Total Posts:67|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Question for theists that insist otherwise...

irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 4:56:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
First, atheism and agnosticism are responses to a singular question:
Is there a god?

All other discussions are secondary, and pitting religion against atheism is just dumb...

There is no collective set of moral codes or ethics associated with it.
There is no collective set of tenets/doctrines associated with it.
There is no collective belief system associated with it.
There is no collective governing body, of any kind.
There is no collective view on anything other than the question of gawd's existence.
There is no "worldview" associated with atheism/agnosticism.

We (atheists/agnostics) do not automatically share a "common view" that is inherently associated with being an atheist or agnostic.
Being atheistic/agnostic does not remove the ability to derive our own ethics.
Most of the time, our ethics coincide with the vast majority of other atheists and agnostics.
Most of the time, our ethics coincide with the vast majority of theists (whether they believe it, or not).
Atheism and every one of the following are mutually exclusive:

Evolution.
Anti-theism.
Ethical views.
Values.
Standards.
Interests and hobbies.
Sexuality.
Family views/values.
Moral code.

Each and every topic listed above is completely disassociated from our disbelief in your god. Since atheism and agnosticism are not "a way of life" is claiming christianity/muslimism/hinduism/buddhism or any other religious belief. We don't have any ceremonies that are common to all of us. We don't automatically harbor the same beliefs, views, or prejudices as common. We don't all take our moral guidance from the same place.

Now the question:

Why are so many topics directed at atheists/agnostics, collectively, when each one of us is not bound by any specific set of tenets?
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 5:37:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 4:56:20 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
First, atheism and agnosticism are responses to a singular question:
Is there a god?

All other discussions are secondary, and pitting religion against atheism is just dumb...

There is no collective set of moral codes or ethics associated with it.
There is no collective set of tenets/doctrines associated with it.
There is no collective belief system associated with it.
There is no collective governing body, of any kind.
There is no collective view on anything other than the question of gawd's existence.
There is no "worldview" associated with atheism/agnosticism.

We (atheists/agnostics) do not automatically share a "common view" that is inherently associated with being an atheist or agnostic.
Being atheistic/agnostic does not remove the ability to derive our own ethics.
Most of the time, our ethics coincide with the vast majority of other atheists and agnostics.
Most of the time, our ethics coincide with the vast majority of theists (whether they believe it, or not).
Atheism and every one of the following are mutually exclusive:

Evolution.
Anti-theism.
Ethical views.
Values.
Standards.
Interests and hobbies.
Sexuality.
Family views/values.
Moral code.

Each and every topic listed above is completely disassociated from our disbelief in your god. Since atheism and agnosticism are not "a way of life" is claiming christianity/muslimism/hinduism/buddhism or any other religious belief. We don't have any ceremonies that are common to all of us. We don't automatically harbor the same beliefs, views, or prejudices as common. We don't all take our moral guidance from the same place.

Yep, all good brother.

Now the question:

Why are so many topics directed at atheists/agnostics, collectively, when each one of us is not bound by any specific set of tenets?

Is goes both ways right? The Atheists/Agnostics direct their topics at religious people, and religious people direct their topics at atheists/non believers. Mainly because I think they want each other to understand them IDK.
For me, I usually direct my topics at mainly Atheists, for no other reason than it interests me and I would like them to understand Christian beliefs, as well as I want to understand their views.
And of course I want them to be mindful of spiritual things even though they have no interest lol! it is important to me even if it isn't to them. I guess that's probably dumb.
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 12:03:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 5:37:11 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 5/30/2014 4:56:20 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
First, atheism and agnosticism are responses to a singular question:
Is there a god?

All other discussions are secondary, and pitting religion against atheism is just dumb...

There is no collective set of moral codes or ethics associated with it.
There is no collective set of tenets/doctrines associated with it.
There is no collective belief system associated with it.
There is no collective governing body, of any kind.
There is no collective view on anything other than the question of gawd's existence.
There is no "worldview" associated with atheism/agnosticism.

We (atheists/agnostics) do not automatically share a "common view" that is inherently associated with being an atheist or agnostic.
Being atheistic/agnostic does not remove the ability to derive our own ethics.
Most of the time, our ethics coincide with the vast majority of other atheists and agnostics.
Most of the time, our ethics coincide with the vast majority of theists (whether they believe it, or not).
Atheism and every one of the following are mutually exclusive:

Evolution.
Anti-theism.
Ethical views.
Values.
Standards.
Interests and hobbies.
Sexuality.
Family views/values.
Moral code.

Each and every topic listed above is completely disassociated from our disbelief in your god. Since atheism and agnosticism are not "a way of life" is claiming christianity/muslimism/hinduism/buddhism or any other religious belief. We don't have any ceremonies that are common to all of us. We don't automatically harbor the same beliefs, views, or prejudices as common. We don't all take our moral guidance from the same place.

Yep, all good brother.

Now the question:

Why are so many topics directed at atheists/agnostics, collectively, when each one of us is not bound by any specific set of tenets?

Is goes both ways right? The Atheists/Agnostics direct their topics at religious people, and religious people direct their topics at atheists/non believers. Mainly because I think they want each other to understand them IDK.
For me, I usually direct my topics at mainly Atheists, for no other reason than it interests me and I would like them to understand Christian beliefs, as well as I want to understand their views.
And of course I want them to be mindful of spiritual things even though they have no interest lol! it is important to me even if it isn't to them. I guess that's probably dumb.

I agree with you on everything you said, except as far as your saying it goes the same both ways:

I think it's a bit different. You see all the time theists who condemn the "morals" of atheists and who condemn them to hell. You don't (usually) get that with atheists. The vast majority of atheists, exempting the bitter extreme ones, don't have a problem with people who happen to hold theism, they just have a problem with the theism.

Theism is not held by the majority of atheists to be a sign of immorality, but atheism is held by the majority of theists to be hell-worthy.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 1:49:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 12:03:30 AM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 5/30/2014 5:37:11 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 5/30/2014 4:56:20 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
First, atheism and agnosticism are responses to a singular question:
Is there a god?

All other discussions are secondary, and pitting religion against atheism is just dumb...

There is no collective set of moral codes or ethics associated with it.
There is no collective set of tenets/doctrines associated with it.
There is no collective belief system associated with it.
There is no collective governing body, of any kind.
There is no collective view on anything other than the question of gawd's existence.
There is no "worldview" associated with atheism/agnosticism.

We (atheists/agnostics) do not automatically share a "common view" that is inherently associated with being an atheist or agnostic.
Being atheistic/agnostic does not remove the ability to derive our own ethics.
Most of the time, our ethics coincide with the vast majority of other atheists and agnostics.
Most of the time, our ethics coincide with the vast majority of theists (whether they believe it, or not).
Atheism and every one of the following are mutually exclusive:

Evolution.
Anti-theism.
Ethical views.
Values.
Standards.
Interests and hobbies.
Sexuality.
Family views/values.
Moral code.

Each and every topic listed above is completely disassociated from our disbelief in your god. Since atheism and agnosticism are not "a way of life" is claiming christianity/muslimism/hinduism/buddhism or any other religious belief. We don't have any ceremonies that are common to all of us. We don't automatically harbor the same beliefs, views, or prejudices as common. We don't all take our moral guidance from the same place.

Yep, all good brother.

Now the question:

Why are so many topics directed at atheists/agnostics, collectively, when each one of us is not bound by any specific set of tenets?

Is goes both ways right? The Atheists/Agnostics direct their topics at religious people, and religious people direct their topics at atheists/non believers. Mainly because I think they want each other to understand them IDK.
For me, I usually direct my topics at mainly Atheists, for no other reason than it interests me and I would like them to understand Christian beliefs, as well as I want to understand their views.
And of course I want them to be mindful of spiritual things even though they have no interest lol! it is important to me even if it isn't to them. I guess that's probably dumb.

I agree with you on everything you said, except as far as your saying it goes the same both ways:

I think it's a bit different. You see all the time theists who condemn the "morals" of atheists and who condemn them to hell. You don't (usually) get that with atheists. The vast majority of atheists, exempting the bitter extreme ones, don't have a problem with people who happen to hold theism, they just have a problem with the theism.

Theism is not held by the majority of atheists to be a sign of immorality, but atheism is held by the majority of theists to be hell-worthy.

If some one believed in a pink unicorn passing down a book to theirs parents and it had all life's answers; I would not spend half as much time as Atheist do in the religious forum trying to convince that person otherwise.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 2:22:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 4:56:20 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
First, atheism and agnosticism are responses to a singular question:
Is there a god?

All other discussions are secondary, and pitting religion against atheism is just dumb...

There is no collective set of moral codes or ethics associated with it.
There is no collective set of tenets/doctrines associated with it.
There is no collective belief system associated with it.
There is no collective governing body, of any kind.
There is no collective view on anything other than the question of gawd's existence.
There is no "worldview" associated with atheism/agnosticism.

We (atheists/agnostics) do not automatically share a "common view" that is inherently associated with being an atheist or agnostic.
Being atheistic/agnostic does not remove the ability to derive our own ethics.
Most of the time, our ethics coincide with the vast majority of other atheists and agnostics.
Most of the time, our ethics coincide with the vast majority of theists (whether they believe it, or not).
Atheism and every one of the following are mutually exclusive:

Evolution.
Anti-theism.
Ethical views.
Values.
Standards.
Interests and hobbies.
Sexuality.
Family views/values.
Moral code.

Each and every topic listed above is completely disassociated from our disbelief in your god. Since atheism and agnosticism are not "a way of life" is claiming christianity/muslimism/hinduism/buddhism or any other religious belief. We don't have any ceremonies that are common to all of us. We don't automatically harbor the same beliefs, views, or prejudices as common. We don't all take our moral guidance from the same place.

Now the question:

Why are so many topics directed at atheists/agnostics, collectively, when each one of us is not bound by any specific set of tenets?

Because there are conditionals associated with not having a purposeful existence. These follow necessarily and depend entirely on whether or not you identify yourself as having a non-intentional or accidental purpose/existence.

