. I'm not convinced that you understood them when you were an atheist, either.

A billion people can't all be idiots.

They most certainly can. Out of a population of around 7 billion, even by definition. Or the bottom 15% of the intellectual spectrum can't be described as idiots. And... I mean... pretty much the bottom 50% is tragically stupid. At least a billion people are idiots.

Its argued by the atheist in the OP. He is SO right, that he seeks the elimination of all other opinions. You should not be saying you do not see such a thing when it is on the record being said.

Can you quote him saying that he wants all dissenting opinions silenced?

Then there isn't much to atheism

Correct.

and the angry denunciation of religion, portraying it as poison, seems utterly without merit then doesn't it.

Not sure how you got to here. There can be not much to atheism - as I said, there isn't - but also good reasons for speaking out against religion. You seem to be suggesting that atheism could be the only reason someone might do this.

You have obviously never had a relationship with God then.

Did you not assume this on a kind of 'by definition' level?

To you its nothing. But the failure here is your inability to grasp of comprehend just how terribly important it is to other people

No, it isn't. People blow themselves up over it. That's about as important as something can get to a person. It's at least as important to them as the most important thing in my life is to me. Just because X doesn't matter to me doesn't mean that I don't understand what it is to have something matter to you.

That is not the same thing as fundamentally adopting a different culture, which is what the OP article claims.

I think that is getting into far too ambiguous an area on several levels to really comment on. What is a culture? What is 'fundamentally adopting'? It's going to just end up with semantics.

Again, what has changed about my culture by accepting the basic tenets of Islam as valid?

Not much, because you've focused on the same themes in each.

You are splitting apples to real effect brother.

Others would call it paraphrasing the most important philosopher of the 20th century.

Indeed, if what you say is true, then I should not be able to pray with Muslims and Jews ... Yet I do.

Not true. There is no reason you could not do that if what I say is true. If someone has a faith that is, broadly speaking, "I believe there is an underlying truth to these religions and I shall partake in that however I can", of course they will be able to pray with multiple faiths. It's what you'd expect.

The only point that rejects all other choices appears to be atheism.

You are saying that "I don't know" isn't a valid position. Despite the glaring fact that it not only can be, but statistically is.

So, prove scientifically that there is no God.

Oh come on, you can be better than that. I don't claim there definitely isn't a god. Very, very few atheists do.

And now you know why I left atheism.

I would suggest that you didn't, because 'atheism' isn't something you belong to. It's just one view about one pragmatically insignificant question. You just changed your mind. And that's fine, but let's try and stay away from the fantastical hyperbole.

Yet as an atheist, when General Mohammed, after months of fighting and a growing friendship, invited my into a Mosque to pray with him ... would I have accepted as an atheist? No.

Then you were a poor atheist. I would.

Truth is not always black or white. That is a basic premise of logic. But examine it.

Truth is not always black or white =/= truth is never black or white. That is a basic premise of logic. But examine it.

Conversely, all religions are wrong because ... er, they are all wrong ... is not a terribly strong inductive case. To call for the elimination of all other options from such a position? Silliness.

All religions makes unsubstantiated claims that are often fantastical in the extreme and should therefore be disregarded until someone provides some evidence. Coherent would be tops.

So, if I think black people are damaging to society, I have no duty to prove it, just advocate it? The Hyperbole here is clear.

If you thought that then you would want to advocate it, yes. That doesn't have anything to do with whether you should or have reason to think it in the first place, though.

You are coming voluntarily to a religion forum Grain. The idea that people are forcing religion on you would be a strong case of hyperbole.

Indeed I am. As I said, there are some gems out there who are worth seeking out. That wasn't my point though. What I mean is in day-to-day life, far too many people want to spend far too much time trying to pitch their faith to me in the same ways, over and over again. And the majority of them - those that do this, not those that have faith - tend to be the most unpleasant, hypocritical examples.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 8:33:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/18/2014 7:49:40 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/17/2014 11:07:32 AM, neutral wrote:
I disagree completely. Even you, while denying it resort to the claim that we are a threat to society. Religion has been around since before 'civilization' and to say its suddenly become a threat to the very thing its evolved alongside?

