What I *really* think about believers - Page 9

Irony · 30th August 2012, 10:05 PM

Originally Posted by 16.5

Ah, well that was clear as mud. Cool post otherwise.

"This is a discussion of human behavior, complaining about the tu quoque fallacy in this setting is like complaining we didn't move the knight correctly in a game of checkers"

Lulz. You did look up what tu quoque meant before you wrote that, correct? Because that was pretty funny.

I know perfectly well what appeal to hypocrisy means, you should look up the fallacy fallacy. An argument not being logically sound does not mean it's wrong, particularly when the subject in question is subjective. Respect is not a logical proposition, it is a request for deference. Noting that it is unearned is not a "logical" argument in the strictest sense, but it is most definitely a good argument. You are not adding to the discussion when you treat debates on such emotional matters as though they are taking place in a high school logic classroom, you are trying to draw attention away from the actual points.

Irony · 30th August 2012, 10:13 PM

Originally Posted by 16.5

Thanks for posting.

Takes notes: it appears that there is a a substantive difference between "Sky daddy" and "sky wizard." Takes a note. Gotta look that up, will ask the kid to ask round the school yard in the morning.

There is. Christians call their god father, they do not call him Gandalf. Sky wizard is somewhat less correct if for no other reason than God is seldom depicted with the awesome headgear which any self-respecting wizard ought to wear. It's sort of like calling Jesus a zombie even though he's never depicted as particularly brain-hungry. He's also supposedly self-risen and ensouled, not a souless corpse. That makes him a lich, people! Get your fantasy undead straight!

16.5 · 30th August 2012, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

You may wish to turn round and see if you can catch up with the point, which just rocketed over your head. Best of luck.

I'm sorry, was it that I had poor reading skills or that I had nothing useful to say?

Thanks for posting.

westprog · 30th August 2012, 10:18 PM

Originally Posted by Merton

As Last of the Fraggles said, there is no atheist ideology. Marxist ideology is both atheistic and anticlerical, but the former doesn't necessitate the latter. This really is a case of "a brutal dictatorship led by someone who happens to be an atheist."

No, it is not. Marx set up a very clear ideology. Unlike many others, it wasn't purely philosophical, or economical, or sociological. It covered the lot. At it's absolute basic level, it is atheistic. It is not possible to set up a society along Marxist lines that is not atheistic. All Marxist regimes have been atheistic, and they have all set up constitutions which protected freedom of religion, and they have all suppressed religion. This isn't some bizarre coincidence - it's what can be found in Marxist literature, and what actually happened.

If someone has some examples of non-Marxist atheist societies, then we can look at those as well. In the meantime, we can compare theocracies (which tend not to work well), atheist societies (which are even worse) and religion-tolerating secular societies (which while they vary in the role reserved for religion, tend to work better than the alternatives).

16.5 · 30th August 2012, 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by Irony

I know perfectly well what appeal to hypocrisy means, you should look up the fallacy fallacy. An argument not being logically sound does not mean it's wrong, particularly when the subject in question is subjective. Respect is not a logical proposition, it is a request for deference. Noting that it is unearned is not a "logical" argument in the strictest sense, but it is most definitely a good argument. You are not adding to the discussion when you treat debates on such emotional matters as though they are taking place in a high school logic classroom, you are trying to draw attention away from the actual points.

Takes note: the rules of logic do not apply to "emotional matters."

I thought the point under discussion was whether dismissive juvenile taunts like "Sky Daddy" were an effective argument?

Gotta keep up, I'm learning stuff here.

devnull · 30th August 2012, 10:27 PM

Originally Posted by Monketey Ghost

Mutual admiration societies are hard to take for more than a few minutes... that's religion AND irreligion for you.

/end thread

UnrepentantSinner · 30th August 2012, 10:34 PM

Originally Posted by Dessi

I'm so far beyond the point of even caring about religious debate. I don't care about peoples religious beliefs. The end.

Notwithstanding behaviors that actually hurt people, like flying planes into buildings, honor killing, prejudices in all its flavors, mixing church and state, etc, I just don't care anymore.

Unfortunately, since I've been attending some atheist and skeptic's group here in Omaha, about 50% of the conversation revolves around religious believers, and that quickly turns into this factory of denigrating comments about Christians, Muslims, and Mormons, and those comments just keep coming one after the other after the other. It really harshes my mellow. There's been several times I've had to make a comment "I don't think blah-blah-blah generalizes to all Christians", though I'm not sure those comments have the impact they should.

I think if I had to interrupt someone everytime they used a pejorative euphemism to denigrate believers, I'd be asked to leave in 5 minutes. We all know what those pejoratives are, "sky daddy", "fairytale", "brainwashed". I find it extremely off-putting, condescending, judgemental, and absolutely not conducive to anything.

Honestly, I've seen more preachy atheists in the atheist groups I attend than preachy vegans in the vegan groups. I know, groups more preachy than vegans, I was pretty shocked too.

My opinions about skeptics are roughly the same about believers: I just don't care anymore.

Actually I do sort of care. I actually really like intellectually stimulating discussion and debates, although I'm absolutely not smart enough to contribute 95% of the time. I just don't care for condescending prickery, which I find emotionally draining, harshes my mellow. And when people harsh my mellow, I bring pain, cataclysmic calamity, and more pain---or I find other groups. One or the other.

I'm shocked! Shocked I tells ya, that this thread has turned out just like some of the meetings that brought Dessi to post the OP.

eta - You're not the only "tone troll" around here. Some of us have been raising our voices and getting shouted down for quite a while. It's funny how many amongst us who are politically liberal take their advice on PR from Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh.

Shocked!

Irony · 30th August 2012, 10:39 PM

Originally Posted by 16.5

Takes note: the rules of logic do not apply to "emotional matters."

I thought the point under discussion was whether dismissive juvenile taunts like "Sky Daddy" were an effective argument?

Gotta keep up, I'm learning stuff here.