In my own opinion, for an atheist to be logically consistent with their beliefs they must

1) have no objective morality because objectives don't exist in an objectively purposeless existence

2) have extrinsic human worth because if our worth is derived from unguided random processes and evolved from non-living material we'd have no intrinsic worth.

3) be left with explaining anything metaphysical within the physical limits of time, space, matter, and energy if you believe that anything like this exists.

4) have no belief in absolute truths given that everything is relative to purposelessness.
mrsatan
Posts: 428
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 2:27:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 1:49:10 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/31/2014 12:03:30 AM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 5/30/2014 5:37:11 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 5/30/2014 4:56:20 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
First, atheism and agnosticism are responses to a singular question:
Is there a god?

All other discussions are secondary, and pitting religion against atheism is just dumb...

There is no collective set of moral codes or ethics associated with it.
There is no collective set of tenets/doctrines associated with it.
There is no collective belief system associated with it.
There is no collective governing body, of any kind.
There is no collective view on anything other than the question of gawd's existence.
There is no "worldview" associated with atheism/agnosticism.

We (atheists/agnostics) do not automatically share a "common view" that is inherently associated with being an atheist or agnostic.
Being atheistic/agnostic does not remove the ability to derive our own ethics.
Most of the time, our ethics coincide with the vast majority of other atheists and agnostics.
Most of the time, our ethics coincide with the vast majority of theists (whether they believe it, or not).
Atheism and every one of the following are mutually exclusive:

Evolution.
Anti-theism.
Ethical views.
Values.
Standards.
Interests and hobbies.
Sexuality.
Family views/values.
Moral code.

Each and every topic listed above is completely disassociated from our disbelief in your god. Since atheism and agnosticism are not "a way of life" is claiming christianity/muslimism/hinduism/buddhism or any other religious belief. We don't have any ceremonies that are common to all of us. We don't automatically harbor the same beliefs, views, or prejudices as common. We don't all take our moral guidance from the same place.

Yep, all good brother.

Now the question:

Why are so many topics directed at atheists/agnostics, collectively, when each one of us is not bound by any specific set of tenets?

Is goes both ways right? The Atheists/Agnostics direct their topics at religious people, and religious people direct their topics at atheists/non believers. Mainly because I think they want each other to understand them IDK.
For me, I usually direct my topics at mainly Atheists, for no other reason than it interests me and I would like them to understand Christian beliefs, as well as I want to understand their views.
And of course I want them to be mindful of spiritual things even though they have no interest lol! it is important to me even if it isn't to them. I guess that's probably dumb.

I agree with you on everything you said, except as far as your saying it goes the same both ways:

I think it's a bit different. You see all the time theists who condemn the "morals" of atheists and who condemn them to hell. You don't (usually) get that with atheists. The vast majority of atheists, exempting the bitter extreme ones, don't have a problem with people who happen to hold theism, they just have a problem with the theism.

Theism is not held by the majority of atheists to be a sign of immorality, but atheism is held by the majority of theists to be hell-worthy.

If some one believed in a pink unicorn passing down a book to theirs parents and it had all life's answers; I would not spend half as much time as Atheist do in the religious forum trying to convince that person otherwise.

What if millions of people believed in that pink unicorn, and questioned your moral character because you did not share that belief?
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 2:31:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 2:27:31 AM, mrsatan wrote:
At 5/31/2014 1:49:10 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/31/2014 12:03:30 AM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 5/30/2014 5:37:11 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 5/30/2014 4:56:20 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
First, atheism and agnosticism are responses to a singular question:
Is there a god?

All other discussions are secondary, and pitting religion against atheism is just dumb...

There is no collective set of moral codes or ethics associated with it.
There is no collective set of tenets/doctrines associated with it.
There is no collective belief system associated with it.
There is no collective governing body, of any kind.
There is no collective view on anything other than the question of gawd's existence.
There is no "worldview" associated with atheism/agnosticism.

We (atheists/agnostics) do not automatically share a "common view" that is inherently associated with being an atheist or agnostic.
Being atheistic/agnostic does not remove the ability to derive our own ethics.
Most of the time, our ethics coincide with the vast majority of other atheists and agnostics.
Most of the time, our ethics coincide with the vast majority of theists (whether they believe it, or not).
Atheism and every one of the following are mutually exclusive:

Evolution.
Anti-theism.
Ethical views.
Values.
Standards.
Interests and hobbies.
Sexuality.
Family views/values.
Moral code.

Each and every topic listed above is completely disassociated from our disbelief in your god. Since atheism and agnosticism are not "a way of life" is claiming christianity/muslimism/hinduism/buddhism or any other religious belief. We don't have any ceremonies that are common to all of us. We don't automatically harbor the same beliefs, views, or prejudices as common. We don't all take our moral guidance from the same place.

Yep, all good brother.

Now the question:

Why are so many topics directed at atheists/agnostics, collectively, when each one of us is not bound by any specific set of tenets?

Is goes both ways right? The Atheists/Agnostics direct their topics at religious people, and religious people direct their topics at atheists/non believers. Mainly because I think they want each other to understand them IDK.
For me, I usually direct my topics at mainly Atheists, for no other reason than it interests me and I would like them to understand Christian beliefs, as well as I want to understand their views.
And of course I want them to be mindful of spiritual things even though they have no interest lol! it is important to me even if it isn't to them. I guess that's probably dumb.

I agree with you on everything you said, except as far as your saying it goes the same both ways:

I think it's a bit different. You see all the time theists who condemn the "morals" of atheists and who condemn them to hell. You don't (usually) get that with atheists. The vast majority of atheists, exempting the bitter extreme ones, don't have a problem with people who happen to hold theism, they just have a problem with the theism.

Theism is not held by the majority of atheists to be a sign of immorality, but atheism is held by the majority of theists to be hell-worthy.

If some one believed in a pink unicorn passing down a book to theirs parents and it had all life's answers; I would not spend half as much time as Atheist do in the religious forum trying to convince that person otherwise.

What if millions of people believed in that pink unicorn, and questioned your moral character because you did not share that belief?

You mean like Hindus and how they think I am immoral and unclean because I eat cow? No, I don't spend much time, if any at all, convincing them otherwise.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 2:35:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 2:31:21 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/31/2014 2:27:31 AM, mrsatan wrote:
At 5/31/2014 1:49:10 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/31/2014 12:03:30 AM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 5/30/2014 5:37:11 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 5/30/2014 4:56:20 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
First, atheism and agnosticism are responses to a singular question:
Is there a god?

All other discussions are secondary, and pitting religion against atheism is just dumb...

There is no collective set of moral codes or ethics associated with it.
There is no collective set of tenets/doctrines associated with it.
There is no collective belief system associated with it.
There is no collective governing body, of any kind.
There is no collective view on anything other than the question of gawd's existence.
There is no "worldview" associated with atheism/agnosticism.

We (atheists/agnostics) do not automatically share a "common view" that is inherently associated with being an atheist or agnostic.
Being atheistic/agnostic does not remove the ability to derive our own ethics.
Most of the time, our ethics coincide with the vast majority of other atheists and agnostics.
Most of the time, our ethics coincide with the vast majority of theists (whether they believe it, or not).
Atheism and every one of the following are mutually exclusive:

Evolution.
Anti-theism.
Ethical views.
Values.
Standards.
Interests and hobbies.
Sexuality.
Family views/values.
Moral code.

Each and every topic listed above is completely disassociated from our disbelief in your god. Since atheism and agnosticism are not "a way of life" is claiming christianity/muslimism/hinduism/buddhism or any other religious belief. We don't have any ceremonies that are common to all of us. We don't automatically harbor the same beliefs, views, or prejudices as common. We don't all take our moral guidance from the same place.

Yep, all good brother.

Now the question:

Why are so many topics directed at atheists/agnostics, collectively, when each one of us is not bound by any specific set of tenets?

Is goes both ways right? The Atheists/Agnostics direct their topics at religious people, and religious people direct their topics at atheists/non believers. Mainly because I think they want each other to understand them IDK.
For me, I usually direct my topics at mainly Atheists, for no other reason than it interests me and I would like them to understand Christian beliefs, as well as I want to understand their views.
And of course I want them to be mindful of spiritual things even though they have no interest lol! it is important to me even if it isn't to them. I guess that's probably dumb.

I agree with you on everything you said, except as far as your saying it goes the same both ways:

I think it's a bit different. You see all the time theists who condemn the "morals" of atheists and who condemn them to hell. You don't (usually) get that with atheists. The vast majority of atheists, exempting the bitter extreme ones, don't have a problem with people who happen to hold theism, they just have a problem with the theism.

Theism is not held by the majority of atheists to be a sign of immorality, but atheism is held by the majority of theists to be hell-worthy.

If some one believed in a pink unicorn passing down a book to theirs parents and it had all life's answers; I would not spend half as much time as Atheist do in the religious forum trying to convince that person otherwise.

What if millions of people believed in that pink unicorn, and questioned your moral character because you did not share that belief?

You mean like Hindus and how they think I am immoral and unclean because I eat cow? No, I don't spend much time, if any at all, convincing them otherwise.

What if said pink unicorn religion caused believers to harm non-believers or force their own beliefs upon the population through the power of government? Would you try to convince someone otherwise of the folly of their beliefs, considering how much trouble it can bring?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 2:38:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 2:35:03 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 5/31/2014 2:31:21 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/31/2014 2:27:31 AM, mrsatan wrote:
At 5/31/2014 1:49:10 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/31/2014 12:03:30 AM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 5/30/2014 5:37:11 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 5/30/2014 4:56:20 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
First, atheism and agnosticism are responses to a singular question:
Is there a god?

All other discussions are secondary, and pitting religion against atheism is just dumb...

There is no collective set of moral codes or ethics associated with it.
There is no collective set of tenets/doctrines associated with it.
There is no collective belief system associated with it.
There is no collective governing body, of any kind.
There is no collective view on anything other than the question of gawd's existence.
There is no "worldview" associated with atheism/agnosticism.

