#1520710 by hOG (Crusader Mod) at 2013-02-13 14:20:11 (5 months ago) - [Report]
R0berto wrote:
Good moral is not something that stems from beliefs and/or religion. Good morals is mainly upbringing, and a bit of inner sense of right and wrong. Religion has always been a tool for conveying moral ideas, so it is easy to confuse the good upbringing gives with the good that religion brings.
I don't per se have a problem with what you are saying it is just that you seem to think that morality is something that takes place in the home and never leaves the 4 walls of the house, which would be nonsense. Our behavior is strongly affected by culture and culture is nearly always strongly affected by religion. Good behavior/bad behavior is discussed on tv, news, and in the debate columns. Here. It can easily leave the 4 walls of home.
R0berto wrote:
And @hOg: don't confuse the delusion of being the only person in the universe that matters with atheism. While the delusion by default results in atheism, the reverse is by no means true. So there is correlation, but no 1on1 identity. So the 'history' you speak of, is quite tainted.
That it is a delusion is by no means a certainty from anyone's perspective. I don't think either that atheism is the default. Life is a possibly delusion (doubts), that is the default, which can then be dismantled by the use of denial or acceptance (theism/atheism).
Sniper:
Quote:
When I talk to people I don'tuse me as an example, I only rely on reasoning, I don't use any stories (not my own or other peoples).
That is when we talk about the existence of god, if we talk about religions, thats another story.
What I ment with my example is me being atheist, open one, not any personal story etc.
Blah-blah-blah. You have used me, me, me, examples in our discussions of God/Atheism and so on. This "in the 70s" was just another example of you relying on your own experiences and appealing to emotional reason. I don't get why that is so hard for you to admit, or even dangerous. I don't mind, I just mind that you say you are not doing it, when it is so obvious you are:
"I was in constant troubles when I was againts such shit,even at young age, and guess what, I was threaten with the christian god because I had my own moral values which were against the accepted values."
You were threatened with the existence of God and fire and brimstone. Talking about talking about God. You and God go way back. To the 70s..
Quote:
Sure, but it's not only your observation, it's the lack of evidence for universe with purpose too.
...
I dont reject the possibility of purpose, but until there is evidence supporting that, I remind sceptical and don't believe in that. I have open mind, if there will be evidence which satisfies me, I can change my mind.
Here you mean evidential-based reasoning and I'm not many centimeters from agreeing with you, but science can't do "purpose" like philosophy can; unless it is a limited form of purpose, limited from our own perspective and in a much smaller context (quantum). You have to read philosophy, e.g. So some atheists, like yourself, that only prefer one form of reasoning, argue that the "Why?" questions should be ignored. But of course, to deny yourself that privilege as a human, is somewhat counter-intuitive.
And look at what you have written in regards to faith, religion and then science and your own reasons.. you are not the person I would describe as having an open mind. It's steel shut. You look to science, that's your prerogative, and try to exclude other forms of reasoning in regards to the question of purpose, meaning, God. Science isn't capable of handling sufficiently any of these and if it were we would only ever have to rely on science (evidence-based reasoning) in all matters of thinking: Evidence first, or else I'll remain the same. That is not an open mind obviously. Lets be frank about what you are really asking.. you are asking for the physical manifestation of God before your eyes as well as his urine sample. Else you will remain bitchy.
Quote:
Looks like we see freedom of mind and sceptisism in very different ways, I don't see faith as a stepstone to freedom as you describe it, I see it as you wishing that things would be the way you would like them to be rather than how they really are.
If I have doubts, I go and study and find where do the evidence point at.
A wish is something that lasts a couple of seconds. This is not about wishing that things would be different. If I have doubts about what minerals a certain rock contains I will ask the geologist or read a book written by one who is expert in that field. But this isn't about doubting things that can be resolved by the use of study and evidential reasoning. Instead, what I am talking about, is taking on the thoughts of the mind, you know what they are, accepting my position as a human being, utterly clueless of why I breathe and have consciousness and if it is even relevant that I do have them in the first place, that I live and others do not. And for what reason, for who, etc. as I see it you deny yourself opportunities, because freedom and skepticism to you is denying yourself these questions by holding on to a form of reasoning that isn't geared to handle the questions anyway (at least not on its own).