Which has what to do with nihilism?

How can we need to be eliminated again? Despite the obviousness of the observation above?

No, the anti-secular and rabidly aggressive fundamentalists.

I think you need to visit Saudi Arabia. Its pretty easy to paint them as a bunch of whacky fundamentalists. What they really are? People with a different opinion.

To them? You are the whacky, irrational, religious fundamentalist that just doesn't get it, and never will.

Odd that the two of you could see each other exactly the same way, eh?

Agreed. That doesn't change the fact that these groups are often well-funded and get a lot of coverage. Are they actually representative? No! Do they have a disproportionate impact? Certainly.

Yellow Journalism is not an excuse brother. Card carrying rationalists should be the first to call BS on this. Instead ... we have Sam Harris.

Again, why is the religious guy the one pointing out that this is FAR more complex?


Atheism is more tolerated now, but it's rather geographical and relative. Middle East? Forget it.

You said it was a reaction to oppression. It should be popping up where it is oppressed then. It is not. It is rising in West where it is anything but persecuted. That means, the claim that its a reaction is not correct.

Atheism is spreading for much the same reasons religion spreads. You guys use organizations to sell yourself.

The problem is the tactic used. At some point, "You don't support rape, right" (happening now in several places on the forum), implodes when people grow up and realize ... uh ... rape happens and those guys coming out of that church are not the ones doing it. Ruh Roh.

Again, that is why I left atheism, its marketing is not sustainable when examined rationally.

I agree he should be able to.

If he is advocating eliminating ALL religion, he had best be making an EXTREMELY strong case for such an extreme position. He does not.

Therein lies the problem.


I don't think theists actually understand atheists' position on religion. I'm not convinced that you understood them when you were an atheist, either.

Which part? That you guys don't believe in God - nothing more?

Or the part where, happened again today, and atheist ripostes from that statement into a lecture about how atheists are eqilitarian and equitable unlike us heathen religious people?


They most certainly can.

That is a very dim view of your fellow man brother.

Are all religious people stupid? Well, then obviously there is more to it than stupidity, correct?


Can you quote him saying that he wants all dissenting opinions silenced?

He openly advocates the elimination of ALL religion. Check for yourself. Its his version of 'softer' atheism.


Then there isn't much to atheism

Correct.

So, why is it hard to understand by people we are grudgingly acknowledging as intelligent?


Not sure how you got to here. There can be not much to atheism - as I said, there isn't - but also good reasons for speaking out against religion.

There is good reason for speaking out against ASPECTS of religion, just as there are good reasons to speak out against aspects of atheism - like the call to eliminate religion. That is not atheism is it? Its anti-theism, and, quite frankly, the very ignorance you and I both abhor.

Remember, this dolt is talking about eliminating the freedom of choice of some 90% of humanity just off the cuff. Sounds downright Nazish doesn't it?


Did you not assume this on a kind of 'by definition' level?

Have you ever had a relationship with God? If so, then you already know what I am talking about. If not? You don't.

No, it isn't. People blow themselves up over it.

People blow themselves and things up for all kinds of reasons, many having nothing at all to do religion.

The choice to renounce your faith or executed? To be given that choice?

Its a little different than having a cadre of abusive dolts, deliberately grooming the poor and afflicted to turn them into weapons, promising to take care of the families that are otherwise burdened by them. Its financial and power. Nothing more.

I think that is getting into far too ambiguous an area on several levels to really comment on. What is a culture? What is 'fundamentally adopting'? It's going to just end up with semantics.

So the point that being a Christian in Pakistan does not make you Italian is valid, correct?


Not much, because you've focused on the same themes in each.

Which is not possible according to you? False dilemma remember?


Others would call it paraphrasing the most important philosopher of the 20th century.

How so?

Not true. There is no reason you could not do that if what I say is true. If someone has a faith that is, broadly speaking, "I believe there is an underlying truth to these religions and I shall partake in that however I can", of course they will be able to pray with multiple faiths. It's what you'd expect.

And yet you and OP both state that religions are impossibly divisive? The only ones that will not commingle? Atheists who seek to eliminate all, correct?