We (atheists/agnostics) do not automatically share a "common view" that is inherently associated with being an atheist or agnostic.
Being atheistic/agnostic does not remove the ability to derive our own ethics.
Most of the time, our ethics coincide with the vast majority of other atheists and agnostics.
Most of the time, our ethics coincide with the vast majority of theists (whether they believe it, or not).
Atheism and every one of the following are mutually exclusive:

Evolution.
Anti-theism.
Ethical views.
Values.
Standards.
Interests and hobbies.
Sexuality.
Family views/values.
Moral code.

Each and every topic listed above is completely disassociated from our disbelief in your god. Since atheism and agnosticism are not "a way of life" is claiming christianity/muslimism/hinduism/buddhism or any other religious belief. We don't have any ceremonies that are common to all of us. We don't automatically harbor the same beliefs, views, or prejudices as common. We don't all take our moral guidance from the same place.

Yep, all good brother.

Now the question:

Why are so many topics directed at atheists/agnostics, collectively, when each one of us is not bound by any specific set of tenets?

Is goes both ways right? The Atheists/Agnostics direct their topics at religious people, and religious people direct their topics at atheists/non believers. Mainly because I think they want each other to understand them IDK.
For me, I usually direct my topics at mainly Atheists, for no other reason than it interests me and I would like them to understand Christian beliefs, as well as I want to understand their views.
And of course I want them to be mindful of spiritual things even though they have no interest lol! it is important to me even if it isn't to them. I guess that's probably dumb.

I agree with you on everything you said, except as far as your saying it goes the same both ways:

I think it's a bit different. You see all the time theists who condemn the "morals" of atheists and who condemn them to hell. You don't (usually) get that with atheists. The vast majority of atheists, exempting the bitter extreme ones, don't have a problem with people who happen to hold theism, they just have a problem with the theism.

Theism is not held by the majority of atheists to be a sign of immorality, but atheism is held by the majority of theists to be hell-worthy.

If some one believed in a pink unicorn passing down a book to theirs parents and it had all life's answers; I would not spend half as much time as Atheist do in the religious forum trying to convince that person otherwise.

What if millions of people believed in that pink unicorn, and questioned your moral character because you did not share that belief?

You mean like Hindus and how they think I am immoral and unclean because I eat cow? No, I don't spend much time, if any at all, convincing them otherwise.

What if said pink unicorn religion caused believers to harm non-believers or force their own beliefs upon the population through the power of government? Would you try to convince someone otherwise of the folly of their beliefs, considering how much trouble it can bring?

No, I would try to show them that government and people in power, use anything and everything to get other people to kill and die for their political and monetary gain.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 3:01:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 1:49:10 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/31/2014 12:03:30 AM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 5/30/2014 5:37:11 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 5/30/2014 4:56:20 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
First, atheism and agnosticism are responses to a singular question:
Is there a god?

All other discussions are secondary, and pitting religion against atheism is just dumb...

There is no collective set of moral codes or ethics associated with it.
There is no collective set of tenets/doctrines associated with it.
There is no collective belief system associated with it.
There is no collective governing body, of any kind.
There is no collective view on anything other than the question of gawd's existence.
There is no "worldview" associated with atheism/agnosticism.

We (atheists/agnostics) do not automatically share a "common view" that is inherently associated with being an atheist or agnostic.
Being atheistic/agnostic does not remove the ability to derive our own ethics.
Most of the time, our ethics coincide with the vast majority of other atheists and agnostics.
Most of the time, our ethics coincide with the vast majority of theists (whether they believe it, or not).
Atheism and every one of the following are mutually exclusive:

Evolution.
Anti-theism.
Ethical views.
Values.
Standards.
Interests and hobbies.
Sexuality.
Family views/values.
Moral code.

Each and every topic listed above is completely disassociated from our disbelief in your god. Since atheism and agnosticism are not "a way of life" is claiming christianity/muslimism/hinduism/buddhism or any other religious belief. We don't have any ceremonies that are common to all of us. We don't automatically harbor the same beliefs, views, or prejudices as common. We don't all take our moral guidance from the same place.

Yep, all good brother.

Now the question:

Why are so many topics directed at atheists/agnostics, collectively, when each one of us is not bound by any specific set of tenets?

Is goes both ways right? The Atheists/Agnostics direct their topics at religious people, and religious people direct their topics at atheists/non believers. Mainly because I think they want each other to understand them IDK.
For me, I usually direct my topics at mainly Atheists, for no other reason than it interests me and I would like them to understand Christian beliefs, as well as I want to understand their views.
And of course I want them to be mindful of spiritual things even though they have no interest lol! it is important to me even if it isn't to them. I guess that's probably dumb.

I agree with you on everything you said, except as far as your saying it goes the same both ways:

I think it's a bit different. You see all the time theists who condemn the "morals" of atheists and who condemn them to hell. You don't (usually) get that with atheists. The vast majority of atheists, exempting the bitter extreme ones, don't have a problem with people who happen to hold theism, they just have a problem with the theism.

Theism is not held by the majority of atheists to be a sign of immorality, but atheism is held by the majority of theists to be hell-worthy.

If some one believed in a pink unicorn passing down a book to theirs parents and it had all life's answers; I would not spend half as much time as Atheist do in the religious forum trying to convince that person otherwise.

Atheists just care more about other humans than you do, i guess.

But if those people who were believing in a pink unicorn passing down a book to their children, were actively using that as a justification to commit atrocities, or trying to take the rights away from people, then sorry, im gonna speak out against it.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 3:02:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 2:22:09 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 5/30/2014 4:56:20 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
First, atheism and agnosticism are responses to a singular question:
Is there a god?

All other discussions are secondary, and pitting religion against atheism is just dumb...

There is no collective set of moral codes or ethics associated with it.
There is no collective set of tenets/doctrines associated with it.
There is no collective belief system associated with it.
There is no collective governing body, of any kind.
There is no collective view on anything other than the question of gawd's existence.
There is no "worldview" associated with atheism/agnosticism.

We (atheists/agnostics) do not automatically share a "common view" that is inherently associated with being an atheist or agnostic.
Being atheistic/agnostic does not remove the ability to derive our own ethics.
Most of the time, our ethics coincide with the vast majority of other atheists and agnostics.
Most of the time, our ethics coincide with the vast majority of theists (whether they believe it, or not).
Atheism and every one of the following are mutually exclusive:

Evolution.
Anti-theism.
Ethical views.
Values.
Standards.
Interests and hobbies.
Sexuality.
Family views/values.
Moral code.

Each and every topic listed above is completely disassociated from our disbelief in your god. Since atheism and agnosticism are not "a way of life" is claiming christianity/muslimism/hinduism/buddhism or any other religious belief. We don't have any ceremonies that are common to all of us. We don't automatically harbor the same beliefs, views, or prejudices as common. We don't all take our moral guidance from the same place.

Now the question:

Why are so many topics directed at atheists/agnostics, collectively, when each one of us is not bound by any specific set of tenets?

Because there are conditionals associated with not having a purposeful existence. These follow necessarily and depend entirely on whether or not you identify yourself as having a non-intentional or accidental purpose/existence.

In my own opinion, for an atheist to be logically consistent with their beliefs they must

1) have no objective morality because objectives don't exist in an objectively purposeless existence

2) have extrinsic human worth because if our worth is derived from unguided random processes and evolved from non-living material we'd have no intrinsic worth.

3) be left with explaining anything metaphysical within the physical limits of time, space, matter, and energy if you believe that anything like this exists.

4) have no belief in absolute truths given that everything is relative to purposelessness.

And yet this is directly contradicted by the fact that there are atheist religions out there, like Buddhism, which clearly have these as their tenets.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 3:05:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 3:01:43 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/31/2014 1:49:10 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/31/2014 12:03:30 AM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 5/30/2014 5:37:11 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 5/30/2014 4:56:20 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
First, atheism and agnosticism are responses to a singular question:
Is there a god?

All other discussions are secondary, and pitting religion against atheism is just dumb...

There is no collective set of moral codes or ethics associated with it.
There is no collective set of tenets/doctrines associated with it.
There is no collective belief system associated with it.
There is no collective governing body, of any kind.
There is no collective view on anything other than the question of gawd's existence.
There is no "worldview" associated with atheism/agnosticism.

We (atheists/agnostics) do not automatically share a "common view" that is inherently associated with being an atheist or agnostic.
Being atheistic/agnostic does not remove the ability to derive our own ethics.
Most of the time, our ethics coincide with the vast majority of other atheists and agnostics.
Most of the time, our ethics coincide with the vast majority of theists (whether they believe it, or not).
Atheism and every one of the following are mutually exclusive:

Evolution.
Anti-theism.
Ethical views.
Values.
Standards.
Interests and hobbies.
Sexuality.
Family views/values.
Moral code.

Each and every topic listed above is completely disassociated from our disbelief in your god. Since atheism and agnosticism are not "a way of life" is claiming christianity/muslimism/hinduism/buddhism or any other religious belief. We don't have any ceremonies that are common to all of us. We don't automatically harbor the same beliefs, views, or prejudices as common. We don't all take our moral guidance from the same place.

Yep, all good brother.

Now the question:

Why are so many topics directed at atheists/agnostics, collectively, when each one of us is not bound by any specific set of tenets?

Is goes both ways right? The Atheists/Agnostics direct their topics at religious people, and religious people direct their topics at atheists/non believers. Mainly because I think they want each other to understand them IDK.
For me, I usually direct my topics at mainly Atheists, for no other reason than it interests me and I would like them to understand Christian beliefs, as well as I want to understand their views.
And of course I want them to be mindful of spiritual things even though they have no interest lol! it is important to me even if it isn't to them. I guess that's probably dumb.

I agree with you on everything you said, except as far as your saying it goes the same both ways:

I think it's a bit different. You see all the time theists who condemn the "morals" of atheists and who condemn them to hell. You don't (usually) get that with atheists. The vast majority of atheists, exempting the bitter extreme ones, don't have a problem with people who happen to hold theism, they just have a problem with the theism.

Theism is not held by the majority of atheists to be a sign of immorality, but atheism is held by the majority of theists to be hell-worthy.

