Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent. Full Story

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#195152 Dec 22, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Brown was ill prepared for the devastation that hit New Orleans. President Bush failed in not having a professional Emergency Manager with experience heading FEMA. It wasn’t all Brown’s fault as some like to believe.
The local government and State of Louisiana was also not properly prepared. Disaster preparedness is often not taken seriously until after the fact.
Complicating the incident was many of New Orleans residents were indigent. Not being able to have their own evacuation plan. Thousands of school buses were flooded that could have been used to evacuate the poor prior to the storm hitting.
http://www.snopes.com/katrina/photos/buses.as...
I agree. It wasn't Bush's fault and it wasn't Brown's fault.

When you live below sea level you should take some necessary precautions.

I carry a razor blade with me at all times. I won't tell you where I keep it but it's hidden in plain sight. It's readily available to me even if I'm handcuffed. It will slice right through zip ties. I promise. I've seen it happen.

The problem with the aftermath of Katrina was a lack of governance. That's usually the case. When you vote for people that think like you, you forget the ones who don't.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#195153 Dec 22, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Atheism, like marijuana, is responsible for no deaths. God beliefs can lead to murder, but the rejection of them cannot. Atheists that have murdered did not murder because they were atheists. Those were all religions with human gods. Totalitarian ideologies like Stalinism and Maoism and religions like Islam and Christianity are cults of personality that require worship and obeisance to a larger-than-life übermensch, human in one case, supernatural in the other. Besides requiring worship, they all employ terrorism, thought and information control techniques, and a requirement for submission and absolute obedience. Each feature long histories of genocide. Both the totalitarian regimes you named and religions are characterized by excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to the god or godlike personality, which is required, and whose dicta are treated as truths beyond debate.Members thoughts and behaviors are dictated, and shame, guilt, and threats are employed to control them. Whatever means are deemed necessary to achieve some larger than life goal are justified, leading initiates to do things that they would have considered reprehensible outside of the group. These are the values of Christianity, Stalinism, Islam, and Maoism. By contrast, most atheists are humanists who value reason, cooperation, freedom, peace, tolerance, negotiation, democracy, peace, egalitarianism, justice, compassion, individuality, autonomy, self-actualization, and political freedom. Christianity, Stalinism, Islam, and Maoism.are antithetical to all of those. You have no argument against atheism here, just one against absolutist ideologies and cults of personality. In fact, from the Affirmations of Humanism comes, "We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others."
Buck Crick wrote:
Bull shit. Totally. Atheism is not the rejection of god-beliefs. It has it's own god-belief - and many have been willing to kill to advance it.
We are talking about two different things. You know very well what I mean when I use the word "atheism" because I have told you, and it isn't what you described there. If you have to forcibly distort my argument to rebut it, then you must have no rebuttal for the argument I actually made
Buck Crick wrote:
This solidifies my insistence on understanding what atheism is - it is a belief.
Actually, you insist on not knowing what it is. You have been told repeatedly by atheists what it is they believe, and you are uninterested.
Buck Crick wrote:
. You don't get to blame Islam for Bin Laden and let atheism off the hook for Stalin.
Yes I do,

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#195154 Dec 22, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
If one has a cursory familiarity with history, reads the Communist Manifesto, or Mein Kamf, you see atheism - front and center - as a means to an envisioned Utopia where man is freed from the shackles of theism.
Both of those works go far beyond atheism.
Buck Crick wrote:
Stalin stated it himself, plainly. Hitler killed for anti-theism. It was incompatible with his Darwinist motivation concerning race.
What do either of those have to do with atheism? How do you get from a rejection of unsupported god claims to killing? Atheism doesn't require a belief in Darwin's theory, which does not advocate murder anyway. Nor does it require anti-theism.
Buck Crick wrote:
Atheists murdered millions because they were atheists. And they murdered for atheism.
There is no evidence for that. In fact, the evidence contradicts that. Millions of atheists don't murder. Why is that? The answer is obvious: why would we? Our heads aren't filled with murderous ideologies like Stalin's and Hitler's were. Atheism has nothing to do with those.