You are saying that "I don't know" isn't a valid position.

You guys are so wrong you should be eliminated is not, "I don't know." That is agnosticism. Atheism is, again, not much too it correct? It isn't I don't know.


Oh come on, you can be better than that. I don't claim there definitely isn't a god. Very, very few atheists do.

Then why are advocating the elimination of religion?


I would suggest that you didn't, because 'atheism' isn't something you belong to.

Semantics.

Yet as an atheist, when General Mohammed, after months of fighting and a growing friendship, invited my into a Mosque to pray with him ... would I have accepted as an atheist? No.

Then you were a poor atheist. I would.

You would pray to God with a Muslim? In a mosque? Openly praise the virtuous aspects of Islam? Even as you advocate its elimination?

Now there is a dilemma for you, it cannot be both.


All religions makes unsubstantiated claims that are often fantastical in the extreme and should therefore be disregarded until someone provides some evidence. Coherent would be tops.

So does science in the hypothesis stage.

All religions ALSO make claims that CAN be verified. Don't they? (Except maybe Scientology).

If you thought that then you would want to advocate it, yes. That doesn't have anything to do with whether you should or have reason to think it in the first place, though.

So why should religion be eliminated as per the 'soft atheism' in the OP?



Indeed I am. As I said, there are some gems out there who are worth seeking out. That wasn't my point though. What I mean is in day-to-day life, far too many people want to spend far too much time trying to pitch their faith to me in the same ways, over and over again. And the majority of them - those that do this, not those that have faith - tend to be the most unpleasant, hypocritical examples.

I think you are exaggerating. Britain has a large atheist population. And the number times a missionary approached me in Britain? Zero. In Europe at large? Zero. Two years in Washington State? Twice.

Number of times an atheist blasted religion in public during that same period? Interrupted prayers? Filed lawsuits blocking expressions? I'd say about a dozen.

Atheists are opinionated too brother, but what is exp
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 9:02:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/17/2014 9:34:20 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/17/2014 7:04:32 AM, neutral wrote:
As an atheist what was your opinion of god? Did you have one? Or didn't you know of one? Did you even know that people believed in a god? Why did you not believe in a god? Why did you not believe in Zeus?
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 10:49:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/18/2014 2:11:02 AM, neutral wrote:
At 5/17/2014 4:46:18 PM, debateuser wrote:


Atheism is rejection of God and ranks allegedly given by God also. An atheists will not claim to differentiate between commoners and clergy. And which sect of atheism are you? Gnostic? Agnostic? Wierdo?

Gnostic Agnostic atheism just shows to what degree you are atheist or the strength of atheistic belief.

In India too, we see many ranks given based on religiuos afiliation. The caste system in India has drivers other than religion. Nor indeed does this somehow reflect ALL religion.

The brahmin in india are considered superior due to religious reasons.

In state atheism, if you reject atheism ... you die. Like North Korea.

No there are religious believers in North Korea. The government there does not care what you believe in as long as you dont induldge in religious politics. Whereas in religious countries like middle east , you can be put to death just for being not just an atheist but also belonging to a religious sect.

We saw during the world war 2 , Jews in USA were the target of religious hatred. Are you on crack? The Halocaust was in Germany!

Who is talking about the holocaust. It was before USA actually sided with Britain . Church members did spread hatred against Jews. So did the business rivals of Jews. You dont really have to put Jews in gas chambers to call it hatred spreading.

DB:
Are you attempting to prove that:


1. You don't think atheists divid themselves? Lets take a look:

Clergy: What are Hitchens and Dawkins? Paid millions to be quoted and revered by lower atheists?

http://firstchurchofatheism.com...

Look at that! No cost! Not Questions! No bothersome Seminary or Education, why any idiots can become an ordained minister in the first church of atheism!

There is no such organisations like this in state atheism. China and North Korea dont have these. Church of atheism is just a name only. In a sample case

So we bow our heads for two minutes of contemplation about the miracle of life and, in his closing sermon, Jones speaks about how the death of his mother influenced his own spiritual journey and determination to get the most out of every second, aware that life is all too brief and nothing comes after it.

http://www.bbc.com...