Naively using the rules of formal logic in real world debates is foolish. They are useful tools, but like all tools they have limits to when and where they are appropriate. To point out that it is not sound formal logic to refute a point by noting that your opponent is being hypocritical does not magically make it wrong to do so, particularly not in this case where the "point" is a demand for a restriction on our behavior which they are not willing to reciprocate.

This is not a logical debate in the slightest bit. "Respect" is subjective, "juvenile taunts" is subjective, effective is left completely undefined, and you have yet to make an opening statement explaining exactly why, in logical terms, a truth value under a concretely defined respect will result in a truth value under a concretely defined value of an effective argument.

Brainache · 30th August 2012, 11:59 PM

Originally Posted by westprog

No, it is not. Marx set up a very clear ideology. Unlike many others, it wasn't purely philosophical, or economical, or sociological. It covered the lot. At it's absolute basic level, it is atheistic. It is not possible to set up a society along Marxist lines that is not atheistic. All Marxist regimes have been atheistic,...

Does this count?

http://ebible.org/web/Acts.htm

Quote:

...2:44 All who believed were together, and had all things in common. 2:45 They sold their possessions and goods, and distributed them to all, according as anyone had need. 2:46 Day by day, continuing steadfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they took their food with gladness and singleness of heart, 2:47 praising God, and having favor with all the people. The Lord added to the assembly day by day those who were being saved...

...4:32 The multitude of those who believed were of one heart and soul. Not one of them claimed that anything of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. 4:33 With great power, the apostles gave their testimony of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. Great grace was on them all. 4:34 For neither was there among them any who lacked, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, 4:35 and laid them at the apostles’ feet, and distribution was made to each, according as anyone had need. ...

Or this?
http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/md.htm

Quote:

After he has spent a full year in the midst of the community, the members are jointly to review his case, as to his understanding and performance in matters of doctrine. If it then be voted by the opinion of the priests and of a majority of their co-covenanters to admit him to the sodality, they are to have him bring with him all his property and the tools of his profession. These are to be committed to the custody of the community's 'minister of works'. They are to entered by that officer into an account, but he is not to disburse them for the general benefit.

Not until the completion of a second year among the members of the community is the candidate to be admitted to the common board. [Drink] When however, that second year has been completed, he is to be subjected to a further review by the general membership, and if it then be voted to admit him to the community, he is to be registered in due order of rank which he is to occupy among his brethren in all matters pertaining to doctrine, judicial procedure, degree of purity and share in the common funds. Thenceforth his counsel and his judgment are to be at the disposal of the community.

ddt · 31st August 2012, 12:30 AM

Originally Posted by westprog

No, it is not. Marx set up a very clear ideology. Unlike many others, it wasn't purely philosophical, or economical, or sociological. It covered the lot. At it's absolute basic level, it is atheistic. It is not possible to set up a society along Marxist lines that is not atheistic. All Marxist regimes have been atheistic, and they have all set up constitutions which protected freedom of religion, and they have all suppressed religion. This isn't some bizarre coincidence - it's what can be found in Marxist literature, and what actually happened.

So, please provide quotes and references from Karl Marx' work that support your claims. AFAIK, Marx has written very little on religion.

ETA: for your ease of perusing Marx' work and quoting it, the Complete Marx-Engels Archive.

Last of the Fraggles · 31st August 2012, 02:21 AM

Originally Posted by 16.5

I thought the point under discussion was whether dismissive juvenile taunts like "Sky Daddy" were an effective argument?

That explains where you have gone wrong. That's not the argument. I can only assume your poor reading skills are the root as the actual discussion was fairly clear.

chillzero · 31st August 2012, 02:31 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

So if I don't believe you ever had a mom, calling her a ***** isn't insulting you?

Slight nitpick, but relevant, I think. You are not insulting him, but you are insulting the mom. Insult and offence are different terms that are repeatedly being swapped around here.

The issue at hand is what people feel they should be entitled to take offence at, rather than whether people are being directly insulting. And offence is something that you can choose how to respond to.

You can choose to ignore the fact that people do not share your belief (or lack of) and use different terms to describe an item, person or concept which you revere. Or, you can choose to be offended, in which case people tend to stop listening and communicating on the subject and resort instead to bickering.

Of course, once you know a term is considered offensive by someone, you can choose to try and understand why they feel that way, you can discuss it with them to a point where either you may feel it crass to continue using it or they may accept there is no real offence to them, or you can ignore their feelings and continue using the term - at which point you may find that they stop listening ... yada yada yada....

Many religions say very insulting things about atheists, about women, about atheism, and about non believers in general. It is up to me to determine whether there is offence to be taken personally (as an atheist, or a woman) or whether it is something I can choose to ignore (as seeing it spoken against the belief conclusion of atheism). Quite often, to be honest, the offence is taken because the sentiment is actually quite threatening, rather than mocking. Mockery I can handle, threats are a different issue.

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Which means you've done something I've never done, and something most atheists are very critical of others doing - you've set up beliefs themselves, rather than the expression of those beliefs, as being insulting.

Yet you seem to be taking offence at comments directed at beliefs themselves (the belief that a god exists). You are taking the expression of atheist beliefs to be insulting to you personally (i.e. that no gods exist). Perhaps a step back might bring the view that something as powerful as a god is meant to be can handle the occasional mortal-spoken insult, and that an insult to a god is separate to an insult to a believer. Calling christians, or other religious believers a name is insulting to those believers, agreed.

Also, how does the level of offence measure up to the effort taken in life to deal with it? Is the offence due to feeling threatened, and therefore something worth putting effort into addressing, or feeling put out that someone believes differently than you (plural) do, which may not be worth quite so much effort?

dafydd · 31st August 2012, 02:49 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

A bald assertion without argument will generally be met with an equally bald contradiction.

Saying that gods do not exist is not a bald assertion. Thousands of years have passed and not one shred of hard evidence for the existence of a god has ever been presented. Perhaps you have some?

PS. I'll have to wait. i just noticed the suspension.

dafydd · 31st August 2012, 03:02 AM

Originally Posted by 16.5

I thought the point under discussion was whether dismissive juvenile taunts like "Sky Daddy" were an effective argument?