“The who whating how...”

Since: Dec 12

"...with huh?"

#195155 Dec 22, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>People don’t need God to “F” them up.

They do a pretty good job of that without any help.
I agree, people don't need a god.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#195156 Dec 22, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
I would agree children want to be loved but they also want and need more than that.
They need a safe home environment and financial stability.
Need parents to make good choices from meal selection to handling finances.
They need to be raised in a good moral home with examples set.
They need rules and guidelines.
Need someone to tell them “No,” when they’re going down the wrong road.
They need parents who will talk to them and know who they are hanging around.
They need supervision until they are on their own.
They need their parents to be a coach and motivate them when necessary.
They need to be taken places and learn to enjoy the great outdoors.
Kids need more than love. They need the whole package.
I don't disagree with any of those points.

I can do that and at the same time love my wife.

Heterosexual people are the ones who produce children and then abandon them. I'm here for them. I always have been.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#195157 Dec 22, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
It's also unimportant whether he was a Christian or not. What is most important is that the Christian clergy and a nation of Christian people supported him. What is important is that Christianity was not incompatible with Naziism. What is important is that if you are a demagogue, you can't do better than to have a mostly Christian nation to manipulate. What is important is that if you were a Jew in a concentration camp waiting for the tens of millions of church trained Christians in Nazi Germany to stand up and say, "This is wrong! Stop, Herr Hitler!" you were a dead Jew - not what Hitler actually believed. I for one would feel much safer living among a nation of people like the non-Christians in this thread than in a nation like the Christians here, especially if a demagogue became president. I would trust the unbelievers to be smarter and morally stronger. The unfortunate truth is that to get a Christian to consent to anything, including genocide, all you need to do is convince them that it is their god's will. That's the definition of moral goodness. Are you familiar with divine command theory? From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_command_t... : "Divine command theory is a meta-ethical theory which proposes that an action's status as morally good is equivalent to whether it is commanded by God. The theory asserts that what is moral is determined by what God commands, and that to be moral is to follow his commands."
Buck Crick wrote:
The Christian moms and dads of this country sent their sons off to die to defeat Hitler, and free the Jews, atheists, humanists, or whomever was oppressed. There are several cemeteries, here and in Europe, lined with white crosses to signify the act. They felt it was their Christian duty to humanity. It was a heavy sacrifice.
https://www.google.com/search...
I disagree that Christianity had anything to do with that. It was patriotism that energized them, the same patriotism that motivated non-Christians including Jews and atheists to do the same thing.
https://www.google.com.mx/search...

Christianity by itself is effete, as we saw with the German people themselves, who were overwhelmingly Christian, their military, and their Christian clergy.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#195158 Dec 22, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
That's a powerful post, Buck. You have more cachet with the Christians than we atheists. I'm a little confused about where you stand regarding organized religion. Is it a net positive or net negative in your estimation? If a net negative, do you see any positives to organized religion, even if they are more than offset by the negatives. The usual positives ascribed to Christianity is that it reinforces good moral values and is an important source of charity to the needy. Would you agree with either of those claims, and would you add any to that list?. Would you consider the world a better or worse place if the Christian church just evaporated away? How about Islam? Do you consider your private beliefs religion?
Buck Crick wrote:
I believe in a fair fight, doc. Be it with fists or with words. I think religion is a net negative. But I resist the denial of the positives, because they are important. I think the world would be better off if all organized religion disbanded. My private beliefs are not religious. I profess spirituality. I believe there is only one sin - unkindness. I believe we continue after physical death, in some way, but I do not fully understand it. I believe in that continuation, the only thing about the present life that matters is what we do for someone else. When I do something bad to another, I feel bad. When I do something kind, I feel good. I think that connects me to things outside me.
OK, thanks for that, Buck.

You didn't answer this part of my post:

"The usual positives ascribed to Christianity is that it reinforces good moral values and is an important source of charity to the needy. Would you agree with either of those claims, and would you add any to that list?."