I don't per se have a problem with what you are saying it is just that you seem to think that morality is something that takes place in the home and never leaves the 4 walls of the house, which would be nonsense. Our behavior is strongly affected by culture and culture is nearly always strongly affected by religion. Good behavior/bad behavior is discussed on tv, news, and in the debate columns. Here. It can easily leave the 4 walls of home.
It might come across as such, but that is by no means what I meant. I was trying to convey that upbring is the biggest influence on what morals a person will have. This upbringing is not only in-house, I totally agree. It is also influenced by teachers, friends, neighbors etc. But, as a parent, you have strong influences on where you live (so who your neighbors are) and what school you put the child in (so who your teachers are). Friends, not so much, but still there is a parental influence.
That's a bit more elaborate than my previous statement, but it only reinforces my initial argument: good moral is not rooted in beliefs/religion, but in upbringing.
hOG wrote:
That it is a delusion is by no means a certainty from anyone's perspective. I don't think either that atheism is the default. Life is a possibly delusion (doubts), that is the default, which can then be dismantled by the use of denial or acceptance (theism/atheism).
I think you may have misunderstood me, or I'm not understanding you right now, but what I meant was that the atheist dictators you mention, are people with psychopathic tendencies, who believe that there is no one more important than they are. Therefore, they cannot believe in a deity, because he would by definition be more important, better and greater than they are.
You're taking a more Descartes point of view with regards to the delusion, i feel. And I agree, that can be solved in the two ways you mention. But that does not relate to the point I was making
Blah-blah-blah. You have used me, me, me, examples in our discussions of God/Atheism and so on.
Only when religion has been involved, not pure theism vs atheism.
Quote:
This "in the 70s" was just another example of you relying on your own experiences and appealing to emotional reason.
It was an example of my expriences about christianity (a subject you brought up).
My antireligiousness has been strengthened by my own experiences, I have witnessed what other people have and why other people critisize religion, I have own emprical evidence to support evidence represented by other people.
Quote:
You were threatened with the existence of God and fire and brimstone. Talking about talking about God. You and God go way back. To the 70s..
Nope, me and christianity (people representing christianity) go way back.
Quote:
Lets be frank about what you are really asking.. you are asking for the physical manifestation of God before your eyes as well as his urine sample. Else you will remain bitchy.
Yes, I hold the similar standards of evidence for god as everything else, no special pleading here.
But it doesnt require urine sample or maifestation before my eyes.
#1520716 by hOG (Crusader Mod) at 2013-02-13 14:59:06 (5 months ago) - [Report]
R0berto wrote:
I think you may have misunderstood me, or I'm not understanding you right now, but what I meant was that the atheist dictators you mention, are people with psychopathic tendencies, who believe that there is no one more important than they are. Therefore, they cannot believe in a deity, because he would by definition be more important, better and greater than they are.
Then I misunderstood you.
I didn't mention atheist dictators. Or I did, but that was specifically to underline that I wasn't talking about the dictators as individuals, but as I said earlier what happened -under their rule-, e.g. "under Lenin's rule". And yeah, they might have had psychopathic tendencies those dictators, regardless of whether they have defined themselves as atheist or theist, that is probably true. However to get back to point I feel you are addressing here; I am not thinking about individuals or persons, but about those people that formed the atheist party in Russia e.g., who joined it and that silenced the voices of people with different opinions, like religious folk by the means of censorship, murder etc.. There are other examples across the world of atheists collaborating and using violent and non-democratic means to further their cause.
There are other examples across the world of atheists collaborating and using violent and non-democratic means to further their cause.
Then that is a group of atheists doing something.
There is no dogma,no teachings etc. concerning atheism.
Just like there is no such things is theism alone.
But when theists who has similar understanding form a group it's called religion, which then in most cases has dogma, teachings etc. concernig their understanding of god.
If a group of atheists would form a group which would have their own manifesto (it would contain supressing religious people and stuff like that), I would oppose that group as much as I oppose any religious group with similar thinking.
Just like you are a theist and a muslim is a theist, but even you are both theists the muslim religion is not (or christianity) which dictates what theism is, it most definately don't dictate your theism or theism in general.