Believing that the universe was created by an imaginary being with a wave of his magic wand seems very juvenile to me and the mother of all ineffectual arguments.

baron · 31st August 2012, 03:52 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

My point is that the relative severity isn't relevant. Either mistreating people is okay or it's not; it doesn't become okay just because other people with similar views at one point did it first.

You aren't mistreated by hearing a word that you don't like, less of the histrionics. Examples of mistreatment can be found in my post, originating from the religious. You should just admit that you have no argument and what you actually want is for people to respect your beliefs, beliefs which carry implications vastly more insulting than the term 'sky daddy'. Personally I find sky daddy a very generous term when dealing with a self-aggrandising, power-crazed mass-murderer fixated by torture, persecution, bullying, sexism, homophobia, hated, intolerance, jealousy and cruelty and frequently indulging in absurd irrationality and outright stupidity.

psionl0 · 31st August 2012, 04:21 AM

Originally Posted by I Ratant

.
It's "sincerely held beliefs" that lead to Inquisitions and pogroms.
Which lead to mass deaths over nothing but words.
One should actually view "sincerely held beliefs" with a certain amount of fear, as those with those beliefs have no qualms about forcing them on you.

This is true even when the sincerely held belief is "atheism".

baron · 31st August 2012, 04:26 AM

Originally Posted by psionl0

This is true even when the sincerely held belief is "atheism".

Atheism isn't a belief.

mikeyx · 31st August 2012, 04:32 AM

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

I'm shocked! Shocked I tells ya, that this thread has turned out just like some of the meetings that brought Dessi to post the OP.

eta - You're not the only "tone troll" around here. Some of us have been raising our voices and getting shouted down for quite a while. It's funny how many amongst us who are politically liberal take their advice on PR from Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh.

Shocked!

why is it a crime to be a "tone troll" if thats even a valid term? The fact is when the mutual admiration society has become so quick to generalize and demean that they're putting off those who would otherwise agree with them, is it time to look in the mirror?

dafydd · 31st August 2012, 04:40 AM

Originally Posted by baron

Atheism isn't a belief.

How many more times does that have to be said!

dafydd · 31st August 2012, 04:43 AM

Originally Posted by baron

You aren't mistreated by hearing a word that you don't like, less of the histrionics. Examples of mistreatment can be found in my post, originating from the religious. You should just admit that you have no argument and what you actually want is for people to respect your beliefs, beliefs which carry implications vastly more insulting than the term 'sky daddy'. Personally I find sky daddy a very generous term when dealing with a self-aggrandising, power-crazed mass-murderer fixated by torture, persecution, bullying, sexism, homophobia, hated, intolerance, jealousy and cruelty and frequently indulging in absurd irrationality and outright stupidity.

The term ''sky daddy'' pales into insignificance when compared with the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Magdalene Laundries and all the horrid things that religion has been responsible for over the centuries.

baron · 31st August 2012, 04:50 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

The term ''sky daddy'' pales into insignificance when compared with the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Magdalene Laundries and all the horrid things that religion has been responsible for over the centuries.

Indeed, and if I were someone easily offended I'd be outraged that I'm expected to give respect to the ideologies that caused these things and am castigated when I don't.

jonigee · 31st August 2012, 05:06 AM

Hi, I'm new to this forum. I was born and raised as "Christian". My parents really didn't believe but being Greek Orthodox I guess they had to pretend. My contention is this: religion is good for those who need it (i.e. my sister-in-law whose son passed recently). I would never try to convince her otherwise. But, I thought the English dudes landed on Plymouth Rock in search of a place to practice any religion they preferred. Church and State must be separate. Right wing fundies, IMO, are defying what is before their eyes and refusing to progress. I do not trust humankind. I think Jesus meant well, but was delusional. Joseph Smith, a charlatan at best and Mohammad (well, I haven't figured him out yet). How can any ONE religion be the right one? Seems people like to put a face on God...if, there is one. At this point in my life (59), I'm agnostic. I feel the Big Bang or the Big Bounce, whatever, had to begin with something. How did the singularity form and what did it?

psionl0 · 31st August 2012, 05:09 AM

Originally Posted by baron

Atheism isn't a belief.

Originally Posted by dafydd

How many more times does that have to be said!

Until you know all about the afterlife (assuming there is one), that's all it is.

baron · 31st August 2012, 05:12 AM

Originally Posted by psionl0

Until you know all about the afterlife (assuming there is one), that's all it is.

Atheism is not a belief.

calebprime · 31st August 2012, 05:16 AM

Originally Posted by jonigee

Hi, I'm new to this forum. I was born and raised as "Christian". My parents really didn't believe but being Greek Orthodox I guess they had to pretend. My contention is this: religion is good for those who need it (i.e. my sister-in-law whose son passed recently). I would never try to convince her otherwise. But, I thought the English dudes landed on Plymouth Rock in search of a place to practice any religion they preferred. Church and State must be separate. Right wing fundies, IMO, are defying what is before their eyes and refusing to progress. I do not trust humankind. I think Jesus meant well, but was delusional. Joseph Smith, a charlatan at best and Mohammad (well, I haven't figured him out yet). How can any ONE religion be the right one? Seems people like to put a face on God...if, there is one. At this point in my life (59), I'm agnostic. I feel the Big Bang or the Big Bounce, whatever, had to begin with something. How did the singularity form and what did it?

Welcome to the forum.

The beginning of it all is a great source of wonder (or befuddlement) to me too.

But a word from a graying but minor poster: Don't attempt to prove anything from this state of wonder, and never, never ask what came before the Big Bang. You'll be disqualified on a technicality. Because there was no such thing as time before the Big Bang -- in the sense that we understand time -- it's incoherent to ask what happened "before" it. (Not that you did!) That's like asking what's North of the North Pole.

Our intuitions and language break down outside of normal usage, and can't be applied to the cosmic or the quant-ic, or indeed, the ontic or the bontic.

We can know what happened before the Big Band, but never the Big Bang.

baron · 31st August 2012, 05:20 AM

Originally Posted by jonigee

I feel the Big Bang or the Big Bounce, whatever, had to begin with something. How did the singularity form and what did it?