If some one believed in a pink unicorn passing down a book to theirs parents and it had all life's answers; I would not spend half as much time as Atheist do in the religious forum trying to convince that person otherwise.

Atheists just care more about other humans than you do, i guess.

But if those people who were believing in a pink unicorn passing down a book to their children, were actively using that as a justification to commit atrocities, or trying to take the rights away from people, then sorry, im gonna speak out against it.

Very few religions are intrinsically violent. I care about human life and understand in the real world a logical argument is not just one of facts and reasoning, but is also of persuasion. It is more effective to avoid the causalities by using a persuasive argument in the pink unicorn context.

Maybe you do not care about human life, as much as you care about espousing your own views loudly.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 3:11:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 3:05:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/31/2014 3:01:43 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/31/2014 1:49:10 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/31/2014 12:03:30 AM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 5/30/2014 5:37:11 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 5/30/2014 4:56:20 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
First, atheism and agnosticism are responses to a singular question:
Is there a god?

All other discussions are secondary, and pitting religion against atheism is just dumb...

There is no collective set of moral codes or ethics associated with it.
There is no collective set of tenets/doctrines associated with it.
There is no collective belief system associated with it.
There is no collective governing body, of any kind.
There is no collective view on anything other than the question of gawd's existence.
There is no "worldview" associated with atheism/agnosticism.

We (atheists/agnostics) do not automatically share a "common view" that is inherently associated with being an atheist or agnostic.
Being atheistic/agnostic does not remove the ability to derive our own ethics.
Most of the time, our ethics coincide with the vast majority of other atheists and agnostics.
Most of the time, our ethics coincide with the vast majority of theists (whether they believe it, or not).
Atheism and every one of the following are mutually exclusive:

Evolution.
Anti-theism.
Ethical views.
Values.
Standards.
Interests and hobbies.
Sexuality.
Family views/values.
Moral code.

Each and every topic listed above is completely disassociated from our disbelief in your god. Since atheism and agnosticism are not "a way of life" is claiming christianity/muslimism/hinduism/buddhism or any other religious belief. We don't have any ceremonies that are common to all of us. We don't automatically harbor the same beliefs, views, or prejudices as common. We don't all take our moral guidance from the same place.

Yep, all good brother.

Now the question:

Why are so many topics directed at atheists/agnostics, collectively, when each one of us is not bound by any specific set of tenets?

Is goes both ways right? The Atheists/Agnostics direct their topics at religious people, and religious people direct their topics at atheists/non believers. Mainly because I think they want each other to understand them IDK.
For me, I usually direct my topics at mainly Atheists, for no other reason than it interests me and I would like them to understand Christian beliefs, as well as I want to understand their views.
And of course I want them to be mindful of spiritual things even though they have no interest lol! it is important to me even if it isn't to them. I guess that's probably dumb.

I agree with you on everything you said, except as far as your saying it goes the same both ways:

I think it's a bit different. You see all the time theists who condemn the "morals" of atheists and who condemn them to hell. You don't (usually) get that with atheists. The vast majority of atheists, exempting the bitter extreme ones, don't have a problem with people who happen to hold theism, they just have a problem with the theism.

Theism is not held by the majority of atheists to be a sign of immorality, but atheism is held by the majority of theists to be hell-worthy.

If some one believed in a pink unicorn passing down a book to theirs parents and it had all life's answers; I would not spend half as much time as Atheist do in the religious forum trying to convince that person otherwise.

Atheists just care more about other humans than you do, i guess.

But if those people who were believing in a pink unicorn passing down a book to their children, were actively using that as a justification to commit atrocities, or trying to take the rights away from people, then sorry, im gonna speak out against it.

Very few religions are intrinsically violent.

The major ones are.

I care about human life and understand in the real world a logical argument is not just one of facts and reasoning, but is also of persuasion. It is more effective to avoid the causalities by using a persuasive argument in the pink unicorn context.

And isnt discussion the best method of persuading someone whether your beliefs are correct, or whether theirs are incorrect?

Maybe you do not care about human life, as much as you care about espousing your own views loudly.

That would be true, if it were atheists were the ones starting the majority of topics here, posting about what their beliefs are. Instead, you have atheists who arent posting the majority of the topics, nor are most of these topics talking about our own views, and instead, question the theists views.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 3:13:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 4:56:20 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
First, atheism and agnosticism are responses to a singular question:
Is there a god?

All other discussions are secondary, and pitting religion against atheism is just dumb...

There is no collective set of moral codes or ethics associated with it.
There is no collective set of tenets/doctrines associated with it.
There is no collective belief system associated with it.
There is no collective governing body, of any kind.
There is no collective view on anything other than the question of gawd's existence.
There is no "worldview" associated with atheism/agnosticism.

We (atheists/agnostics) do not automatically share a "common view" that is inherently associated with being an atheist or agnostic.
Being atheistic/agnostic does not remove the ability to derive our own ethics.
Most of the time, our ethics coincide with the vast majority of other atheists and agnostics.
Most of the time, our ethics coincide with the vast majority of theists (whether they believe it, or not).
Atheism and every one of the following are mutually exclusive:

Evolution.
Anti-theism.
Ethical views.
Values.
Standards.
Interests and hobbies.
Sexuality.
Family views/values.
Moral code.

Each and every topic listed above is completely disassociated from our disbelief in your god. Since atheism and agnosticism are not "a way of life" is claiming christianity/muslimism/hinduism/buddhism or any other religious belief. We don't have any ceremonies that are common to all of us. We don't automatically harbor the same beliefs, views, or prejudices as common. We don't all take our moral guidance from the same place.

Now the question:

Why are so many topics directed at atheists/agnostics, collectively, when each one of us is not bound by any specific set of tenets?

Because of of the topic listed is routinely claimed by atheist, lets examine:

There is no collective set of moral codes or ethics associated with it.

And yet, religious people are constantly fed information from atheists about how inferior we are - from highly scoped prison studies to slavery to supporting child abuse, to being called the poison of the world.

If its not atheism? Why do so many atheists say these things? (Including you BTW)

There is no collective set of tenets/doctrines associated with it.

There most certainly are, there are groups like rational wiki, American atheists, etc, whose works flood any site attempting to discuss religion.

http://infidels.org...

Your argument is right off of secular web. Standard entrenched dogma regurgitated for the masses.

There is no collective belief system associated with it.

You ALL believe there is no God. And most of you and anti-theists too boot.

There is no collective governing body, of any kind.

There are several large and growing atheist organization, and that would include atheist churches.

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

There is no single governing body for any religion or ideology on earth - this serves only to highlight the ignorance of atheists about religion.

There is no collective view on anything other than the question of gawd's existence.

Save the rip off of secular web that we see daily, and the fact that every atheist, usually after being caught behaving horribly toward religious people, falls back on this definitional stuff and pretends the rabid anti-theism isn't there for all to see.

There is no "worldview" associated with atheism/agnosticism.

There is no world view associated with any religion, which once again demonstrates just how little atheists know about religion. Harry Reid is Mormon for example, and he leads the liberal element of the Senate. Mitt Romney and Orrin Hatch are on the right, and in the Republican Party.

So we can glen a couple of lessons from this 'education', quite standard, by atheists:

#1 - Its a cop out. The reason that so many negative questions are asked about atheists is because of the way they act. The barbs and behavior are almost predictable:

a. You support pedophilia.
b. You guys reject science and logical reasoning.
c. There is no evidence.
d. The world would have been peaceful without you religious nuts.
e. Its ONLY religion that has caused persecution of homosexuality.
f. We are secularists, separation of you guys from government (rather than equitable inclusion), is why I am atheist.
g. You guys support genocide
h. You guys support rape and slavery.
i. Creationism is dumb! And so are you all by extension.
j. Morality is genetic and there are no universal moral principles.
k. The Jesus Myth
l. There is NO evidence for God.

And on and on and on.

We are supposed to pretend that after weeks of behavior like that, often irrationally so, like, for example, walking someone painstakingly through the evidence used to build a strong inductive case for God, an argument from probability, not only does the atheist normally fail to listen to it, religious people usually wind up insulted for their trouble and the atheist is again making the same claim a few days later, "That there is no evidence for God." Its irrational.

It irrational, and nothing but an excuse to avoid holding atheists accountable for what they are saying:

Atheists did not earn this reputation by running around JUST not believing in a God.

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

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

This is excuse that prevents atheists from actually looking at themselves as a community, which they deny they even are (yet they somehow all sound alike on critical issues) and tasking themselves to examine what is actually being said in the name of "just not believing in God."

#2 - It hypocritical in the extreme. How many times have atheists shoved the Crusades down our throat? Blaming all Christians and Muslims for the problem? Its not like our doctrine actually commands it? Its not like we have a world view that requires it? Its not like its still happening (unless we listen to atheist Sam Harris) - thus Christianity had NOTHING to do with the behavior done in its name correct?

#3 - It displays ignorance of religion by attempting to contrast atheism with in, the same anti-theistic biases that drive many of the common complains actually list out not having a governing body? As if there is a single 'religion' on earth on that has a totally controlling governing body? There is a required world view to be religious and share a reverence for the teachings of Christ or Mohammed is there? And if you revere Hitchens? Well, there is no REQUIREMENT for you to be a nutgall lefty communist either ... go figure.

As #3 indicates, atheists have no idea what religion even is, and the entire premise of this argument displays the very thing atheists claim it isn't - a dogmatic argumentation that serves only to highlight the behavior of atheists and the hypocritical double standards they use to judge people. It is a wanton cop out of the issues facing the atheist comment today.

Atheists:
are politically liberal (e.g., support gay rights and abortion)
hate Christianity and/or the Christian god
trample people's rights of free religious expression
are always depressed, sad, or grumpylack hope
are moral relativists
are uncivil and do not respect others
are prideful and lack humility
are angry
are arrogant
are mean and generally horrible people
are promiscuous
are more interested in science than the average person
are ignorant of scripture
have faith in evolution
are determined to convert everyone else to atheism
worship the devil

http://www.atheistrev.com...-
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 3:13:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 5:25:36 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Maybe because, in a lot of America, most people don't get to speak to any atheists or agnostics.