You do regonice that, but somehow you try to argue that groups of atheists which have done bad things define atheism.
There is no dogma in atheism, if a group of atheist have formed a party which then bullies religious people, it's based on something else than atheism, it can be political reasons, it can be personal reasons etc.
Theism simply a belief in god's existence and atheism is simply the lack of that belief.
#1520723 by hOG (Crusader Mod) at 2013-02-13 15:27:51 (5 months ago) - [Report]
R0berto wrote:
But what you are now mentioning is definitely not exclusive to atheism.
Again, stupidity and amorality is not unique to any belief/religion. Unfortunately, it is a part of humanity.
Historically, the leage of the militant godless is exclusive to atheism. So those people were convinced atheists and the topic is: Is atheism good for a human. The answer will be that "no, it is not the case", because the question is set in the positive.
Sniper wrote:
Yes, I hold the similar standards of evidence for god as everything else, no special pleading here.
There are plenty of philosophers that aren't theists, so there is no special pleading here. You are the one who is claiming indirectly that evidential reasoning is special, and that only ONE form of reasoning is valid for the topic of purpose; when it is clear that it is not the case and that evidential reasoning is in fact - very good at handling concrete questions by giving concrete answers (how many different type of minerals in X rock? = Y amount) - but very poor, at least on its own, to delve into the abstract questions that surround e.g. the question of a purposeful universe. This is because evidential-based reasoning can only supply you with concrete answers. It is a limited scope of reasoning, because it is specifically designed by us to solve questions that are related to physics and biology. In history, philosophy, sociology, psychology, you would make use of different reasoning.
Quote:
Then that is a group of atheists doing something.
The Inquisition were just a group of theists doing something.
Doesn't quite fly, does it.. because in your opinion atheists doing something together in a group is just a bunch of individuals and never really a group, because they have no dogma, doctrines or stone tablets..
This image has been resized, click here to view the full-sized image.
Funny, but quite untrue if you look at history. Propaganda was spread by the League of Militant Godless - and it was not blank pages. You believe or disbelieve what you like, but to claim it is just a group of atheists doing something and on top of that claim that "atheists have no dogma" is simply cheap - very cheap arguments. They gathered around an agenda else they couldn't form the League in the first place and that League was based on complete and utter animosity against all forms of religion.
well, the godless part yes, but surely not the "silenced the voices of people with different opinions, like religious folk by the means of censorship, murder etc.." part.
And let me repeat: you cannot simply say yes or no. Because there are good things and bad things that happened because of people of atheism/religion. Whether or not you believe in a deity does not define your morality. And that is what you are talking about.
But what you are now mentioning is definitely not exclusive to atheism.
Again, stupidity and amorality is not unique to any belief/religion. Unfortunately, it is a part of humanity.
Historically, the leage of the militant godless is exclusive to atheism. So those people were convinced atheists and the topic is: Is atheism good for a human. The answer will be that "no, it is not the case", because the question is set in the positive.
Sniper wrote:
Yes, I hold the similar standards of evidence for god as everything else, no special pleading here.
There are plenty of philosophers that aren't theists, so there is no special pleading here. You are the one who is claiming indirectly that evidential reasoning is special, and that only ONE form of reasoning is valid for the topic of purpose; when it is clear that it is not the case and that evidential reasoning is in fact - very good at handling concrete questions by giving concrete answers (how many different type of minerals in X rock? = Y amount) - but very poor, at least on its own, to delve into the abstract questions that surround e.g. the question of a purposeful universe. This is because evidential-based reasoning can only supply you with concrete answers. It is a limited scope of reasoning, because it is specifically designed by us to solve questions that are related to physics and biology. In history, philosophy, sociology, psychology, you would make use of different reasoning.
Tell me then, what reasoning did you use to conclude that the earth was formed 6000 years ago and that the theory of evolution is false? Was it the same "different reasoning" you talk about? Although it is clearly the wrong approach, according to your own argument, because it's a clear minerals in X rock = Y biology matter, some people with the same beliefs as you, defend this as true...
So where do we stand here? Should science only debate religious matters with a mindset of someone that studies theology? A world where everything is debatable/possible and one's imagination is the limit? All this when religion doesn't refrain itself from doing just the opposite regarding science and atheism?