It's OT but the confusion here seems to be with language. Language evolved to describe everyday experience and isn't effective in describing phenomena such as quantum events. This can only be done via mathematics. So the question 'how did something come from nothing?' or 'what happened before the big bang' doesn't really mean anything, even though it sounds like it should.

dafydd · 31st August 2012, 05:23 AM

Originally Posted by baron

Indeed, and if I were someone easily offended I'd be outraged that I'm expected to give respect to the ideologies that caused these things and am castigated when I don't.

mikeyx · 31st August 2012, 05:25 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

How many more times does that have to be said!

Oh please.... it's lack of belief, but it's treated the same exact way, and those who shout down the "tone trolls", are treating that lack of belief in the exact way that believers do when they get defensive over their beliefs.

To be deliberately blind to that, is either self delusion or massive hypocrisy.

dafydd · 31st August 2012, 05:27 AM

Originally Posted by mikeyx

Oh please.... it's lack of belief, but it's treated the same exact way, and those who shout down the "tone trolls", are treating that lack of belief in the exact way that believers do when they get defensive over their beliefs.

To be deliberately blind to that, is either self delusion or massive hypocrisy.

Is not collecting stamps a hobby? It is only treated the same way by believers. I have no belief in atheism.

mikeyx · 31st August 2012, 05:29 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

The term ''sky daddy'' pales into insignificance when compared with the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Magdalene Laundries and all the horrid things that religion has been responsible for over the centuries.

nope, its a pale reflection of the same kind of nastiness, but it's okay because YOUR side are the ones doing it, very similar to a comparison of Conservative verses Liberal politics. Each denigrates the other and screams bloody murder when it happens in return. Atheists can be partisan to and act the same very way for the same reasons and rationalize it away.

Because it's not a belief, we just treat it like one.

mikeyx · 31st August 2012, 05:30 AM

Originally Posted by baron

Atheism is not a belief.

You just treat it like one and thats why you feel all that outragey stuff you outline in the post above this.

mikeyx · 31st August 2012, 05:32 AM

[quote=dafydd;8581124]Is not collecting stamps a hobby? It is only treated the same way by believers. I have no belief in atheism.

Read above, try again, that deliberate ignorance thing. If you react to it the same way a believer does, it does really matter because it occupies the space. Your refusal to see that doesnt change that.

dafydd · 31st August 2012, 05:32 AM

Originally Posted by mikeyx

nope, its a pale reflection of the same kind of nastiness, but it's okay because YOUR side are the ones doing it, very similar to a comparison of Conservative verses Liberal politics. Each denigrates the other and screams bloody murder when it happens in return. Atheists can be partisan to and act the same very way for the same reasons and rationalize it away.

Because it's not a belief, we just treat it like one.

You have a very odd view of atheism. There is no ''my side''. I have never seen any evidence for the existence of any god, and that is all there is to it. I don't feel a connection with any other atheist. I don't scream bloody murder about anything. Is it more rational to believe in an imaginary being or to ask for proof?

dafydd · 31st August 2012, 05:36 AM

[quote=mikeyx;8581132]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Is not collecting stamps a hobby? It is only treated the same way by believers. I have no belief in atheism.

Read above, try again, that deliberate ignorance thing. If you react to it the same way a believer does, it does really matter because it occupies the space. Your refusal to see that doesnt change that.

I am ignorant because I have never seen any proof that a god exists? That kite won't fly. Do you believe that the Hindu pantheon of gods actually exist? And if you don't is that deliberate ignorance or healthy skepticism? Your tone is very belligerent, what's the matter with you?

baron · 31st August 2012, 05:36 AM

Originally Posted by mikeyx

You just treat it like one and thats why you feel all that outragey stuff you outline in the post above this.

Your argument makes no sense. Not only do I not treat Atheism as a belief (on account of it not being one) I don't need it to feel outrage at the atrocities committed in the name of religion over the ages, or offence at the expectation that I must kowtow to those who celebrate these very same ideologies.

Resume · 31st August 2012, 05:36 AM

Originally Posted by psionl0

Until you know all about the afterlife (assuming there is one), that's all it is.

It's a provisional conclusion based on an examination of the evidence. This conclusion could be modified given new data.

Unless you have an afterlife we could examine right now.

mikeyx · 31st August 2012, 05:38 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

You have a very odd view of atheism. There is no ''my side''. I have never seen any evidence for the existence of any god, and that is all there is to it. I don't feel a connection with any other atheist. I don't scream bloody murder about anything. Is it more rational to believe in an imaginary being or to ask for proof?

No I don't, you are in my opinion blind to your side's dogma, there's no god you've made up your mind and thats that, anyone else thinking there is is stupid.

Again, conservatives verses liberals, both sides call the other moonbats for the same reason. You use the lack of proof mechanism to back up the arrogant notion your side is inheritly right, Christians as the opposing example, at leats the fundie ones use the Bible in the same exact way, and then cite that same "inherent" truth to make them infallible in the same way you're doing right now.

That's the funy thing about the notion of "god" it can't be proven either way, which is why the dbeate between the believers and the no is so stupid.

dafydd · 31st August 2012, 05:40 AM

Originally Posted by mikeyx

No I don't, you are in my opinion blind to your side's dogma, there's no god you've made up your mind .

No. there is no ''my side'', i have not made up my mind. Show me cast-iron proof that a god exists and I will believe

mikeyx · 31st August 2012, 05:40 AM

[quote=dafydd;8581146]

Originally Posted by mikeyx

I am ignorant because I have never seen any proof that a god exists? That kite won't fly. Do you believe that the Hindu pantheon of gods actually exist? And if you don't is that deliberate ignorance or healthy skepticism? Your tone is very belligerent, what's the matter with you?

Iits not belligerent, it disagrees with yours. I could just easily throw that back at you. You suffer from the same malaise that Biblical literalists do, you're certain you have the monopoly on truth so how dare I question you?

