Since we were in the serious chat section of the forum, i supposed he was being serious
You can't expect that a immoral person would follow the common accepted rules.
#1520802 by hOG (Crusader Mod) at 2013-02-13 21:31:03 (5 months ago) - [Report]
sniperfin wrote:
Quote:
Since we were in the serious chat section of the forum, i supposed he was being serious
You can't expect that a immoral person would follow the common accepted rules.
I expected TheBiz to have read your warning. He didn't or he did, I certainly didn't expect those long answers. I mean the banana one is a meme..
Context, context..
Quote:
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.
I didn't realize that RPT was a humor thread, just that it is placed in chit-chat. I get most of the pix are funnies and they should be. You be the judge.. (there is one more instance, but that is older and I couldn't be bothered to look). R0berto will recognize.
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.
This time, read the entire paragraph - as that is not my premise. Drevo described our disagreement very well however, and at some point, those two positions will overlap.
Atheism cannot be a simple lack of belief and nothing more than that (wait for it, wait for it. 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.
You be the judge.. (there is one more instance, but that is older and I couldn't be bothered to look). R0berto will recognize.
Hey man, my answer "I still am" does not mean that I would support such actions (using such nasty style propaganda flyers etc.).
I am proud that there are people who in open debates are talking about the harm of religion (like hitch did and dawkins and harris does). I myself too in various forums in the net.
Discussions/debates among adults.
Also, when you are baiting me in those not so serious threads, my answers can be not so serious too.
You should know that, if you did not, then you know now, and you have no excuse to use such low tactics in future debates.
Quote:
you are talking about weak atheism or irreligious...But there is also a strong atheism, which you are representative thereof
Quote:
Weak atheism, also sometimes referred to as implicit atheism, is simply another name for the broadest and most general conception of atheism: the absence of belief in any gods.
Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to as explicit atheism, goes one step further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all. Strong atheism is sometimes called “gnostic atheism” because people who take this position often incorporate knowledge claims into it — that is to say, they claim to know in some fashion that certain gods or indeed all gods do not or cannot exist.
I am in the middle. If we talk about god in general I don't believe that it exists. If we talk about certaing gods (god in the bible,quran,ancient roman and greek gods),Im sure that those do not exist, (sure meaning like being sure that earth goes around sun,sure in a practical level not talking about 100% certain).
Your understanding of weak and strong atheism is flawed aswell.
Quote:
All this makes it true that you are lacking belief, but it is not true that there is nothing more to it.
Wrong, there is nothing more to my atheism. Like I said, I would be anti religious even if I would believe that god exists. I would be against the morals represented in bible etc.
I would have the same opinons about freedoms and human rights etc.
If I would believe, I would be showing finger to god for being such a jerk off.
#1520815 by unknown[81460] at 2013-02-13 22:15:16 (5 months ago) - [Report]
How can people have a serious chat when the same arguments are repeated till death, like TV people turn off repeats
Religion spouts off the same shit time and time again as does the other argument , perhaps serious chat could become its own religion, hog one side sniper the other.
Now would hogism or sniperism be good for a human ?
Now would hogism or sniperism be good for a human ?
Last i checked it doesn't come with a health warning from doctors, so is it good for a human? It's not bad. Not believing in religion is going to have the same effect as believing in it. Aka none (assuming you exclude the self delusions people with religion create)
#1520823 by hOG (Crusader Mod) at 2013-02-13 23:04:43 (5 months ago) - [Report]
@Sniper
Do you agree with the statement: "protect your children, religion is poison"?
You did write on a previous occasion in RPT:
Quote:
... facts don't change in 80 years,protect your children, religion is poison is even more valid statement today than it was 80 years ago.
If you hold on to the opinion, why write that "that propaganda represented their view, it was not a view of atheism, there is no such thing". That leads me to believe you do not hold the League's members to be atheist, that you think there is no connection between the name of the organization and what they are fighting for, or what they fought for and what the members do in the organization's name.
Quote:
I am in the middle. If we talk about god in general I don't believe that it exists. If we talk about certaing gods (god in the bible,quran,ancient roman and greek gods),Im sure that those do not exist, (sure meaning like being sure that earth goes around sun,sure in a practical level not talking about 100% certain).
Your understanding of weak and strong atheism is flawed aswell.
There are statements in that article you linked to that I have made as well, and which you have called flawed, most importantly that it admits too a broad diversity amongst atheists in the world. I hold that too be the case when looking at history. It uses an axis system - or a category system, which I don't happen to find useful. That's the difference, a minute one, when you think about images (spectrum vs. axis). In a spectrum there is just more room for diversity as I imagine that no two atheists are alike.
I acknowledge the weak atheism; non-confessional atheists, e.g. irreligious people like Joe that I mentioned in my example. I also acknowledge strong atheists such as yourself; confessional/open atheists that are politically motivated because of their disbelief, for example to separate church from state. I believe there is also a third category, the militant one; which I have described aplenty in this thread. The article calls them categories, but I see them as being placed within a spectrum. The article you linked to also acknowledges that atheists "are both on various levels", which is why I think it makes more sense to talk about atheism/theism as a spectrum of (dis)beliefs. In the electromagnetic spectrum some waves are visible and some are not. In this spectrum, I am referring to and which is just a picture, there are irreligious or weak atheists (not confessional or conscious) on one side and militant on the other (confessional, conscious and militant).