That would clearly not be a problem in this forum, now would it?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 3:17:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 3:11:13 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/31/2014 3:05:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/31/2014 3:01:43 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/31/2014 1:49:10 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/31/2014 12:03:30 AM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 5/30/2014 5:37:11 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 5/30/2014 4:56:20 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
First, atheism and agnosticism are responses to a singular question:
Is there a god?

All other discussions are secondary, and pitting religion against atheism is just dumb...

There is no collective set of moral codes or ethics associated with it.
There is no collective set of tenets/doctrines associated with it.
There is no collective belief system associated with it.
There is no collective governing body, of any kind.
There is no collective view on anything other than the question of gawd's existence.
There is no "worldview" associated with atheism/agnosticism.

We (atheists/agnostics) do not automatically share a "common view" that is inherently associated with being an atheist or agnostic.
Being atheistic/agnostic does not remove the ability to derive our own ethics.
Most of the time, our ethics coincide with the vast majority of other atheists and agnostics.
Most of the time, our ethics coincide with the vast majority of theists (whether they believe it, or not).
Atheism and every one of the following are mutually exclusive:

Evolution.
Anti-theism.
Ethical views.
Values.
Standards.
Interests and hobbies.
Sexuality.
Family views/values.
Moral code.

Each and every topic listed above is completely disassociated from our disbelief in your god. Since atheism and agnosticism are not "a way of life" is claiming christianity/muslimism/hinduism/buddhism or any other religious belief. We don't have any ceremonies that are common to all of us. We don't automatically harbor the same beliefs, views, or prejudices as common. We don't all take our moral guidance from the same place.

Yep, all good brother.

Now the question:

Why are so many topics directed at atheists/agnostics, collectively, when each one of us is not bound by any specific set of tenets?

Is goes both ways right? The Atheists/Agnostics direct their topics at religious people, and religious people direct their topics at atheists/non believers. Mainly because I think they want each other to understand them IDK.
For me, I usually direct my topics at mainly Atheists, for no other reason than it interests me and I would like them to understand Christian beliefs, as well as I want to understand their views.
And of course I want them to be mindful of spiritual things even though they have no interest lol! it is important to me even if it isn't to them. I guess that's probably dumb.

I agree with you on everything you said, except as far as your saying it goes the same both ways:

I think it's a bit different. You see all the time theists who condemn the "morals" of atheists and who condemn them to hell. You don't (usually) get that with atheists. The vast majority of atheists, exempting the bitter extreme ones, don't have a problem with people who happen to hold theism, they just have a problem with the theism.

Theism is not held by the majority of atheists to be a sign of immorality, but atheism is held by the majority of theists to be hell-worthy.

If some one believed in a pink unicorn passing down a book to theirs parents and it had all life's answers; I would not spend half as much time as Atheist do in the religious forum trying to convince that person otherwise.

Atheists just care more about other humans than you do, i guess.

But if those people who were believing in a pink unicorn passing down a book to their children, were actively using that as a justification to commit atrocities, or trying to take the rights away from people, then sorry, im gonna speak out against it.

Very few religions are intrinsically violent.

The major ones are.

debatable.


I care about human life and understand in the real world a logical argument is not just one of facts and reasoning, but is also of persuasion. It is more effective to avoid the causalities by using a persuasive argument in the pink unicorn context.

And isnt discussion the best method of persuading someone whether your beliefs are correct, or whether theirs are incorrect?


Yes, the distinction between our answers is if pink unicorn believer was told to do harm, you would try to reason them out of the belief in a pink unicorn. But I said to negate the harm i would try to reason within the bonds of pink unicorn mythology. Making my argument more persuasive to audience. Rhetoric is a part of effective arguing.

Maybe you do not care about human life, as much as you care about espousing your own views loudly.

That would be true, if it were atheists were the ones starting the majority of topics here, posting about what their beliefs are. Instead, you have atheists who arent posting the majority of the topics, nor are most of these topics talking about our own views, and instead, question the theists views.

I brought attention to the amount of time atheist spend trying to convince others of their philosophical view. Regardless of who started the topic, an atheist is not required to reply. Or even take such interest in a forum marked religion.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 3:18:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 2:35:03 AM, Volkov wrote:

What if said pink unicorn religion caused believers to harm non-believers or force their own beliefs upon the population through the power of government? Would you try to convince someone otherwise of the folly of their beliefs, considering how much trouble it can bring?

That is simply NOT happening is it Volk?

Are you being beaten? Drug out and forced to convert to a religion, any religion? Is there a SWAT team from the government heading this effort up? Are you in the middle of an Inquisition? Is the government denying you the right to vote? To be employed? To marry? Does it kick your kids our of school? Is it imprisoning you? Are you not allowed to openly be atheists? What exactly is this great terrible persecution that you and your community are dealing with?

How much time do we have to spend pointing out that what you say is happening is not actually happening?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 5:36:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 3:18:06 AM, neutral wrote:
That is simply NOT happening is it Volk?

Are you being beaten? Drug out and forced to convert to a religion, any religion? Is there a SWAT team from the government heading this effort up? Are you in the middle of an Inquisition? Is the government denying you the right to vote? To be employed? To marry? Does it kick your kids our of school? Is it imprisoning you? Are you not allowed to openly be atheists? What exactly is this great terrible persecution that you and your community are dealing with?

Are these things happening to me, personally? No - but that is just the side benefit of living in a society where the government is secular and most folks are fairly rational and supportive of those ideals.

That's just the luck of the draw for me, however. I can point to hundreds, if not thousands, of incidents that describe every point you put out there, not just for atheists but for any non-majority group (or in some cases, the majority) that a religious group have faced. The fact is that if you're looking for the cause of oppression for any group, a good place to start is by asking whether or not a person, group, or society is religious.

How much time do we have to spend pointing out that what you say is happening is not actually happening?

You could counter until your face turns blue, it doesn't change the facts.
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 8:11:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 5:25:36 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Maybe because, in a lot of America, most people don't get to speak to any atheists or agnostics.

That's an interesting thought, but I'm not sure that really reconciles with the fact that atheism is assumed to by synonymous with immorality/amorality, certain viewpoints, etc. I am curious to know what theists think we believe, outside of the gawd question...?
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 8:23:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 5:37:11 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
<Snipped to avoid confusing length>
Why are so many topics directed at atheists/agnostics, collectively, when each one of us is not bound by any specific set of tenets?

Is goes both ways right? The Atheists/Agnostics direct their topics at religious people, and religious people direct their topics at atheists/non believers. Mainly because I think they want each other to understand them IDK.

You're absolutely right. However, most that I have seen direct religious questions at religious people, which relates directly. For those that are willing to discuss, I think the takeaway on both sides can be genuinely beneficial to both sides.

For me, I usually direct my topics at mainly Atheists, for no other reason than it interests me and I would like them to understand Christian beliefs, as well as I want to understand their views.

Most of your (educated) atheists are likely to have a pretty good grasp on religious beliefs and at least a moderate familiarity with 'holy' manuscripts. The diversity among religions makes it nearly impossible to keep up with everything, however, and therein lies the rub, for many. Most uneducated atheists are simply every bit as malicious as the uneducated theists. However, it's generally the most uneducated that stand most tenaciously by belief rather than putting forth any effort toward investigation. Understanding only goes so far, though, Matt. Even when two people fully understand each other. when they disagree, only one can be right...

And of course I want them to be mindful of spiritual things even though they have no interest lol! it is important to me even if it isn't to them. I guess that's probably dumb.

I was once mindful of "spiritual things" every day. Once I lost any desire to feel what I was told (from childhood) I should feel, having someone preach to be became a source of irritation. This was most especially true when it was clearly evident that they were preaching from a perspective of ignorance. There's also an huge difference between convincing and condemning. I think the outright assumption of immorality/amorality is probably the most disturbing, when it comes to exchanging with theists. I can understand it, with people like you. I don't understand it from people that are obviously ignorant and pompous, simultaneously...
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
5/31/2014 8:28:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 5:36:18 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 5/31/2014 3:18:06 AM, neutral wrote:
That is simply NOT happening is it Volk?

Are you being beaten? Drug out and forced to convert to a religion, any religion? Is there a SWAT team from the government heading this effort up? Are you in the middle of an Inquisition? Is the government denying you the right to vote? To be employed? To marry? Does it kick your kids our of school? Is it imprisoning you? Are you not allowed to openly be atheists? What exactly is this great terrible persecution that you and your community are dealing with?

Are these things happening to me, personally? No - but that is just the side benefit of living in a society where the government is secular and most folks are fairly rational and supportive of those ideals.

Wait - on one hand you are claiming a dire threat from religion that must be controlled and on the other you are conceding that most religious people, particularly in the west are secular?

So ... no actual threat right?


That's just the luck of the draw for me, however. I can point to hundreds, if not thousands, of incidents that describe every point you put out there, not just for atheists but for any non-majority group (or in some cases, the majority) that a religious group have faced. The fact is that if you're looking for the cause of oppression for any group, a good place to start is by asking whether or not a person, group, or society is religious.

Oh justice in America is not perfect? Shocking. I can point to burned down churches, attacks on clergy, and most Christian sects are hardly a majority, Islam gets far worse rap in terms of treatment (John Smith, card carrying atheist will not wind up on the no fly list just because ... Mohammed Al-Sisi just might, and have to spend eight years clearing it up).

So again, you are denied nothing, have access to legal services to garner anything you are denied, and are essentially invisible in our society unless you start screaming about how much you hate God ... and some people won't like you for that? Just like some people don;t like it when street corner minsters start thumping the Bible in public?

Gosh ... You have it bad.


How much time do we have to spend pointing out that what you say is happening is not actually happening?

You could counter until your face turns blue, it doesn't change the facts.

Right, and the facts are on my side. It should be fairly easy for a rational person to concede that - clearly as we see in this thread, that is not the case for atheists. I mean really, the idea that you have had it worse than African Americans, or worse than say ... Mormons who were murdered and chased outside the borders of the United States?