But I am......

dafydd · 31st August 2012, 05:41 AM

Originally Posted by mikeyx

which is why the dbeate between the believers and the no is so stupid.

You're joining in!

30th August 2012, 10:05 PM	#321
Irony Muse Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 872	Originally Posted by 16.5 Ah, well that was clear as mud. Cool post otherwise. "This is a discussion of human behavior, complaining about the tu quoque fallacy in this setting is like complaining we didn't move the knight correctly in a game of checkers" Lulz. You did look up what tu quoque meant before you wrote that, correct? Because that was pretty funny. I know perfectly well what appeal to hypocrisy means, you should look up the fallacy fallacy. An argument not being logically sound does not mean it's wrong, particularly when the subject in question is subjective. Respect is not a logical proposition, it is a request for deference. Noting that it is unearned is not a "logical" argument in the strictest sense, but it is most definitely a good argument. You are not adding to the discussion when you treat debates on such emotional matters as though they are taking place in a high school logic classroom, you are trying to draw attention away from the actual points.
Irony Muse Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 872

30th August 2012, 10:13 PM	#322
Irony Muse Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 872	Originally Posted by 16.5 Thanks for posting. Takes notes: it appears that there is a a substantive difference between "Sky daddy" and "sky wizard." Takes a note. Gotta look that up, will ask the kid to ask round the school yard in the morning. There is. Christians call their god father, they do not call him Gandalf. Sky wizard is somewhat less correct if for no other reason than God is seldom depicted with the awesome headgear which any self-respecting wizard ought to wear. It's sort of like calling Jesus a zombie even though he's never depicted as particularly brain-hungry. He's also supposedly self-risen and ensouled, not a souless corpse. That makes him a lich, people! Get your fantasy undead straight!
Irony Muse Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 872

30th August 2012, 10:17 PM	#323
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,605	Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles You may wish to turn round and see if you can catch up with the point, which just rocketed over your head. Best of luck. I'm sorry, was it that I had poor reading skills or that I had nothing useful to say? Thanks for posting.
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,605

30th August 2012, 10:18 PM	#324
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	Originally Posted by Merton As Last of the Fraggles said, there is no atheist ideology. Marxist ideology is both atheistic and anticlerical, but the former doesn't necessitate the latter. This really is a case of "a brutal dictatorship led by someone who happens to be an atheist." No, it is not. Marx set up a very clear ideology. Unlike many others, it wasn't purely philosophical, or economical, or sociological. It covered the lot. At it's absolute basic level, it is atheistic. It is not possible to set up a society along Marxist lines that is not atheistic. All Marxist regimes have been atheistic, and they have all set up constitutions which protected freedom of religion, and they have all suppressed religion. This isn't some bizarre coincidence - it's what can be found in Marxist literature, and what actually happened. If someone has some examples of non-Marxist atheist societies, then we can look at those as well. In the meantime, we can compare theocracies (which tend not to work well), atheist societies (which are even worse) and religion-tolerating secular societies (which while they vary in the role reserved for religion, tend to work better than the alternatives).
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	__________________ Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.

30th August 2012, 10:24 PM	#325
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,605	Originally Posted by Irony I know perfectly well what appeal to hypocrisy means, you should look up the fallacy fallacy. An argument not being logically sound does not mean it's wrong, particularly when the subject in question is subjective. Respect is not a logical proposition, it is a request for deference. Noting that it is unearned is not a "logical" argument in the strictest sense, but it is most definitely a good argument. You are not adding to the discussion when you treat debates on such emotional matters as though they are taking place in a high school logic classroom, you are trying to draw attention away from the actual points. Takes note: the rules of logic do not apply to "emotional matters." I thought the point under discussion was whether dismissive juvenile taunts like "Sky Daddy" were an effective argument? Gotta keep up, I'm learning stuff here.
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,605

30th August 2012, 10:27 PM	#326
devnull Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 4,531	Originally Posted by Monketey Ghost Mutual admiration societies are hard to take for more than a few minutes... that's religion AND irreligion for you. /end thread
	__________________ no, i don't think i need to read naturalistic literature more accurately, to be convinced its true. - Gibhor

30th August 2012, 10:34 PM	#327
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,349	Originally Posted by Dessi I'm so far beyond the point of even caring about religious debate. I don't care about peoples religious beliefs. The end. Notwithstanding behaviors that actually hurt people, like flying planes into buildings, honor killing, prejudices in all its flavors, mixing church and state, etc, I just don't care anymore. Unfortunately, since I've been attending some atheist and skeptic's group here in Omaha, about 50% of the conversation revolves around religious believers, and that quickly turns into this factory of denigrating comments about Christians, Muslims, and Mormons, and those comments just keep coming one after the other after the other. It really harshes my mellow. There's been several times I've had to make a comment "I don't think blah-blah-blah generalizes to all Christians", though I'm not sure those comments have the impact they should. I think if I had to interrupt someone everytime they used a pejorative euphemism to denigrate believers, I'd be asked to leave in 5 minutes. We all know what those pejoratives are, "sky daddy", "fairytale", "brainwashed". I find it extremely off-putting, condescending, judgemental, and absolutely not conducive to anything. Honestly, I've seen more preachy atheists in the atheist groups I attend than preachy vegans in the vegan groups. I know, groups more preachy than vegans, I was pretty shocked too. My opinions about skeptics are roughly the same about believers: I just don't care anymore. Actually I do sort of care. I actually really like intellectually stimulating discussion and debates, although I'm absolutely not smart enough to contribute 95% of the time. I just don't care for condescending prickery, which I find emotionally draining, harshes my mellow. And when people harsh my mellow, I bring pain, cataclysmic calamity, and more pain---or I find other groups. One or the other. I'm shocked! Shocked I tells ya, that this thread has turned out just like some of the meetings that brought Dessi to post the OP. eta - You're not the only "tone troll" around here. Some of us have been raising our voices and getting shouted down for quite a while. It's funny how many amongst us who are politically liberal take their advice on PR from Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh. Shocked!
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics. Last edited by UnrepentantSinner; 30th August 2012 at 10:45 PM.