Lets discuss the facts then! Tell us why you don't think apes are our cousins. Show us your facts in the light of your mindset...
And then we can forget all about it, forget all about dictators and atheists = consumers and all that crazy stuff and discuss why you guys think it's better for a human to believe something despite substantial proof of the exact opposite. This is what's i think is worth debating here...
You are the one who is claiming indirectly that evidential reasoning is special
Yes, cause it's currently the only way to find out how thing are.
Quote:
The Inquisition were just a group of theists doing something.
It was that too, but it was also a group which represented catholic church.
I hold catholic church as institution responsible, not every theist.
Quote:
but very poor, at least on its own, to delve into the abstract questions that surround e.g. the question of a purposeful universe.
But if we have no means to study something in any way, then we can't say anything about it.
So far science is and has been the ONLY tool we have which have provided us reliable answers to questions. Every time science and religion have been in dispute, it's been science which has been right, every single time. And everytime there has been a question without answer, the answer if it has been found has been brought by science, every single time.
It's amazing how easy for you it' is to ignore that fact.
Quote:
Historically, the leage of the militant godless is exclusive to atheism. So those people were convinced atheists and the topic is: Is atheism good for a human. The answer will be that "no, it is not the case", because the question is set in the positive.
Quote:
Propaganda was spread by the League of Militant Godless - and it was not blank pages.
That propaganda represented their view, it was not a view of atheism, there is no such thing.
Atheism is the opposite of theism, not the opposite of religion, you don't seem to get it.
If a group of atheists form a group which has a dogma it is a group of atheists, not atheism.
Just like christianity is a group of theists, muslims are a group of theists, but neither group does not define theism, which is simply a belief in gods existence.
As I said before I would oppose those russian militant atheists as much as religions.
@thebizz
hOG accepts evolution as an explanation of how different species came about, he also accept science considering the age of eart even those who practise "different kind of science" are giving different answers to those questions.
But somehow he thinks that the same "different kind of science" would be better on some other questions, even it's trackrecord is zip,zero,zilch.
Summa summarum, he accepts science when it provides ansers he is comfortable with, but not when his ignorance tells him otherwise. Pretty common phenomenom among religious people.
#1520733 by hOG (Crusader Mod) at 2013-02-13 16:26:40 (5 months ago) - [Report]
R0berto wrote:
well, the godless part yes, but surely not the "silenced the voices of people with different opinions, like religious folk by the means of censorship, murder etc.." part.
And let me repeat: you cannot simply say yes or no. Because there are good things and bad things that happened because of people of atheism/religion. Whether or not you believe in a deity does not define your morality. And that is what you are talking about.
If you want to delve into the meaning of "godless" or "atheism", maybe.
However they murdered and made use of censorship under Lenin. Also under Stalin, though it begun to wane. To censor religious voices, to spread anti-religious propaganda and to murder clergy for example, were related to their atheism. Go ahead and make the claim that their atheism can be separated from their actions. The League remains historically tied to the idea of denying the existence of God(s) (atheism), and because they were atheists it is only fair to bring it up as a negative example and a reason of why you cannot answer "Yes, that is the case" to the topic question. Yes, it is more complicated than a yes or no - I'm open to other forms of reasoning that are not just historical.
THEBiZ wrote:
Tell me then, what reasoning did you use to conclude that the earth was formed 6000 years ago and that the theory of evolution is false?
Intuition
Quote:
So where do we stand here? Should science only debate religious matters with a mindset of someone that studies theology? A world where everything is debatable/possible and one's imagination is the limit? All this when religion doesn't refrain itself from doing just the opposite regarding science and atheism?
Should science? Science can't.
Quote:
Lets discuss the facts then! Tell us why you don't think apes are our cousins. Show us your facts in the light of your mindset...
And then we can forget all about it, forget all about dictators and atheists = consumers and all that crazy stuff and discuss why you guys think it's better for a human to believe something despite substantial proof of the exact opposite. This is what's i think is worth debating here...
Have you ever held a banana in your hand? Your hand is made for gripping the banana, it fits perfectly in your hand and when you open the banana it is easily accessible. That is why I don't think apes are our cousins.