Which is funny, because all the Mormons I talked to, never paint themselves as a victim.

If you wish to live your life as a victim? Well, that is a choice, a poor one IMHO, but yours to make. It sure as hell isn't a fact.
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 8:32:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 1:49:10 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
<Snipped for character constraint>
I agree with you on everything you said, except as far as your saying it goes the same both ways:

I think it's a bit different. You see all the time theists who condemn the "morals" of atheists and who condemn them to hell. You don't (usually) get that with atheists. The vast majority of atheists, exempting the bitter extreme ones, don't have a problem with people who happen to hold theism, they just have a problem with the theism.

Theism is not held by the majority of atheists to be a sign of immorality, but atheism is held by the majority of theists to be hell-worthy.

If some one believed in a pink unicorn passing down a book to theirs parents and it had all life's answers; I would not spend half as much time as Atheist do in the religious forum trying to convince that person otherwise.

You are correct about that, Mhykiel. However, the believer in pink unicorns is also unlikely to hold a political position, and attempt the passing of legislation based on that belief. Further, if they did, they would likely either serve only one term, or be laughed out of congress.

Today's major religions have not only sway, but control in many major countries. I know in the US (my country), christianity is the dominant religion, and is actively involved in government. What we call "law" should be ONLY the legislation of morality. Morality relates to how we treat each other. While it is up to each individual to form a moral code based on a rational set of ethics, it isn't right to impose any religious beliefs on ANY other religious/non-religious (non)believer. To your point, you're probably right about the pink unicorns. Ask yourself if you would wish to be subjected to the morality derived from such a belief system, if it conflicted with your spiritual beliefs...
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
5/31/2014 8:42:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 8:32:51 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 5/31/2014 1:49:10 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
<Snipped for character constraint>
I agree with you on everything you said, except as far as your saying it goes the same both ways:

I think it's a bit different. You see all the time theists who condemn the "morals" of atheists and who condemn them to hell. You don't (usually) get that with atheists. The vast majority of atheists, exempting the bitter extreme ones, don't have a problem with people who happen to hold theism, they just have a problem with the theism.

Theism is not held by the majority of atheists to be a sign of immorality, but atheism is held by the majority of theists to be hell-worthy.

If some one believed in a pink unicorn passing down a book to theirs parents and it had all life's answers; I would not spend half as much time as Atheist do in the religious forum trying to convince that person otherwise.

You are correct about that, Mhykiel. However, the believer in pink unicorns is also unlikely to hold a political position, and attempt the passing of legislation based on that belief. Further, if they did, they would likely either serve only one term, or be laughed out of congress.


You are wrong. They do have a political position and are actively organizing into groups to punish in.

The recent push against the Vatican through the UN is but one case in point.

The attempt to remove religious groups from merit based consideration for federal funds, based merely on their religious affiliation is another.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

In that one, the policy goal is to 'eliminate' religion. Which asked the question, how do you expect to get elected in the first place when that is your goal?

Atheism holds sway over several countries, including North Korea and China (Cuba is there too), and any pretense that communism is the driving ideology of these empires is ludicrous. So tell me ... is Xi Jinping atheism? Is Ali Khamenei Islam? Or is it Abdul-Aziz ibn Abdullah Al ash-Sheikh?

Who is in charge of the political apparatus of these countries and why? Which tools are the various bodies politic using to sustain control of the political monopoly?

Again, religious people have to do with what atheism is doing to us every bit as much as you have to deal with what we are doing to atheists.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 8:46:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 8:32:51 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 5/31/2014 1:49:10 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
<Snipped for character constraint>
I agree with you on everything you said, except as far as your saying it goes the same both ways:

I think it's a bit different. You see all the time theists who condemn the "morals" of atheists and who condemn them to hell. You don't (usually) get that with atheists. The vast majority of atheists, exempting the bitter extreme ones, don't have a problem with people who happen to hold theism, they just have a problem with the theism.

Theism is not held by the majority of atheists to be a sign of immorality, but atheism is held by the majority of theists to be hell-worthy.

If some one believed in a pink unicorn passing down a book to theirs parents and it had all life's answers; I would not spend half as much time as Atheist do in the religious forum trying to convince that person otherwise.

You are correct about that, Mhykiel. However, the believer in pink unicorns is also unlikely to hold a political position, and attempt the passing of legislation based on that belief. Further, if they did, they would likely either serve only one term, or be laughed out of congress.

Today's major religions have not only sway, but control in many major countries. I know in the US (my country), christianity is the dominant religion, and is actively involved in government. What we call "law" should be ONLY the legislation of morality. Morality relates to how we treat each other. While it is up to each individual to form a moral code based on a rational set of ethics, it isn't right to impose any religious beliefs on ANY other religious/non-religious (non)believer. To your point, you're probably right about the pink unicorns. Ask yourself if you would wish to be subjected to the morality derived from such a belief system, if it conflicted with your spiritual beliefs...

Well those are a lot of what-ifs. But I will accept them because the religion of the pink unicorn is a thought experiment.

A person, every body, will have some kind of belief system influencing them. It is extremely hard for anyone to have a purely non-bias approach to decision-making especially if they are in a position of power. This is equally true of Atheist.

If it is a government like the U.S. then the people as you said will or should come together and vote, flex the power of the people to discharge politicians who make rulings you disagree with. However, this is what democracy is. Certainly more time would be point into arguing the politics or the rational of a pink-unicornis political decision. And much less time spent trying to convert them to something non-pink-unicornis.

I've rational with people on political matters without bringing in mine or their (non)religious views. And everyone has the right to vote as they see fit. But if you are advocating a truly secular society than everyone has the right to choose their religion or lack there of.

In which case I still think it is remarkable that Atheist spend so much time arguing in the religion forum.

To answer your question, if a pink-unicornis was making laws I would not oppose them until those laws were against the way I want my government to run. If they were pink-unicornis and asking for the same legislation I wanted, no I would not try to make them give up their religion. If they made laws I disagreed with I would reason against the law and vote them out. Again much much less likely to try to convert them.

Thanks for the coherent reply.
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 8:52:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 2:22:09 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 5/30/2014 4:56:20 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
First, atheism and agnosticism are responses to a singular question:
Is there a god?

All other discussions are secondary, and pitting religion against atheism is just dumb...

There is no collective set of moral codes or ethics associated with it.
There is no collective set of tenets/doctrines associated with it.
There is no collective belief system associated with it.
There is no collective governing body, of any kind.
There is no collective view on anything other than the question of gawd's existence.
There is no "worldview" associated with atheism/agnosticism.

We (atheists/agnostics) do not automatically share a "common view" that is inherently associated with being an atheist or agnostic.
Being atheistic/agnostic does not remove the ability to derive our own ethics.
Most of the time, our ethics coincide with the vast majority of other atheists and agnostics.
Most of the time, our ethics coincide with the vast majority of theists (whether they believe it, or not).
Atheism and every one of the following are mutually exclusive:

Evolution.
Anti-theism.
Ethical views.
Values.
Standards.
Interests and hobbies.
Sexuality.
Family views/values.
Moral code.

Each and every topic listed above is completely disassociated from our disbelief in your god. Since atheism and agnosticism are not "a way of life" is claiming christianity/muslimism/hinduism/buddhism or any other religious belief. We don't have any ceremonies that are common to all of us. We don't automatically harbor the same beliefs, views, or prejudices as common. We don't all take our moral guidance from the same place.

Now the question:

Why are so many topics directed at atheists/agnostics, collectively, when each one of us is not bound by any specific set of tenets?

Because there are conditionals associated with not having a purposeful existence. These follow necessarily and depend entirely on whether or not you identify yourself as having a non-intentional or accidental purpose/existence.

I guess I don't fully understand what you mean by "conditionals." Would you mind elaborating? Existence and purpose, as I see them, are mutually exclusive. I exist. Whether or not there is a "purpose" to my existence is entirely up to me. I define my purpose for existing, and demonstrate that purpose, through my actions, choices, and interactions with others. As far as "non-intentional" is concerned, I believe that question applies ONLY to the formation of the first reproducing life form, on this planet.

In my own opinion, for an atheist to be logically consistent with their beliefs they must

1) have no objective morality because objectives don't exist in an objectively purposeless existence

Please define "objective" morality. Moreover, please show any place where the morality (not a codified behavior rule set) derived from objectivity applies to human interaction.

2) have extrinsic human worth because if our worth is derived from unguided random processes and evolved from non-living material we'd have no intrinsic worth.

I don't see how you arrive at the conclusion that any sentient being with rational consciousness cannot have intrinsic worth. In fact, those are the only entities that can have "intrinsic worth." You'll need to substantiate that assertion.

3) be left with explaining anything metaphysical within the physical limits of time, space, matter, and energy if you believe that anything like this exists.

While metaphysics is a philosophical endeavor, it is quite (again) mutually exclusive of atheism. For some of us, the use of the word "metaphysical" is used, all too often, as an attempt to take the empirical out of the equation, and place things on a purely non-physical level. You should understand that most atheists and agnostics have little or no concern with the non-physical, and spiritual realms are not accepted as valid considerations. We don't feel the need to "explain anything metaphysical," as it might be believed to relate to human existence.

4) have no belief in absolute truths given that everything is relative to purposelessness.

We do have belief in absolute truths. We just don't feel they need to be stamped by any deity, and are especially opposed to having that stamping right claimed by those (humans) that claim to speak on behalf of said deity(ies). These types of questions are important only to the religious or those who believe in the "spiritual" realm(s). You further (once again) have asserted purposelessness, and attributed it to an entire group of people, without any corroboration or substantiation of your claim. You'll need to elucidate on that.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 9:59:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 3:17:17 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/31/2014 3:11:13 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/31/2014 3:05:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/31/2014 3:01:43 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/31/2014 1:49:10 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/31/2014 12:03:30 AM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 5/30/2014 5:37:11 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 5/30/2014 4:56:20 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
First, atheism and agnosticism are responses to a singular question:
Is there a god?

All other discussions are secondary, and pitting religion against atheism is just dumb...