Sects:

http://commonsenseatheism.com...

17 different kinds of ways of saying, "there is no God!" And gosh darn it if you atheists won't fight about it too! The gnostic atheist screaming defiance and certainty and the agnostic (when you can get him to actually say it) that its merely improbable!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Your churches are ALREADY splitting too boot!

"the "atheist" movement keeps shooting itself in the foot by failing to reach a consensus regarding the meaning of "atheism."

http://www.truefreethinker.com...

The sects which you referring to are not sects in the true sense. These are just the strength of one's atheistic beliefs. Even in Christianity, somebody can be a weak christian while others can be strong Christians.

So you really think people are so stupid that we would not notice that?

2. Do you really think atheists don't favor atheism? We have a guy running roughshod, in the OP, over EVERY RELIGION ON EARTH. Wants them eliminated. You think he's being egalitarian? Or is that about as exclusive as it gets? Think like me or be destroyed!

In a religious society , it is not just the majority religion who face hate crimes but also minority religions and non- believers also. It seems a religious society does not spare anybody because their ideology feeds on hatred. We saw this in the case of Crusades and more recently war on terror.

Take a look at this forum. Civility. Can you explain why atheists will chastize non-atheists for any bit of incivility and then completely ignore bully boy? Why they skip over accusations of war crimes in others? Full on temper tantrums? How is that not favoritism?

Countries where state atheism is promoted, they dont care what is your race . All they expect is that you work for the progress of the state. Whereas in religious societies , racism also goes hand in hand.


"Atheism and anti-theism so often occur together at the same time and in the same person that it's understandable if many people fail to realize that they aren't the same. Making note of the difference is important, however, because not every atheist is anti-theistic and even those who are, aren't anti-theistic all the time. Atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods; anti-theism is a conscious and deliberate opposition to theism. Many atheists are also anti-theists, but not all."

http://atheism.about.com...

Yet here you are failing to make that very distinction.

Here you are failing utterly to lay out any kind of evidential case that God is CLEARLY not real, meaning you are a Gnostic atheist (only you won't call yourself one), because you believe that all other religions should be rejected with prejudice (the legal term).
Indeed, the attempt in the OP to 'soften' atheism still ends with the call to eliminate religion.
And yet the rebuttal of a position that is essentially calling for a war against all religions, a Crusade if you will, is rejected by atheists who proceed to fly into preachy and totally unsupportable positions ... while both agreeing and disagreeing with the case for war against religion.
We see what you atheists are up to, and the hanging question that no atheist will answer:

Why would you expect religious people to vote for you, give you political power, when you openly state that you seek to eliminate our beliefs?

Atheists dont eliminate religion using force. If that were the case, you wont see any religious believer in China, north korea. What atheists do is that they promote their ideology and let people decide. Even religions do promote their ideology and let people decide. In countries with state atheism , the government just wont let people spread religious hatred against each other. In USA this is not the case. For example hatred against catholics, jews, muslims and many other sects. Religious hatred does not stop here it also effects the majority . We see a lot hate crimes targeting both majority and minorities. You must have heard of blasphemous movies being made in USA and burning of Quran. Have you ever heard about such events in Atheist states. That is because Atheist states dont create divide and rule based on religious beliefs while in USA, presidents are comparing the war on terror with a Crusade. Its a shame that people with a big heart in USA are kept behind while those who just believe in spreading hatred form the majority of government. The atheists and freethinkers do form a sizeable minority in US government, otherwise USA would be more like Saudi Arabia.
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 10:51:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/17/2014 2:45:11 AM, neutral wrote:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

We get the nominal work of atheism here, and again, its tough to separate atheism from the nascent anti-theism and nihilism that profoundly influences modern atheism.

The work above is clearly an attempt to be reasonable, and yet, as is common, it is a claim that rest upon no actual evidence and openly contradicts itself.

The claim, as is typically seen in atheist circles, is that there is no true religion because there are different religions ... you see? Thus it is impossible to choose a religion, who's doctrines both are and are not important. It somehow culture alone that drives religious choices, which completely ignores the reality of religion in the world.

They don't make strong arguments. They all share common arguments. So how can they denounce other religions? The first sentence is why someone isn't religious, the other sentences seem to suggest bias.