Sniper:
Quote:
Yes, cause it's currently the only way to find out how thing are.
I like how you are cutting my sentences up and thus disabling yourself from the points I am making.
Quote:
It was that too, but it was also a group which represented catholic church.
I hold catholic church as institution responsible, not every theist.
Which group did the militant goddless represent?
I don't hold you responsible for the attrocities committed by other atheists around the world either, but that you refuse to acknowledge they connect with the topic is too revisionists for my likening.
Quote:
But if we have no means to study something in any way, then we can't say anything about it.
Never argued we were in that position.
Quote:
So far science is and has been the ONLY tool we have which have provided us reliable answers to questions. Every time science and religion have been in dispute, it's been science which has been right, every single time. And everytime there has been a question without answer, the answer if it has been found has been brought by science, every single time.
It's amazing how easy for you it' is to ignore that fact.
And it amazes me you continue to ignore that evidential-based reasoning is limited in scope, because it has to be if we want concrete answers to concrete questions. If the question of purpose is not philosophical, then cease to use concepts from philosophy then.
Quote:
That propaganda represented their view, it was not a view of atheism, there is no such thing.
We come back to you speaking on behalf of all atheists. Considering your antipathy towards religion and faith you are not far from taking on the view of the League. I'm sure you are not a murderer, even though you've been to the army, but why do you disagree with their propaganda I do not quite understand.. you've posted worse in the Random Picture Thread.
Quote:
Atheism is the opposite of theism, not the opposite of religion, you don't seem to get it.
If a group of atheists form a group which has a dogma it is a group of atheists, not atheism.
Just like christianity is a group of theists, muslims are a group of theists, but neither group does not define theism, which is simply a belief in gods existence.
As I said before I would oppose those russian militant atheists as much as religions.
I haven't said that the opposite of atheism is religion. You seem to be making use of strawmen, which is understandable given that I have beaten every single point you've brought up. You are even willing to use "dogma" in reference to atheism yourself, which I didn't. So it is an argument you have with yourself as you are being confronted with the atrocities of the Militant Godless.
Sure atheism is a spectrum (that includes the League).
Of course you can bring it up as an argument, but it only holds inasmuch as it differs from its alternatives. Because the alternatives are not so much better (there are many historical examples of censorship and murder for religious reasons), and because it is therefore not an integral and unique part of atheism, it is not a valid basis to say atheism is bad for humans.
And I am also not claiming that atheism is good for humans. I'm simply stating and reinforcing that the topic cannot be answered by a simple yes or no. There are too many conditions and caveats to account for, and too few statistics to give a clear answer.
#1520736 by hOG (Crusader Mod) at 2013-02-13 16:59:03 (5 months ago) - [Report]
@R0berto
Quote:
Of course you can bring it up as an argument, but it only holds inasmuch as it differs from its alternatives. Because the alternatives are not so much better (there are many historical examples of censorship and murder for religious reasons), and because it is therefore not an integral and unique part of atheism, it is not a valid basis to say atheism is bad for humans.
I've said the answer is more complicated. I don't disagree with you. The alternative to kind of society that the League proposered in, is a democratic and free society. For comparative reasons you can bring up societies that have been under the rule of clergy, like John Calvin's Geneva.
The League remains a part of the history of atheism, but it isn't everything and all and doesn't exhaust either the topic of atheism. However many prefer to simply say that atheism is much like nothing, void of belief. Historically speaking that is not true. Thus, the League remains a reason for saying that atheism can be bad for humans, especially theists.
Quote:
And I am also not claiming that atheism is good for humans. I'm simply stating and reinforcing that the topic cannot be answered by a simple yes or no. There are too many conditions and caveats to account for, and too few statistics to give a clear answer.
Militant goddless.
Just like inquisition represented catholic church, not theists.
The belief in god (or in the case of atheism the lack of it) is not enough to be a nominator when there is clearly other motivators in play.
Just like moustache is not enough nominator for hitler.
Quote:
We come back to you speaking on behalf of all atheists.
No, I am speaking on behalf of atheism, which is simply a lack of belief, nothing more nothing less.