You are somewhere in this spectrum, but you are not like Joe the irreligious that is for sure.
Quote:
Wrong, there is nothing more to my atheism. Like I said, I would be anti religious even if I would believe that god exists. I would be against the morals represented in bible etc.
I would have the same opinons about freedoms and human rights etc.
If I would believe, I would be showing finger to god for being such a jerk off.
If you say so ...
BoB wrote:
Now would hogism or sniperism be good for a human ?
hOGism is too cool for school. Sniperism is just too homo
Do you agree with the statement: "protect your children, religion is poison"?
Yes, but I would not go and preach that in the streets or deal leaflets to people or go to church shouting that etc.
I would and will express my views and the reasons with conversations among adults.
Most certainly I would not say that to any kids.
Quote:
That leads me to believe you do not hold the League's members to be atheist,
I don't think that they represent atheism, they represent atheists who have formed an organization which drives for certain goals.
Quote:
that are politically motivated because of their disbelief
Im not politically motivated because of my disbelief. I am politically active because I see religion (and other things) doing lots of harm. I repeat, I would do the same thing if I would be a believer in god. I would be separating church and state aswell.
You saying what I am does not change the fact what I really am.
I have formed my understanigs of freedoms,human rights,how to treat other people etc. long before I have regoniced and understood that I am actually an atheist,it didn't play any role on how I reasoned my groundstone values.
I have never believed (well, perhaps when I was like 4 or 5 and in the church driven kinderkarten, but then again I really didn't undertand the issue, so it does not count, cause I just did as the adults told), but when I was younger I didn't really knew about atheism and that I am one.
#1520833 by hOG (Crusader Mod) at 2013-02-13 23:38:12 (5 months ago) - [Report]
Sniper:
Quote:
I don't think that they represent atheism, they represent atheists who have formed an organization which drives for certain goals.
They represent atheists, so they are not themselves atheists, but representatives of other atheists??
Quote:
Im not politically motivated because of my disbelief. I am politically active because I see religion (and other things) doing lots of harm. I repeat, I would do the same thing if I would be a believer in god. I would be separating church and state aswell.
You saying what I am does not change the fact what I really am.
I have formed my understanigs of freedoms,human rights,how to treat other people etc. long before I have regoniced and understood that I am actually an atheist,it didn't play any role on how I reasoned my groundstone values.
I have never believed (well, perhaps when I was like 4 or 5 and in the church driven kinderkarten, but then again I really didn't undertand the issue, so it does not count, cause I just did as the adults told), but when I was younger I didn't really knew about atheism and that I am one.
So we have established that you do, as I claimed earlier on, agree with the propaganda of the militant atheists. To be politically motivated because of a (dis)belief, and to be politically active, because -you see- religion doing lots of harm/good is - same, same.
But if you insist, you are in the middle between weak and strong then; strong because you are not irreligious (like Joe), weak because, as that article rightfully pointed out, you have no belief in God(s) also. Though I don't agree about placing you there. You are closer to the militant atheists imo, than you are willing to recognize.
So we have established that you do, as I claimed earlier on, agree with the propaganda of the militant atheists.
No, I don't agree with the propaganda, I agree that religion is poison, but I don't agree spreading propaganda(or using other methods they did, like violence etc.) supporting that view.
Quote:
To be politically motivated because of a (dis)belief, and to be politically active, because -you see- religion doing lots of harm/good is - same, same.
No. There are lot's of religious people in USA who support for example state and church separation and keeping religion out of politics etc.
They know that it will do harm to those who are non believers and to those who belong to a different religion than the one which is in the decision making seat.
Quote:
But if you insist
I don't insist, I tell you what and who I am, it is you who insist to know what I am instead of me knowing who and what I am.
Quote:
You are closer to the militant atheists imo, than you are willing to recognize.
Define what militant atheism icludes (french lines) and I can then set + or - signs on the subjects in your list. And don't take those subjects from your ass, to be militant requires extreme things.
Aka. don't like religions won't fly on that list.
#1520874 by Zaany (Power User) at 2013-02-14 06:19:29 (5 months ago) - [Report]
It is good, atleast for the development of the human species.
#1520916 by hOG (Crusader Mod) at 2013-02-14 13:33:15 (5 months ago) - [Report]
@Zaany
Like liberalism it can be. There are plenty of atheist tracts, which have inspired others to take up the pen..
@Sniper
Quote:
No, I don't agree with the propaganda, I agree that religion is poison, but I don't agree spreading propaganda(or using other methods they did, like violence etc.) supporting that view.
I said you agree with their propaganda, which you have admitted ("protect your children, religion is poison"). There is no need to say that you wouldn't use violence; the poster doesn't argue you should.