There is no collective set of moral codes or ethics associated with it.
There is no collective set of tenets/doctrines associated with it.
There is no collective belief system associated with it.
There is no collective governing body, of any kind.
There is no collective view on anything other than the question of gawd's existence.
There is no "worldview" associated with atheism/agnosticism.

We (atheists/agnostics) do not automatically share a "common view" that is inherently associated with being an atheist or agnostic.
Being atheistic/agnostic does not remove the ability to derive our own ethics.
Most of the time, our ethics coincide with the vast majority of other atheists and agnostics.
Most of the time, our ethics coincide with the vast majority of theists (whether they believe it, or not).
Atheism and every one of the following are mutually exclusive:

Evolution.
Anti-theism.
Ethical views.
Values.
Standards.
Interests and hobbies.
Sexuality.
Family views/values.
Moral code.

Each and every topic listed above is completely disassociated from our disbelief in your god. Since atheism and agnosticism are not "a way of life" is claiming christianity/muslimism/hinduism/buddhism or any other religious belief. We don't have any ceremonies that are common to all of us. We don't automatically harbor the same beliefs, views, or prejudices as common. We don't all take our moral guidance from the same place.

Yep, all good brother.

Now the question:

Why are so many topics directed at atheists/agnostics, collectively, when each one of us is not bound by any specific set of tenets?

Is goes both ways right? The Atheists/Agnostics direct their topics at religious people, and religious people direct their topics at atheists/non believers. Mainly because I think they want each other to understand them IDK.
For me, I usually direct my topics at mainly Atheists, for no other reason than it interests me and I would like them to understand Christian beliefs, as well as I want to understand their views.
And of course I want them to be mindful of spiritual things even though they have no interest lol! it is important to me even if it isn't to them. I guess that's probably dumb.

I agree with you on everything you said, except as far as your saying it goes the same both ways:

I think it's a bit different. You see all the time theists who condemn the "morals" of atheists and who condemn them to hell. You don't (usually) get that with atheists. The vast majority of atheists, exempting the bitter extreme ones, don't have a problem with people who happen to hold theism, they just have a problem with the theism.

Theism is not held by the majority of atheists to be a sign of immorality, but atheism is held by the majority of theists to be hell-worthy.

If some one believed in a pink unicorn passing down a book to theirs parents and it had all life's answers; I would not spend half as much time as Atheist do in the religious forum trying to convince that person otherwise.

Atheists just care more about other humans than you do, i guess.

But if those people who were believing in a pink unicorn passing down a book to their children, were actively using that as a justification to commit atrocities, or trying to take the rights away from people, then sorry, im gonna speak out against it.

Very few religions are intrinsically violent.

The major ones are.

debatable.

If their holy books specifically call for violence, then it is intrinsic. Its still up to the individual person whether they choose to follow, but


I care about human life and understand in the real world a logical argument is not just one of facts and reasoning, but is also of persuasion. It is more effective to avoid the causalities by using a persuasive argument in the pink unicorn context.

And isnt discussion the best method of persuading someone whether your beliefs are correct, or whether theirs are incorrect?


Yes, the distinction between our answers is if pink unicorn believer was told to do harm, you would try to reason them out of the belief in a pink unicorn. But I said to negate the harm i would try to reason within the bonds of pink unicorn mythology. Making my argument more persuasive to audience. Rhetoric is a part of effective arguing.

Sure, and this is a tactic that many atheists have used, which is to point out the absurdity and contradiction with regards to what is written within the bible, and what they are practicing. Its the whole reason why websites such as "Evilbible.com" exists, is to demonstrate that this book, isnt good at all.

But the problem here, is that the opposite is true as well. As Ken Ham said, if youre saying that this part of the bible isnt true, then why should someone believe the other parts of the bible are true either. Someone who believes that the bible is true, will be persuaded by arguments made from within the bible, whether it be for better or for worse.

The fundemental aspect of these beliefs is that they are absurd, and they require exceptions within our minds with regards to reason, logic, etc. Its the whole reason why faith is necessary, is that they do not have sufficient evidence, and in sometimes there exists contrary evidence to say otherwise. And yet, the more exceptions you make, the more predisposed you are to make other exceptions, and accept other absurd beliefs.

If you can get someone to believe absurdities, you can get them to commit atrocities.

Maybe you do not care about human life, as much as you care about espousing your own views loudly.

That would be true, if it were atheists were the ones starting the majority of topics here, posting about what their beliefs are. Instead, you have atheists who arent posting the majority of the topics, nor are most of these topics talking about our own views, and instead, question the theists views.

I brought attention to the amount of time atheist spend trying to convince others of their philosophical view. Regardless of who started the topic, an atheist is not required to reply. Or even take such interest in a forum marked religion.

Sure. And im not required to help someone on the side of the street when theyre injured. But my beleifs, as well as many atheists, are set up in a way that we care about other people,
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 10:28:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 3:13:12 AM, neutral wrote:
<Snipped for length>
Why are so many topics directed at atheists/agnostics, collectively, when each one of us is not bound by any specific set of tenets?

Because of of the topic listed is routinely claimed by atheist, lets examine:

There is no collective set of moral codes or ethics associated with it.

And yet, religious people are constantly fed information from atheists about how inferior we are - from highly scoped prison studies to slavery to supporting child abuse, to being called the poison of the world.

I had a feeling you would bring your emotional, tortured puppy prattle into this. Understand that we don't consider all religious people inferior. Only those like yourself. Yes, I consider religion to be poison - I have that right. Yes, religious manuscripts lend to slavery, child abuse, genocide, etc., and I call it out - I have that right. You see it as abuse and take any little criticism personally. You are not a rational individual.

If its not atheism? Why do so many atheists say these things? (Including you BTW)

We say them when they are true. I am, indeed, anti-theist. I don't want my life governed by those who follow any major religion. I don't want laws that are derived from religion. I don't want to be taxed to fund retarded beliefs (flood, dinosaurs on the arc, Genesis, prophecies, etc.). This is stated by so many atheists because of the fact that we happen to agree on the fact that religion should be in the home and in the church, NOT in the schools and in government.

There is no collective set of tenets/doctrines associated with it.

There most certainly are, there are groups like rational wiki, American atheists, etc, whose works flood any site attempting to discuss religion.

http://infidels.org...

There may be a few, small groups that have organized. However, those groups do not define the morality for the rest of us. They do not define belief systems for the rest of us. They do not attempt to pass legislation for the rest of us. They do not codify unnecessary ceremonies and doctrinal stupidity for the rest of us... Understand the difference, before making such an idiot of yourself.

Your argument is right off of secular web. Standard entrenched dogma regurgitated for the masses.

This is an idiotic statement. Unlike you and your penchant for quoting William Lane Craig ("reasonable" faith), I don't hit rationalwiki or secular web for my information. If there is valid information I wish to obtain, I hit pertinent sites. The fact that you wish to paint atheists as bullies and the religious as victims, across the board, leads you to babble forth the same garbage, post after post...

There is no collective belief system associated with it.

You ALL believe there is no God. And most of you and anti-theists too boot.

Your first statement was already confirmed. But that, as stated in the OP, is the only commonality among all. Atheists believe there is no god. I (agnostic) believe that no human has ever known (in the sense of real knowledge) any gawd, and that all "holy" manuscripts that have ever defined them are false. Again, I have that right. I am anti-theist because I don't believe theists have the right to introduce their beliefs into government or education. Especially when they expect me to share the cost, in the form of tax contributions.

There is no collective governing body, of any kind.

There are several large and growing atheist organization, and that would include atheist churches.

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


What do you consider "large?" I'm not familiar with any atheist church. If it's a church, let it stay in their church. Just like yours. Moreover, you seem to have NOT read the article you posted. It seems that people who join this church left the stupidity of the doctrinal beliefs, but still wanted to be community minded, and the comradery of associating with other humans. I, personally, would not join, simply because that leads to zealotry.

There is no single governing body for any religion or ideology on earth - this serves only to highlight the ignorance of atheists about religion.

There is no collective view on anything other than the question of gawd's existence.

Save the rip off of secular web that we see daily, and the fact that every atheist, usually after being caught behaving horribly toward religious people, falls back on this definitional stuff and pretends the rabid anti-theism isn't there for all to see.

More hypocritical sniveling. You behave more horribly than any other poster I have seen on this or any other forum. You are about as big a religious bigot as I have seen, while proclaiming your loathing of bigotry. You're a fraud and an hypocrite.

There is no "worldview" associated with atheism/agnosticism.

There is no world view associated with any religion, which once again demonstrates just how little atheists know about religion. Harry Reid is Mormon for example, and he leads the liberal element of the Senate. Mitt Romney and Orrin Hatch are on the right, and in the Republican Party.

You're absolutely wrong, of course. The worldview to which I refer is the term as it is used by William Lane Craig (whom you are fond of quoting and linking) and as it is used most often by theists. I take exception with the term, because my lack of belief in a god is not foundational to my view of the world. Of course, you have to attribute your statement to all atheists (as usual), in your objection to my individual statements. The two examples of political orientation are completely irrelevant. You have a habit of doing that, too.

So we can glen a couple of lessons from this 'education', quite standard, by atheists:

#1 - Its a cop out. The reason that so many negative questions are asked about atheists is because of the way they act. The barbs and behavior are almost predictable:

But it's perfectly acceptable, when it's you, right? You are completely blind to the fact that you are the single most acrimonious poster on this forum. Your sole and exclusive purpose on this site appears to be the condemnation of behavior of atheists. You information is laughable, your "evidence" is always lacking, your accusations are always hypocritical. If those statements were to come from someone like Matt McGuire, I would do some serious, introspective "soul-searching." Coming from you, they are seen as nothing short of hypocritical whining.

a. You support pedophilia.

I have never seen anyone state this about a religious person. I have, however, read the truth of the fact that the bible does.

b. You guys reject science and logical reasoning.

I only direct that at YEC morons.

c. There is no evidence.

This is not a barb, and does not qualify as "bad behavior."

d. The world would have been peaceful without you religious nuts.