#1 - Obviously, if someone is willing to die rather than renounce the faith they chose, there is probably more to it than nothing and the inability to make a discerning choice because they are all different.

http://www.bbc.com...

She may be bias, but that doesn't mean that she doesn't have a strong conviction to her faith.


#2 - The idea of culture being of paramount importance, as if somehow accepting a religion and its doctrine means you accept a culturally altering history and practice. That is clearly not the case in the world. Islam is obviously different in Indonesia rather than Saudi Arabia, were nomadic desert and tribal conditions heavily influence the former and completely different cultural processes drive Indonesia. Yet they both accept that Mohammed was a Prophet of God and the general history of the Koran. (I also accept the history of the Koran ... what does this make me?)

#3 - the idea that its impossible to choose, and that in choosing you reject all others as false, thus you don't is wantonly ignorant. In choosing Christianity, I certainly disagree with parts of Islam, but that does not mean I disrespect it or reject in its entirety.

In a typical modern atheist pretense, a man you rejects everything is some how more logical than a man who accepts one as MOST correct. Primus Inter Pares, first among equals, has long been a established concept (at least since Rome anyway), and the idea that its illogical to look at Islam and say, "Wow, this is really good. I agree with 99.9% of it, but there is that remaining bit that causes me to remain Christian," is wrong? Illogical? Impossible? Instead of, "Thank you for sharing this with me, what an incredible story and insight into your culture and you as a person," it apparently makes for more logical sense to walk into a room and say, "Both you idiots are wrong, and my goal is to ride the world of your nonsense!" (He actually states that as a goal in the article.)

As a tangent, do you see why religious people have such a hard time voting for atheists? When you openly proclaim that your goal is to eliminate our beliefs? Really?

I don't conflate theism with anti-atheism (although a lot of theists seem to believe that their deity will torture us for eternity and that we deserve it), so I'd request that you don't conflate atheism with anti-theism.


#4 - In typical atheist fashion, he then blames centuries of persecution of Jews on just the simple fact that early Christians blamed Jews rather than Rome for the death of Christ.

a. This ignores the entire concept of atonement, in which the death of Jesus IS NECESSARY.

b. The fact that Christians were heavily persecuted until almost the bitter end of the Roman Empire.

c. That the Diaspora was caused by Rome, whose legions crushed the Jewish insurgency and then brutally divided the Jews throughout the empire to prevent another insurgency.

d. In those communities, the Jews, who retained a distinct cultural identity and prevented inter-marriage or assimilation, were often confined to economic fringes like money lending - the collection of which made them easy targets for hatred.

e. Ignores the changing winds of CENTURIES of political shifting, in which the rise of Empires at the expense of others in which tolerance, like Frederick the Great's for these same Jews, comes at the expense of others, like Russia, whose persecution of the Jews drove away capitol and expertise in favor of local strongmen.

f. Ignores other wide spread persecution throughout Europe, like the French Huguenots. There is little or know analysis about political processes and competition from which actual lessons can be derived to avoid what has been a long standing global problem of intolerance and the stoking of it for political purposes - Serbia dissent into madness, for example, cannot be explained by persecution of the Jews at all - yet there is hangs in open defiance to such simplistic analysis.

Even in brief, we can see the ignorance of atheists on the subject of religion. We can see the biases of atheism which drives atheist analysts to accept millennia long historical process with grotesquely simplistic answers that serve little purpose but to slam religion, and, we see quite clearly here, the desire of atheism to eliminate, even in soft atheism, rather than merely disagree with religion.

Perhaps the ignorance of an atheist. Why do you have to describe people as groups?


Simply put, guys like this are looking to pick a fight. Eventually, they will get one. When your goal is to simplify complexity and deny the basics of history to deliberately misunderstand religion so you can eliminate it?

I daresay that such people will eventually reap exactly what they have sewn.

I'm not surprised that you'd say that.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
ArcTImes
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 10:56:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is a huge non sequitur.
I mean, at the end the only reason religious people don't do the same is because they are religious. Atheism doesn't make people anti religious. In the same way that atheism doesn't make them pro gay marriage.