Quote:
And it amazes me you continue to ignore that evidential-based reasoning is limited in scope, because it has to be if we want concrete answers to concrete questions. If the question of purpose is not philosophical, then cease to use concepts from philosophy then.
Philosophy doesn't bring any answers, it's useless tool for finding answers.
It can provide new views and new ideas, but those views and ideas are in the end then tested by science.
Just like neil de tyson grasse said, philosophy has provided nothing in the last 50-100 years, it's useless in that regard.
Quote:
I haven't said that the opposite of atheism is religion.
But you use a group of atheists (militant godless) as atheism, which is equilevant for me using muslims as an example of theists and what theism is, its just does not fly.
I understand that you must use that wrong comparison, cause it's the only life line you have.
And I know that you get my point, but you can't admit it, because it's the only straw you are holding to, you are defeated again.
Quote:
You are even willing to use "dogma" in reference to atheism
No, I used it as a reference for a group of atheists who made one. Atheism alone has no such thing.
Quote:
Considering your antipathy towards religion and faith you are not far from taking on the view of the League.
I would never try to ristrict the freedoms of religious people or use violence against them etc.
You are talking nonsense.
And using a humour thread as random picture thread as reference is really below bar, even from you, considering your posts there. I won't use such tactics as you, cause I know that your position ((considering religion) is not what you sometimes post in that thread, I don't have to, i have arguments on my side, you apparently don't have.
Tell me then, what reasoning did you use to conclude that the earth was formed 6000 years ago and that the theory of evolution is false?
Intuition
So when we know the earth was proven round by science, when we know science proved that the earth was not the centre of the universe, etc, etc, etc times 1000 all the stuff that was proven by science contrary to religious beliefs. Doesn't your intuition kick in to tell you that maybe you are wrong again?
Anyway, it's not even a matter of intuition! There is proof and substantial proof that we have evolved from the a common predecessor of today's apes.
DNA studies point humanity and apes back to that same predecessor and this was all verified AFTER Darwin first theorised about the evolution of species. If you believe DNA is not some scientific fantasy, then by association, your so called intuition should also tell you that the interpretation of the same DNA will give you such conclusions...
The problem with religious believers is their complete ignorance towards what their claims represent. They ignore the fact that their claims can be disputed not by scientific beliefs, not by atheist beliefs, but by their residual beliefs outside of their religious indoctrination! This is a very pure and simple definition of ignorance...
hOG wrote:
Have you ever held a banana in your hand? Your hand is made for gripping the banana, it fits perfectly in your hand and when you open the banana it is easily accessible. That is why I don't think apes are our cousins.
If a banana fits my hand perfectly, it's because evolution, throughout millions of years slowly dictated that we should have that hand format.
Added to that, we weren't really designed to hold bananas. Bananas didn't exist in Africa, at the time of early human evolution...
If you believe one of the reasons our hands are the way they are is the fact that we can hold a banana perfectly, then you have to agree that every animal that exists today that has hands similar to the human hand, has migrated from south america and southeast Asia, which was where the bananas originated from and which is the banana's natural ground where it grows naturally without human intervention.
So once again, ignorance is your flaw. You ignore the repercussion of your claims towards everything else that you also believe.
#1520757 by hOG (Crusader Mod) at 2013-02-13 18:35:44 (5 months ago) - [Report]
TheBiz wrote:
So when we know the earth was proven round by science, when we know science proved that the earth was not the centre of the universe, etc, etc, etc times 1000 all the stuff that was proven by science contrary to religious beliefs. Doesn't your intuition kick in to tell you that maybe you are wrong again?
When I use my intuition together with google it tells me that science have problems measuring the age of the Earth, because carbon dating is flawed.
Quote:
If a banana fits my hand perfectly, it's because evolution, throughout millions of years slowly dictated that we should have that hand format.
Added to that, we weren't really designed to hold bananas. Bananas didn't exist in Africa, at the time of early human evolution...
You are assuming that evolution is true, but the banana came from the Garden of Eden, not Africa or the land of the apes.
@Sniper:
Quote:
Militant goddless.
Just like inquisition represented catholic church, not theists.
The belief in god (or in the case of atheism the lack of it) is not enough to be a nominator when there is clearly other motivators in play.