30th August 2012, 10:39 PM	#328
Irony Muse Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 872	Originally Posted by 16.5 Takes note: the rules of logic do not apply to "emotional matters." I thought the point under discussion was whether dismissive juvenile taunts like "Sky Daddy" were an effective argument? Gotta keep up, I'm learning stuff here. Naively using the rules of formal logic in real world debates is foolish. They are useful tools, but like all tools they have limits to when and where they are appropriate. To point out that it is not sound formal logic to refute a point by noting that your opponent is being hypocritical does not magically make it wrong to do so, particularly not in this case where the "point" is a demand for a restriction on our behavior which they are not willing to reciprocate. This is not a logical debate in the slightest bit. "Respect" is subjective, "juvenile taunts" is subjective, effective is left completely undefined, and you have yet to make an opening statement explaining exactly why, in logical terms, a truth value under a concretely defined respect will result in a truth value under a concretely defined value of an effective argument.
Irony Muse Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 872

30th August 2012, 11:59 PM	#329
Brainache Nasty Brutish and Tall Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Knob Hill. Posts: 9,079	Originally Posted by westprog No, it is not. Marx set up a very clear ideology. Unlike many others, it wasn't purely philosophical, or economical, or sociological. It covered the lot. At it's absolute basic level, it is atheistic. It is not possible to set up a society along Marxist lines that is not atheistic. All Marxist regimes have been atheistic,... Does this count? http://ebible.org/web/Acts.htm Quote: ...2:44 All who believed were together, and had all things in common. 2:45 They sold their possessions and goods, and distributed them to all, according as anyone had need. 2:46 Day by day, continuing steadfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they took their food with gladness and singleness of heart, 2:47 praising God, and having favor with all the people. The Lord added to the assembly day by day those who were being saved... ...4:32 The multitude of those who believed were of one heart and soul. Not one of them claimed that anything of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. 4:33 With great power, the apostles gave their testimony of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. Great grace was on them all. 4:34 For neither was there among them any who lacked, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, 4:35 and laid them at the apostles’ feet, and distribution was made to each, according as anyone had need. ... Or this? http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/md.htm Quote: After he has spent a full year in the midst of the community, the members are jointly to review his case, as to his understanding and performance in matters of doctrine. If it then be voted by the opinion of the priests and of a majority of their co-covenanters to admit him to the sodality, they are to have him bring with him all his property and the tools of his profession. These are to be committed to the custody of the community's 'minister of works'. They are to entered by that officer into an account, but he is not to disburse them for the general benefit. Not until the completion of a second year among the members of the community is the candidate to be admitted to the common board. [Drink] When however, that second year has been completed, he is to be subjected to a further review by the general membership, and if it then be voted to admit him to the community, he is to be registered in due order of rank which he is to occupy among his brethren in all matters pertaining to doctrine, judicial procedure, degree of purity and share in the common funds. Thenceforth his counsel and his judgment are to be at the disposal of the community.
	__________________ Words cannot convey the vertiginous retching horror that enveloped me as I lost consciousness. - W. S. Burroughs Invert the prominent diaphragm!!!

31st August 2012, 12:30 AM	#330
ddt Mafia Penguin Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Netherlands Posts: 10,311	Originally Posted by westprog No, it is not. Marx set up a very clear ideology. Unlike many others, it wasn't purely philosophical, or economical, or sociological. It covered the lot. At it's absolute basic level, it is atheistic. It is not possible to set up a society along Marxist lines that is not atheistic. All Marxist regimes have been atheistic, and they have all set up constitutions which protected freedom of religion, and they have all suppressed religion. This isn't some bizarre coincidence - it's what can be found in Marxist literature, and what actually happened. So, please provide quotes and references from Karl Marx' work that support your claims. AFAIK, Marx has written very little on religion. ETA: for your ease of perusing Marx' work and quoting it, the Complete Marx-Engels Archive.
	__________________ Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group Last edited by ddt; 31st August 2012 at 12:37 AM.

31st August 2012, 02:21 AM	#331
Last of the Fraggles Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,353	Originally Posted by 16.5 I thought the point under discussion was whether dismissive juvenile taunts like "Sky Daddy" were an effective argument? That explains where you have gone wrong. That's not the argument. I can only assume your poor reading skills are the root as the actual discussion was fairly clear.

31st August 2012, 02:31 AM	#332
chillzero Domestic Godless Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Top of the world, ma! Posts: 15,225	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ So if I don't believe you ever had a mom, calling her a *** isn't insulting you? Slight nitpick, but relevant, I think. You are not insulting him, but you are insulting the mom*. Insult and offence are different terms that are repeatedly being swapped around here. The issue at hand is what people feel they should be entitled to take offence at, rather than whether people are being directly insulting. And offence is something that you can choose how to respond to. You can choose to ignore the fact that people do not share your belief (or lack of) and use different terms to describe an item, person or concept which you revere. Or, you can choose to be offended, in which case people tend to stop listening and communicating on the subject and resort instead to bickering. Of course, once you know a term is considered offensive by someone, you can choose to try and understand why they feel that way, you can discuss it with them to a point where either you may feel it crass to continue using it or they may accept there is no real offence to them, or you can ignore their feelings and continue using the term - at which point you may find that they stop listening ... yada yada yada.... Many religions say very insulting things about atheists, about women, about atheism, and about non believers in general. It is up to me to determine whether there is offence to be taken personally* (as an atheist, or a woman) or whether it is something I can choose to ignore (as seeing it spoken against the belief conclusion of atheism). Quite often, to be honest, the offence is taken because the sentiment is actually quite threatening, rather than mocking. Mockery I can handle, threats are a different issue. Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Which means you've done something I've never done, and something most atheists are very critical of others doing - you've set up beliefs themselves, rather than the expression of those beliefs, as being insulting. Yet you seem to be taking offence at comments directed at beliefs themselves (the belief that a god exists). You are taking the expression of atheist beliefs to be insulting to you personally (i.e. that no gods exist). Perhaps a step back might bring the view that something as powerful as a god is meant to be can handle the occasional mortal-spoken insult, and that an insult to a god is separate to an insult to a believer. Calling christians, or other religious believers a name is insulting to those believers, agreed. Also, how does the level of offence measure up to the effort taken in life to deal with it? Is the offence due to feeling threatened, and therefore something worth putting effort into addressing, or feeling put out that someone believes differently than you (plural) do, which may not be worth quite so much effort?