This, I have never stated. I do, however, contend that the catholic church is responsible for many atrocities that would not otherwise have happened. Many are the atrocities that went unpunished because of the assumption that they acted under divine authority. This is not exclusive to the catholic church, but they were the first and the worst.

e. Its ONLY religion that has caused persecution of homosexuality.

Not the only, but the worst.

f. We are secularists, separation of you guys from government (rather than equitable inclusion), is why I am atheist.

This is valid, for many. I despise religion in government. I fully support the removal of tax exemption status, as well. They are a business, and should be taxed as such.

<End part 1>
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 10:28:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
g. You guys support genocide

I have never heard this stated. Again, the bible does. The fact that the religious tend to believe that such an act is OK, when ordered by your gawd, makes your claim to exclusive dominion over "morality" quite laughable.

h. You guys support rape and slavery.

See response to genocide statement.

i. Creationism is dumb! And so are you all by extension.

Creationism is dumb. The belief in creationism is a dumb belief. Does it automatically make the individual dumb? No. I know some very smart people who throw salt over their shoulders, if they spill it. Superstition is dumb. When they do it, I laugh at them.

j. Morality is genetic and there are no universal moral principles.

This is not "bad behavior." You disagree with the statement. That does not relegate making the statement to the realm of being "big old meanie heads."

k. The Jesus Myth

Again, not bad behavior.

l. There is NO evidence for God.

Again, not bad behavior.

And on and on and on.

Yes, you do that often.

We are supposed to pretend that after weeks of behavior like that, often irrationally so, like, for example, walking someone painstakingly through the evidence used to build a strong inductive case for God, an argument from probability, not only does the atheist normally fail to listen to it, religious people usually wind up insulted for their trouble and the atheist is again making the same claim a few days later, "That there is no evidence for God." Its irrational.

You have never "walked" anyone "painstakingly" through anything remotely resembling evidence. There is no "strong inductive case" for gawd. Probability does not prove the existence of gawd. Your blanket assessment of "atheist normally fail to listen to..." is perhaps the dumbest statement in that paragraph. There is no empirical evidence for (your) gawd. There are few arguments that, for me, even lend believability to the possibility of any gawd. The judeo-christian and muslim gawds are flat out ridiculous. I have the right to believe that. I have the right to state that out loud, and I don't recognize your right to call that statement "abusive." Calling something ridiculous seems to be OK, unless its faith, for someone like you. If you're offended by that, then just be offended. I will continue to ridicule the belief in all gawds that have ever been proposed, and I don't owe you or any other religious zealot any apology for my disbelief. Get over it.

It irrational, and nothing but an excuse to avoid holding atheists accountable for what they are saying:

Hold me accountable for what I say! Your christian gawd is laughable, and does not exist. That's not abuse. It's a belief. I mock people like you because you deserve it.

Atheists did not earn this reputation by running around JUST not believing in a God.

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

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

You've posted these retarded links, before. They are just as meaningless today as they were when you first posted them. What you fail to realize is that you are not posting any indictment of atheist misbehavior. These links are an indictment of the narrow-minded bigotry of theistic extremists.

This is excuse that prevents atheists from actually looking at themselves as a community, which they deny they even are (yet they somehow all sound alike on critical issues) and tasking themselves to examine what is actually being said in the name of "just not believing in God."

Compare the things about which you whine to things like the Salem Witch Hunts, both the Roman and Spanish Inquisitions, the 'holy' crusades, WWII catholic support of axis forces, persecution of homosexuals (to the extent of legilsating measure to suppress them, as people), and the list goes on, and on, and on... Your whining is old, tired, and still hypocritical. This does not even address how stupid it is.

#2 - It hypocritical in the extreme. How many times have atheists shoved the Crusades down our throat? Blaming all Christians and Muslims for the problem? Its not like our doctrine actually commands it? Its not like we have a world view that requires it? Its not like its still happening (unless we listen to atheist Sam Harris) - thus Christianity had NOTHING to do with the behavior done in its name correct?

If the church was "guided by gawd," the crusades would not have happened. We don't blame all religious people, dumb@55. Get that through your head. We blame religious leadership. Again, it's the same old, tired, hypocritical accusations. You tend to overplay the wounded puppy.

#3 - It displays ignorance of religion by attempting to contrast atheism with in, the same anti-theistic biases that drive many of the common complains actually list out not having a governing body? As if there is a single 'religion' on earth on that has a totally controlling governing body? There is a required world view to be religious and share a reverence for the teachings of Christ or Mohammed is there? And if you revere Hitchens? Well, there is no REQUIREMENT for you to be a nutgall lefty communist either ... go figure.

Do you ever even stop to consider how stupid you sound, in some of your more extreme rants?

As #3 indicates, atheists have no idea what religion even is, and the entire premise of this argument displays the very thing atheists claim it isn't - a dogmatic argumentation that serves only to highlight the behavior of atheists and the hypocritical double standards they use to judge people. It is a wanton cop out of the issues facing the atheist comment today.

You are, quite certainly, the most pig-headed embarrassment to religious people everywhere that I have ever encountered. I would honestly be completely embarrassed to be associated with you, even by inference.

Atheists:
are politically liberal (e.g., support gay rights and abortion)

Wrong. There is no such thing as "gay rights." There are human rights. That term arises from the fact that religious organizations deny them their most fundamental of human rights: the right to love.

hate Christianity and/or the Christian god

Yes, I hate the concept of christianity. I can't hate the christian god, because I don't believe it exists. You have not made a point.

trample people's rights of free religious expression

No, we engage in free religious expression. Learn the difference.

are always depressed, sad, or grumpylack hope

This statement is just stupid.

are moral relativists

Not all of us, but many are. Again, there is no point made, here.

are uncivil and do not respect others

We are quite civil. For the most part, we respect others. We do not, however, respect people like you.

are prideful and lack humility

You are in no position to "throw stones," on this point, and you are still over reaching your ability to substantiate (not that you ever have, anyway).

are angry

Sometimes. We are human. It happens. You have not made a point.

are arrogant

Really, Mr. "Ph.D."? Mister "upper 1%?" Mr. "Airborne Ranger?" Mister "180 IQ?"

are mean and generally horrible people

Only in the view of idiots that make monumentally stupid generalizations.

are promiscuous

I was, before I got married.

are more interested in science than the average person

Um.... I don't know about the factuality of that statement (I mean I really don't know). But how is this an indictment of... anything?

are ignorant

Wow. Just wow. I can't think of a single person I have ever met that would make that statement more qualify as hypocrisy than you.
Peace be with you. It seems you are in need of it.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2014 10:45:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/31/2014 8:46:50 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/31/2014 8:32:51 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 5/31/2014 1:49:10 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
<Snipped for character constraint>
I agree with you on everything you said, except as far as your saying it goes the same both ways:

I think it's a bit different. You see all the time theists who condemn the "morals" of atheists and who condemn them to hell. You don't (usually) get that with atheists. The vast majority of atheists, exempting the bitter extreme ones, don't have a problem with people who happen to hold theism, they just have a problem with the theism.

Theism is not held by the majority of atheists to be a sign of immorality, but atheism is held by the majority of theists to be hell-worthy.

If some one believed in a pink unicorn passing down a book to theirs parents and it had all life's answers; I would not spend half as much time as Atheist do in the religious forum trying to convince that person otherwise.

You are correct about that, Mhykiel. However, the believer in pink unicorns is also unlikely to hold a political position, and attempt the passing of legislation based on that belief. Further, if they did, they would likely either serve only one term, or be laughed out of congress.

Today's major religions have not only sway, but control in many major countries. I know in the US (my country), christianity is the dominant religion, and is actively involved in government. What we call "law" should be ONLY the legislation of morality. Morality relates to how we treat each other. While it is up to each individual to form a moral code based on a rational set of ethics, it isn't right to impose any religious beliefs on ANY other religious/non-religious (non)believer. To your point, you're probably right about the pink unicorns. Ask yourself if you would wish to be subjected to the morality derived from such a belief system, if it conflicted with your spiritual beliefs...

Well those are a lot of what-ifs. But I will accept them because the religion of the pink unicorn is a thought experiment.

A person, every body, will have some kind of belief system influencing them. It is extremely hard for anyone to have a purely non-bias approach to decision-making especially if they are in a position of power. This is equally true of Atheist.

I completely agree with this.

If it is a government like the U.S. then the people as you said will or should come together and vote, flex the power of the people to discharge politicians who make rulings you disagree with. However, this is what democracy is. Certainly more time would be point into arguing the politics or the rational of a pink-unicornis political decision. And much less time spent trying to convert them to something non-pink-unicornis.

Unfortunately, there is a lingering distrust of atheists that is completely unfounded. This continues to be propagated by religious leaders, and atheists have never had the opportunity to legislate, in the US.

I've rational with people on political matters without bringing in mine or their (non)religious views. And everyone has the right to vote as they see fit. But if you are advocating a truly secular society than everyone has the right to choose their religion or lack there of.

That is exactly the point. Religious views do not belong in a political discussion. Period. I completely agree that people have the right to choose religion, over secularism. I do not, however, believe that it should be legislated, in either direction. They are and ever should be, mutually exclusive. The only thing that should be legislated is the right to choose.

In which case I still think it is remarkable that Atheist spend so much time arguing in the religion forum.

It's the best place for those without political power to put forth our view and exercise our right to dissent.

To answer your question, if a pink-unicornis was making laws I would not oppose them until those laws were against the way I want my government to run. If they were pink-unicornis and asking for the same legislation I wanted, no I would not try to make them give up their religion. If they made laws I disagreed with I would reason against the law and vote them out. Again much much less likely to try to convert them.

This is precisely why I argue against religion in government. Think about homosexual marriage laws. Abortion laws. Laws preventing liquor sales on Sunday. None of these would be done, without religion.

Thanks for the coherent reply.

When I am approached rationally, I respond rationally. Even if we ultimately simply agree to disagree, I appreciate exchanges with people who think, before they "speak." I have nothing against mutual respect; I favor it.

And thank you for the same, in return.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.