Just like moustache is not enough nominator for hitler.
...
No, I am speaking on behalf of atheism, which is simply a lack of belief, nothing more nothing less.
Nominators? I guess that you are in a coding mood..
Atheism cannot be a simple lack of belief and nothing more than that. I can only assume that you do not acknowledge the League and its members and sympathizers as atheists (which is what they called themselves). When atheism is simply a lack of belief, you are talking about weak atheism or irreligious; the common Joe that goes to work in the morning, works his ass off, shops for food, fetches the kids, goes to sleep and doesn't think of God(s) or purpose or meaning or whatever during that whole time. That is when atheism is as you say; simply a lack of belief. But there is also a strong atheism, which you are representative thereof, someone who is conscious about that he is a denier and enjoys being one. A huge amount of antipathy goes a long with it (as you have had no problems admitting) and you are politically motivated, because of your atheism as well. All this makes it true that you are lacking belief, but it is not true that there is nothing more to it. The extreme example, if you imagine atheism (theism too) as a spectrum, you have the irreligious on one side and the militant godless on the other.
Quote:
Philosophy doesn't bring any answers, it's useless tool for finding answers.
It can provide new views and new ideas, but those views and ideas are in the end then tested by science.
Just like neil de tyson grasse said, philosophy has provided nothing in the last 50-100 years, it's useless in that regard.
Then Neil deGrasse Tyson made a goof, if what you are telling me is true. Are you really saying he has never heard of Kuhn or Popper e.g.? I'm sure he meant metaphysics, which is a branch of philosophy, because if he meant philosophy that was just stupid of him to do so. Even if he meant metaphysics, he would be wrong, as far as the 20th century is concerned. He is a popularizer of science and haven't read much philosophy, just like yourself.
Science leans on philosophy, but philosophy is useless for answering questions such as how many minerals are there in this rock. That's true. The reverse is the case when talking about meaning, purpose, etc.; here science can talk about purpose on a quantum level, but purpose as in something that provides our existence with meaning; use something better than science for that. Or use science, but involve other fields.
Quote:
But you use a group of atheists (militant godless) as atheism, which is equilevant for me using muslims as an example of theists and what theism is, its just does not fly.
I understand that you must use that wrong comparison, cause it's the only life line you have.
And I know that you get my point, but you can't admit it, because it's the only straw you are holding to, you are defeated again.
I would have no problem using Islamic terrorism as an example to describe theism, because to thinking people there isn't a set definition; here in this case we are talking about a spectrum, so it is valid to bring up if the question was: Is theism good for a human? Obviously, I'm willing to say no. Like R0berto however I also am aware that the better answer is the complex one.
Quote:
No, I used it as a reference for a group of atheists who made one. Atheism alone has no such thing.
Did the League make dogmas? Doctrines? They made fun of them, they blasphemed them, they killed people that had dogmas and doctrines and they made anti-religious propaganda. It is really not understandable why you say those atheists made a dogma, doctrine.. they had no dogmas or doctrines. Why the hell would they?!
Quote:
I would never try to ristrict the freedoms of religious people or use violence against them etc.
You are talking nonsense.
And using a humour thread as random picture thread as reference is really below bar, even from you, considering your posts there.
I mentioned the thread, because I have posted some of their propaganda there and you responded to it. I understand you would never restrict the freedoms of religious people or use violence.. but you sure do like their propaganda..
Why do you guys feel the need to shit up every single even slightly related thread, and sometimes not even that, with pages and pages of posting the same old story over and over again.
"Atheism is nothing but a label for not believing in god, everything derived from it is not simple atheism per se."
"Nothing is an empty label as it would be meaningless, whatever is derived from it must be taken into account."
Every. Single. Time. Except in about fifty thousand times more words. Never going anywhere.
#1520767 by hOG (Crusader Mod) at 2013-02-13 19:21:58 (5 months ago) - [Report]
Very succinct of you and you are right about it being the major disagreement.
But I don't know. I only know that I would blame Sniper.
#1520774 by unknown[81460] at 2013-02-13 19:39:25 (5 months ago) - [Report]
I personally see atheism as following your own set of beliefs as opposed to those created by others which mean worshiping some form of god.