31st August 2012, 02:49 AM	#333
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,437	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ A bald assertion without argument will generally be met with an equally bald contradiction. Saying that gods do not exist is not a bald assertion. Thousands of years have passed and not one shred of hard evidence for the existence of a god has ever been presented. Perhaps you have some? PS. I'll have to wait. i just noticed the suspension.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away. Last edited by dafydd; 31st August 2012 at 02:59 AM.

31st August 2012, 03:02 AM	#334
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,437	Originally Posted by 16.5 I thought the point under discussion was whether dismissive juvenile taunts like "Sky Daddy" were an effective argument? Believing that the universe was created by an imaginary being with a wave of his magic wand seems very juvenile to me and the mother of all ineffectual arguments.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

31st August 2012, 03:52 AM	#335
baron Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Hill Posts: 1,910	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ My point is that the relative severity isn't relevant. Either mistreating people is okay or it's not; it doesn't become okay just because other people with similar views at one point did it first. You aren't mistreated by hearing a word that you don't like, less of the histrionics. Examples of mistreatment can be found in my post, originating from the religious. You should just admit that you have no argument and what you actually want is for people to respect your beliefs, beliefs which carry implications vastly more insulting than the term 'sky daddy'. Personally I find sky daddy a very generous term when dealing with a self-aggrandising, power-crazed mass-murderer fixated by torture, persecution, bullying, sexism, homophobia, hated, intolerance, jealousy and cruelty and frequently indulging in absurd irrationality and outright stupidity.
	__________________

31st August 2012, 04:21 AM	#336
psionl0 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°58'S 115°57'E Posts: 4,753	Originally Posted by I Ratant . It's "sincerely held beliefs" that lead to Inquisitions and pogroms. Which lead to mass deaths over nothing but words. One should actually view "sincerely held beliefs" with a certain amount of fear, as those with those beliefs have no qualms about forcing them on you. This is true even when the sincerely held belief is "atheism".

31st August 2012, 04:26 AM	#337
baron Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Hill Posts: 1,910	Originally Posted by psionl0 This is true even when the sincerely held belief is "atheism". Atheism isn't a belief.
	__________________

31st August 2012, 04:32 AM	#338
mikeyx Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 3,570	Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner I'm shocked! Shocked I tells ya, that this thread has turned out just like some of the meetings that brought Dessi to post the OP. eta - You're not the only "tone troll" around here. Some of us have been raising our voices and getting shouted down for quite a while. It's funny how many amongst us who are politically liberal take their advice on PR from Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh. Shocked! why is it a crime to be a "tone troll" if thats even a valid term? The fact is when the mutual admiration society has become so quick to generalize and demean that they're putting off those who would otherwise agree with them, is it time to look in the mirror?
mikeyx Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 3,570

31st August 2012, 04:40 AM	#339
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,437	Originally Posted by baron Atheism isn't a belief. How many more times does that have to be said!
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

31st August 2012, 04:43 AM	#340
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,437	Originally Posted by baron You aren't mistreated by hearing a word that you don't like, less of the histrionics. Examples of mistreatment can be found in my post, originating from the religious. You should just admit that you have no argument and what you actually want is for people to respect your beliefs, beliefs which carry implications vastly more insulting than the term 'sky daddy'. Personally I find sky daddy a very generous term when dealing with a self-aggrandising, power-crazed mass-murderer fixated by torture, persecution, bullying, sexism, homophobia, hated, intolerance, jealousy and cruelty and frequently indulging in absurd irrationality and outright stupidity. The term ''sky daddy'' pales into insignificance when compared with the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Magdalene Laundries and all the horrid things that religion has been responsible for over the centuries.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

31st August 2012, 04:50 AM	#341
baron Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Hill Posts: 1,910	Originally Posted by dafydd The term ''sky daddy'' pales into insignificance when compared with the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Magdalene Laundries and all the horrid things that religion has been responsible for over the centuries. Indeed, and if I were someone easily offended I'd be outraged that I'm expected to give respect to the ideologies that caused these things and am castigated when I don't.
	__________________

31st August 2012, 05:06 AM	#342
jonigee New Blood Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 3	Hi, I'm new to this forum. I was born and raised as "Christian". My parents really didn't believe but being Greek Orthodox I guess they had to pretend. My contention is this: religion is good for those who need it (i.e. my sister-in-law whose son passed recently). I would never try to convince her otherwise. But, I thought the English dudes landed on Plymouth Rock in search of a place to practice any religion they preferred. Church and State must be separate. Right wing fundies, IMO, are defying what is before their eyes and refusing to progress. I do not trust humankind. I think Jesus meant well, but was delusional. Joseph Smith, a charlatan at best and Mohammad (well, I haven't figured him out yet). How can any ONE religion be the right one? Seems people like to put a face on God...if, there is one. At this point in my life (59), I'm agnostic. I feel the Big Bang or the Big Bounce, whatever, had to begin with something. How did the singularity form and what did it?
jonigee New Blood Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 3

31st August 2012, 05:09 AM	#343
psionl0 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°58'S 115°57'E Posts: 4,753	Originally Posted by baron Atheism isn't a belief. Originally Posted by dafydd How many more times does that have to be said! Until you know all about the afterlife (assuming there is one), that's all it is.