Quote:
No. There are lot's of religious people in USA who support for example state and church separation and keeping religion out of politics etc.
They know that it will do harm to those who are non believers and to those who belong to a different religion than the one which is in the decision making seat.
You misunderstand.
I wrote that: "To be politically motivated because of a (dis)belief and to be politically active, because -you see- religion doing lots of harm/good is - same, same."
To be politically motivated and to be politically active is the same thing. Weak atheists, like irreligious peoples, cannot be motivated by a lack of belief. That's where we agree. But people that are aware they lack belief, in other words, deniers, can be politically active because of their contempt for belief (as the case were in Russia under Lenin).
Quote:
Define what militant atheism icludes (french lines) and I can then set + or - signs on the subjects in your list. And don't take those subjects from your ass, to be militant requires extreme things.
Aka. don't like religions won't fly on that list.
The easiest way for you to understand what militant atheism is, is to read about it as I have. There is a book, which was published in the 90s called Stoming the Heavens (the motto of the League). It is based on newly released documents that the government in Russia decided to let go from their archives after the cold war. And it is a very good book. The picture from RPT is from that book. However, reading an entire book through might be too much, so wiki it is. You have a number of options in so far Eastern Europe/Asia is concerned. Those I've selected below are militant.
To even have this conversation, both sides have to respect the others position. Saying it and doing it are not the same thing. It is why these threads never go anywhere. Not that some internet forum thread is suddenly going to "fix" the world's view on atheism vs religion. Atheism itself is a religion.
No, ofcourse it's not. Just like not playing football is not a hobby.
How many times this has to be said before you people stop using this idiot claim ?
Quote:
To even have this conversation, both sides have to respect the others position.
Why ?
If for example somebody says that "atheism is a religion", why should I respect that position which is totally idiotic ?
Respect must be earned.
I can respect the person (if he/she has earned my respect), even if his/hers position in this matter is in my opinion stupid.
@hOG
It's not going anywhere, we just have to agree that we disagree.
You claim Im something what I am not,pretty useless convo.
#1520954 by hOG (Crusader Mod) at 2013-02-14 16:35:56 (5 months ago) - [Report]
@Sniper
I'm not convinced that you are a militant atheist nor am I claiming you are one. We agree that atheism means lack of belief in God(s). But where you say it is fulfilling description, I do not (for historical reasons).
But where you say it is fulfilling description, I do not (for historical reasons).
Few isolated examples containing relatively small amount of people and you call those historical reasons. I don't.
If there would have been a long lasting international atheist movement (comparatible to religions when we talk about visibility and number of members etc.), then perhaps you would have somekind of point, but there is or has not been none.
Like I said,you use that because it's the only straw you have and admitting it being a bogus argument would leave you empty handed.
#1520960 by hOG (Crusader Mod) at 2013-02-14 16:54:55 (5 months ago) - [Report]
Now it is you that want to compare atheism to religions! I don't. I'm taking what you call "few isolated examples" into consideration when talking about atheism. That' all..
Now it is you that want to compare atheism to religions! I don't. I'm taking what you call "few isolated examples" into consideration when talking about atheism. That' all..
Not comparing, I used religion as an example for a movement which can be called historically meaninfull as defining something.
#1520970 by hOG (Crusader Mod) at 2013-02-14 18:17:01 (5 months ago) - [Report]
Anything that has happened in history is meaningful for historians. Why would your argument from quantity undermine the points I made about the diversity of views on atheism..
Anything that has happened in history is meaningful for historians.
Yes, but to use a history of something for defining it (or even whosing that it's being something meaninfull to it), the history must be somehow significant and meaninfull. In this case it's not and therfore your "historical reasons" is bs and you know it.
A small group in soviet union, where religion was supressed alreadydue political reasons (people should only obay the party/motherland, there could be no higher power. No religion and people would not protest cause there would be no faith for afterlife if they are killed while protesting. etc.)
There already was a climate which was antireligious and some atheists used the opportunity.
Quote:
I made about the diversity of views on atheism..
Views on atheis, yes like a view that it is a religion. I don't give a shit how some idiots view atheism, to call it something else than it is must have good reasons, and there are none.
Don't you two have you're own forum you can go to? Seriously Same shit over and over again. Agree to disagree or something it got boring a long time ago..
#1521053 by tidus (Power User) at 2013-02-15 03:05:26 (5 months ago) - [Report]
@hOG
Do you believe jesus was a real person who existed historically ?
How old is our planet?
Does god answer your prayers?
Why evil exists ?
If God was schizophrenic, would he just hear an echo in his head?
Do you understand what means a fact ?
Do you think for yourself ?
You may be an atheist but you don't know that yet, do you agree with this ?
Don't you two have you're own forum you can go to? Seriously Same shit over and over again. Agree to disagree or something it got boring a long time ago..
Don't read it if you are not interested.
Are you telling me that these forums must follow your taste and your rules, otherwise people should go elsewhere discussing ?
This topic has been autolocked for inactivity. If you have something to add, Click Here to request it is re-opened.
(Power User) at 2013-02-14 15:10:49 (5 months ago) - [