I dont it's bad in any way, at the most basic levels we should all know right from wrong
Atheism cannot be a simple lack of belief and nothing more than that.
Your premise is flawed, thats the problem, and with flawed premise goes the whole argumentation.
I don't accept your premise. You have defined atheism something it is not, which makes your arguments useless.
Quote:
but you sure do like their propaganda..
Yes, in a humour thread, if that kind of propaganda would come from television or would be rallied by people from door to door or in the streets, then it would not be funny anymore.
Context my friend (?), context.
Quote:
It is really not understandable why you say those atheists made a dogma, doctrine.. they had no dogmas or doctrines. Why the hell would they?!
Their dogma was to ridicule and cause trouble to religious people etc.
It was not a religious dogma but a commong accepted way to do things.
Ateism itself does not have anything like that, not even you try to say it does.
Quote:
Every. Single. Time. Except in about fifty thousand times more words. Never going anywhere.
True, but I continue to point this out as long as hOG keeps on telling his lies.
There can be somebody who believes him and thats not acceptable.
#1520780 by tidus (Power User) at 2013-02-13 20:26:32 (5 months ago) - [Report]
DrevoKocour wrote:
"Atheism is nothing but a label for not believing in god, everything derived from it is not simple atheism per se."
.
Atheism is a personal relationship with reality*
#1520784 by hOG (Crusader Mod) at 2013-02-13 20:45:17 (5 months ago) - [Report]
tidus wrote:
DrevoKocour wrote:
"Atheism is nothing but a label for not believing in god, everything derived from it is not simple atheism per se."
.
Atheism is a personal relationship with reality*
You mentioned you prepared 3 questions. What were they?
So when we know the earth was proven round by science, when we know science proved that the earth was not the centre of the universe, etc, etc, etc times 1000 all the stuff that was proven by science contrary to religious beliefs. Doesn't your intuition kick in to tell you that maybe you are wrong again?
When I use my intuition together with google it tells me that science have problems measuring the age of the Earth, because carbon dating is flawed.
Carbon dating is flawed? Well then what is NOT flawed in the argument that the earth is 6000 years old? What was NOT flawed with claiming the earth was flat and that gods lived in the sky or that the earth was in the centre of the universe or that plagues and storms were the punishment of god, or a million of other ridiculous claims religion is known to have made?
What makes someone that believes ludicrous things like intelligent design think that they have the minimum scientific knowledge to even claim carbon 14 is flawed. It's the same as having a tooth fairy believer saying a dentist that brushing one's teeth is overrated...
But further than that, i'll teach you one other thing, because you are clearly ignorant on yet another matter.
First of all, science does not have problems measuring the age of the earth because C14 is flawed. Science doesn't even use C14 to measure the age of the earth to begin with... Such a claim is like saying your are efficiently using a ruler to measure the perimeter of the earth's equator. C14 is only accurate in a small time scale.
Another completely moronic and uneducated argument...
Science KNOWS that Carbon 14 is not good enough to measure even the age of fossils because, guess what, they have no detectable Carbon 14 or the ones that do have C14 have probably suffered from C14 contamination which would result in an incorrect dating. C14 is only used to efficiently date things that are at most 50000 years old.
But tell me one thing.
Do you believe in nuclear power? You surely must recognize it's existence!
Scientists (not religious folks) that invented nuclear power by studying radioactivity and radioactive materials, also obviously had to have discovered radioactive decay, which is a process of nuclear fission. It's how nuclear powerplants work!
So this radioactive decay thing is what, for instance, can turn uranium into led by a natural process.
To simplify things, if you "force" an uranium nucleus to loose two protons, it becomes Thorium. If you force a thorium nucleus to loose two protons, it becomes radium, the same process with radium will give you radon, then polonium and finally lead.
This occurs naturally by radioactive decay and the process from uranium to lead has a halflife of more than 4 million years.
A you can see, uranium-lead dating can be used to accurately date stuff on the millions of years scale with an interval of error so small that probably it will be even less that those 6000 years you claim to be the earth's age.
So yes, yet another fact you didn't know... Nuclear power would be impossible (or very very different and inefficient) in a 6000 year old world.
Care to refute?