It's the separation from the set of codes that religious "gives" people that make them take those decisions based on society, modern society.
It is not atheism. If it was, it would be like that, always.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 12:49:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/18/2014 10:49:32 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 5/18/2014 2:11:02 AM, neutral wrote:
At 5/17/2014 4:46:18 PM, debateuser wrote:


Atheism is rejection of God and ranks allegedly given by God also. An atheists will not claim to differentiate between commoners and clergy. And which sect of atheism are you? Gnostic? Agnostic? Wierdo?

Gnostic Agnostic atheism just shows to what degree you are atheist or the strength of atheistic belief.

In India too, we see many ranks given based on religiuos afiliation. The caste system in India has drivers other than religion. Nor indeed does this somehow reflect ALL religion.

The brahmin in india are considered superior due to religious reasons.

In state atheism, if you reject atheism ... you die. Like North Korea.

No there are religious believers in North Korea. The government there does not care what you believe in as long as you dont induldge in religious politics. Whereas in religious countries like middle east , you can be put to death just for being not just an atheist but also belonging to a religious sect.

We saw during the world war 2 , Jews in USA were the target of religious hatred. Are you on crack? The Halocaust was in Germany!

Who is talking about the holocaust. It was before USA actually sided with Britain . Church members did spread hatred against Jews. So did the business rivals of Jews. You dont really have to put Jews in gas chambers to call it hatred spreading.

DB:
Are you attempting to prove that:


1. You don't think atheists divid themselves? Lets take a look:

Clergy: What are Hitchens and Dawkins? Paid millions to be quoted and revered by lower atheists?

http://firstchurchofatheism.com...

Look at that! No cost! Not Questions! No bothersome Seminary or Education, why any idiots can become an ordained minister in the first church of atheism!

There is no such organisations like this in state atheism. China and North Korea dont have these. Church of atheism is just a name only. In a sample case

So we bow our heads for two minutes of contemplation about the miracle of life and, in his closing sermon, Jones speaks about how the death of his mother influenced his own spiritual journey and determination to get the most out of every second, aware that life is all too brief and nothing comes after it.

http://www.bbc.com...

Sects:

http://commonsenseatheism.com...

17 different kinds of ways of saying, "there is no God!" And gosh darn it if you atheists won't fight about it too! The gnostic atheist screaming defiance and certainty and the agnostic (when you can get him to actually say it) that its merely improbable!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Your churches are ALREADY splitting too boot!

"the "atheist" movement keeps shooting itself in the foot by failing to reach a consensus regarding the meaning of "atheism."

http://www.truefreethinker.com...

The sects which you referring to are not sects in the true sense. These are just the strength of one's atheistic beliefs. Even in Christianity, somebody can be a weak christian while others can be strong Christians.

So you really think people are so stupid that we would not notice that?

2. Do you really think atheists don't favor atheism? We have a guy running roughshod, in the OP, over EVERY RELIGION ON EARTH. Wants them eliminated. You think he's being egalitarian? Or is that about as exclusive as it gets? Think like me or be destroyed!

In a religious society , it is not just the majority religion who face hate crimes but also minority religions and non- believers also. It seems a religious society does not spare anybody because their ideology feeds on hatred. We saw this in the case of Crusades and more recently war on terror.

Take a look at this forum. Civility. Can you explain why atheists will chastize non-atheists for any bit of incivility and then completely ignore bully boy? Why they skip over accusations of war crimes in others? Full on temper tantrums? How is that not favoritism?

Countries where state atheism is promoted, they dont care what is your race . All they expect is that you work for the progress of the state. Whereas in religious societies , racism also goes hand in hand.


"Atheism and anti-theism so often occur together at the same time and in the same person that it's understandable if many people fail to realize that they aren't the same. Making note of the difference is important, however, because not every atheist is anti-theistic and even those who are, aren't anti-theistic all the time. Atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods; anti-theism is a conscious and deliberate opposition to theism. Many atheists are also anti-theists, but not all."

http://atheism.about.com...

Yet here you are failing to make that very distinction.