31st August 2012, 05:12 AM	#344
baron Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Hill Posts: 1,910	Originally Posted by psionl0 Until you know all about the afterlife (assuming there is one), that's all it is. Atheism is not a belief.
	__________________

31st August 2012, 05:16 AM	#345
calebprime Somewhat Elitist Parasite Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 7,747	Originally Posted by jonigee Hi, I'm new to this forum. I was born and raised as "Christian". My parents really didn't believe but being Greek Orthodox I guess they had to pretend. My contention is this: religion is good for those who need it (i.e. my sister-in-law whose son passed recently). I would never try to convince her otherwise. But, I thought the English dudes landed on Plymouth Rock in search of a place to practice any religion they preferred. Church and State must be separate. Right wing fundies, IMO, are defying what is before their eyes and refusing to progress. I do not trust humankind. I think Jesus meant well, but was delusional. Joseph Smith, a charlatan at best and Mohammad (well, I haven't figured him out yet). How can any ONE religion be the right one? Seems people like to put a face on God...if, there is one. At this point in my life (59), I'm agnostic. I feel the Big Bang or the Big Bounce, whatever, had to begin with something. How did the singularity form and what did it? Welcome to the forum. The beginning of it all is a great source of wonder (or befuddlement) to me too. But a word from a graying but minor poster: Don't attempt to prove anything from this state of wonder, and never, never ask what came before the Big Bang. You'll be disqualified on a technicality. Because there was no such thing as time before the Big Bang -- in the sense that we understand time -- it's incoherent to ask what happened "before" it. (Not that you did!) That's like asking what's North of the North Pole. Our intuitions and language break down outside of normal usage, and can't be applied to the cosmic or the quant-ic, or indeed, the ontic or the bontic. We can know what happened before the Big Band, but never the Big Bang.
	__________________ Mr. DeBakey's free, but he's a little bit conciliatory. Last edited by calebprime; 31st August 2012 at 05:18 AM.

31st August 2012, 05:20 AM	#346
baron Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Hill Posts: 1,910	Originally Posted by jonigee I feel the Big Bang or the Big Bounce, whatever, had to begin with something. How did the singularity form and what did it? It's OT but the confusion here seems to be with language. Language evolved to describe everyday experience and isn't effective in describing phenomena such as quantum events. This can only be done via mathematics. So the question 'how did something come from nothing?' or 'what happened before the big bang' doesn't really mean anything, even though it sounds like it should.
	__________________

31st August 2012, 05:23 AM	#347
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,437	Originally Posted by baron Indeed, and if I were someone easily offended I'd be outraged that I'm expected to give respect to the ideologies that caused these things and am castigated when I don't.
	Last edited by dafydd; 31st August 2012 at 05:26 AM.

31st August 2012, 05:25 AM	#348
mikeyx Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 3,570	Originally Posted by dafydd How many more times does that have to be said! Oh please.... it's lack of belief, but it's treated the same exact way, and those who shout down the "tone trolls", are treating that lack of belief in the exact way that believers do when they get defensive over their beliefs. To be deliberately blind to that, is either self delusion or massive hypocrisy.
mikeyx Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 3,570

31st August 2012, 05:27 AM	#349
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,437	Originally Posted by mikeyx Oh please.... it's lack of belief, but it's treated the same exact way, and those who shout down the "tone trolls", are treating that lack of belief in the exact way that believers do when they get defensive over their beliefs. To be deliberately blind to that, is either self delusion or massive hypocrisy. Is not collecting stamps a hobby? It is only treated the same way by believers. I have no belief in atheism.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away. Last edited by dafydd; 31st August 2012 at 05:29 AM.

31st August 2012, 05:29 AM	#350
mikeyx Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 3,570	Originally Posted by dafydd The term ''sky daddy'' pales into insignificance when compared with the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Magdalene Laundries and all the horrid things that religion has been responsible for over the centuries. nope, its a pale reflection of the same kind of nastiness, but it's okay because YOUR side are the ones doing it, very similar to a comparison of Conservative verses Liberal politics. Each denigrates the other and screams bloody murder when it happens in return. Atheists can be partisan to and act the same very way for the same reasons and rationalize it away. Because it's not a belief, we just treat it like one.
mikeyx Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 3,570

31st August 2012, 05:30 AM	#351
mikeyx Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 3,570	Originally Posted by baron Atheism is not a belief. You just treat it like one and thats why you feel all that outragey stuff you outline in the post above this.
mikeyx Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 3,570

31st August 2012, 05:32 AM	#352
mikeyx Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 3,570	[quote=dafydd;8581124]Is not collecting stamps a hobby? It is only treated the same way by believers. I have no belief in atheism. Read above, try again, that deliberate ignorance thing. If you react to it the same way a believer does, it does really matter because it occupies the space. Your refusal to see that doesnt change that.
mikeyx Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 3,570

31st August 2012, 05:32 AM	#353
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,437	Originally Posted by mikeyx nope, its a pale reflection of the same kind of nastiness, but it's okay because YOUR side are the ones doing it, very similar to a comparison of Conservative verses Liberal politics. Each denigrates the other and screams bloody murder when it happens in return. Atheists can be partisan to and act the same very way for the same reasons and rationalize it away. Because it's not a belief, we just treat it like one. You have a very odd view of atheism. There is no ''my side''. I have never seen any evidence for the existence of any god, and that is all there is to it. I don't feel a connection with any other atheist. I don't scream bloody murder about anything. Is it more rational to believe in an imaginary being or to ask for proof?
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

31st August 2012, 05:36 AM	#354
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,437	[quote=mikeyx;8581132] Originally Posted by dafydd Is not collecting stamps a hobby? It is only treated the same way by believers. I have no belief in atheism. Read above, try again, that deliberate ignorance thing. If you react to it the same way a believer does, it does really matter because it occupies the space. Your refusal to see that doesnt change that. I am ignorant because I have never seen any proof that a god exists? That kite won't fly. Do you believe that the Hindu pantheon of gods actually exist? And if you don't is that deliberate ignorance or healthy skepticism? Your tone is very belligerent, what's the matter with you?
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

31st August 2012, 05:36 AM	#355
baron Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Hill Posts: 1,910	Originally Posted by mikeyx You just treat it like one and thats why you feel all that outragey stuff you outline in the post above this. Your argument makes no sense. Not only do I not treat Atheism as a belief (on account of it not being one) I don't need it to feel outrage at the atrocities committed in the name of religion over the ages, or offence at the expectation that I must kowtow to those who celebrate these very same ideologies.
	__________________