Here you are failing utterly to lay out any kind of evidential case that God is CLEARLY not real, meaning you are a Gnostic atheist (only you won't call yourself one), because you believe that all other religions should be rejected with prejudice (the legal term).
Indeed, the attempt in the OP to 'soften' atheism still ends with the call to eliminate religion.
And yet the rebuttal of a position that is essentially calling for a war against all religions, a Crusade if you will, is rejected by atheists who proceed to fly into preachy and totally unsupportable positions ... while both agreeing and disagreeing with the case for war against religion.
We see what you atheists are up to, and the hanging question that no atheist will answer:

Why would you expect religious people to vote for you, give you political power, when you openly state that you seek to eliminate our beliefs?

Atheists dont eliminate religion using force. If that were the case, you wont see any because Atheist states dont create divide and rule based on religious beliefs while in USA, presidents are comparing the war on terror with a Crusade. Its a shame that people with a big heart in USA are kept behind while those who just believe in spreading hatred form the majority of government. The atheists and freethinkers do form a sizeable minority in US government, otherwise USA would be more like Saudi Arabia.

I see a lot of prattle here, but what I do not see is anything that supports the elimination of religion for anything that looks like logical reasons.

This may come as a shock, but when you seek to 'eliminate' something, that thing tends to fight back. So if you are unprepared for violence? This may not be the fight you wish to set up.

Every historical kingdom that has tried to remove religion has not only failed, but left the adherence to religion MUCH stronger as a result.

And again dolt, if I pray with Muslims, I would kindly ask that you stop straw manning us with your ignorant bigotry. We don't all hate each other. Interfaith council's etc. The ONLY religious choice that HATES all others is your atheism. Which YOU position ALONE seeks to eliminate ALL others.

Yet somehow? We are the bigots?
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 1:14:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/18/2014 10:51:06 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:

I don't conflate theism with anti-atheism (although a lot of theists seem to believe that their deity will torture us for eternity and that we deserve it), so I'd request that you don't conflate atheism with anti-theism.



That can be rather hard AB, when even 'soft' atheists are publicly calling for the elimination of religion.

The separation between atheism and anti-theism is not that distinct anymore.

Are there atheists that are not? You bet. Where are they?

For example. I just had to quote the Bible for an atheist today tat beastiality was forbidden in the Bible, and not, as he thought, encouraged. At which point, after calling us all a bunch of animal rapers, he clarified that what he really meant was that he MERELY disagreed that there was a God you see?

The accusations of goat rape were ... what?

And religious people see this ALL the time.

How long do you expect people not actually raping goats to tolerate being called goat rapers?

Simply put, atheism would do well to separate itself form that garbage, it will eventually reap what it sews.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 1:57:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/18/2014 1:14:51 PM, neutral wrote:
At 5/18/2014 10:51:06 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:

I don't conflate theism with anti-atheism (although a lot of theists seem to believe that their deity will torture us for eternity and that we deserve it), so I'd request that you don't conflate atheism with anti-theism.



That can be rather hard AB, when even 'soft' atheists are publicly calling for the elimination of religion.

The separation between atheism and anti-theism is not that distinct anymore.

We could always say the same about theism and anti-atheism, but I still don't think that justifies bigotry.


Are there atheists that are not? You bet. Where are they?

What kind of a question is that? I don't know many atheists who are against people believing in deities, just against religions which seem to preach hate and irrationality of some kinds.


For example. I just had to quote the Bible for an atheist today tat beastiality was forbidden in the Bible, and not, as he thought, encouraged. At which point, after calling us all a bunch of animal rapers, he clarified that what he really meant was that he MERELY disagreed that there was a God you see?

The accusations of goat rape were ... what?

And religious people see this ALL the time.

So? People who are atheists see religious people trying to convert them, or hating them/looking down on them and saying they deserve to go to Hell all the time. Doesn't justify bigotry.


How long do you expect people not actually raping goats to tolerate being called goat rapers?

I don't expect you to use that to justify bigotry.


Simply put, atheism would do well to separate itself form that garbage, it will eventually reap what it sews.

I've told you what atheism is. People can be terrible people and be theists or atheists, that doesn't justify discriminating against either of them.

Now quit it.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!