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#195159 Dec 22, 2013
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
Chris Clearwater wrote:
Thank you. You do get to the heart of it. I'm not outraged nor have you injured me or my church. I will say this might be a pointless discussion but I'll try. From my pov saying a person is Christian doesn't make it so. God states this as well.(Matthew 7:21-23) I've been reading some commentaries of late on many of the faith that were killed by the established church. Many here in this forum would no doubt call all of those people Christian, I wouldn't. Nothing new under the sun. Hate and murder have been around since the 2nd generation of man. People will always try to give an excuse. God knows who belongs to Him. Just speaking for me and my wife but we are thankful to be part of the faith, no going back.
OK, and thank you, too.

You are correct that we define Christian differently. We have to.

You say that, "God knows who belongs to Him." Would you agree that from a believer's perspective, a Christian is whoever your god says it is, meaning those who will get into heaven, and that those who will be rejected were not Christians?

If so, two things:

[1] You can see why an unbeliever cannot use that definition.

[2] You can't tell who is a Christian, yourself included, since you don't know who will be found acceptable on Judgment Day,

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#195160 Dec 22, 2013
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
More encoprensis. Or maybe even scatolia.
http://allnurses.com/geriatric-nurses-ltc/cop...
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/scatolia Scatolia was a better answer to Catcher's post, actually.
Scatolia? Isn't he's on the US Supreme Court?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#195161 Dec 22, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Scatolia? Isn't he's on the US Supreme Court?
He sits right next to Dread Pirate Roberts.

Kennedy born 1936

Ginsberg born 1933

Breyer born 1938

Fuckme. I was born in 1993.

Ginsberg was alive 60 years before I sucked my first tit !!!!

Why do I know more than her?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#195162 Dec 22, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
If it's unimportant whether Hitler was a Christian, or hated Christianity, atheists should stop bringing it up.
I would encourage that atheists redirect their criticism from Hitler to the German people and their clergy. Hitler was a clever psychopath. They're common, and their religions don't matter. The problem was with the German people.

Hitlers are a dime a dozen - always ready to take over any government that will let them. But they don't usually gain traction - just when the people they demagogue are morally and spiritually sick. Christianity was of no value to them then, so I don't see how we can give it credit in healthy societies. Other systems of thought are in play to account for that.

You were referring to fighting and dying for your country in an earlier post. Those aren't Christian values, and when Christians do those things, they are guided by values arising from outside of their religion - patriotism, in the case of fallen war veterans.

So what are Christian values? As I have pointed out repeatedly, they only give lip service to such ideas as loving one another and the Golden Rule. Their actions don't line up with those ideas, as we see with their treatment of gays and atheists. We don't want to be treated as the church treats us, and we don't feel love from the church..

What the church actually teaches is that believing without evidence is good, and that submission is good. These are the qualities for which a Christian believes s/he will be rewarded with heaven. And these won't help you when a man like Hitler comes along thumping a bible. In fact, they make you more susceptible to him.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#195163 Dec 22, 2013
River Tam wrote:
He sits right next to Dread Pirate Roberts.
Kennedy born 1936
Ginsberg born 1933
Breyer born 1938
Fuckme. I was born in 1993.
Ginsberg was alive 60 years before I sucked my first tit !!!!
Why do I know more than her?
You're a bright star in the endless night, River.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#195164 Dec 22, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a bright star in the endless night, River.
There is only one endless night, Tide.

Would you like to contribute to Teen Suicide Awareness?

http://www.yellowribbon.org/

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#195165 Dec 22, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Etymology is the most legitimate technique for understanding word meanings.
Etymology is a good starting point for understanding the historical development of the meaning of some words, but not a reliable source for determining current usage. For that, you need to look at the definitions of a word.
Buck Crick wrote:
If a word means something other than the sum of its parts, that is part of its etymology.
Etymology is relevant to the initial meaning of the word when it was coined. You're ignoring the diachronic component - the changes in meaning that evolve over time after the word has been coined.
Buck Crick wrote:
In the case of homophobia, it is a concocted word for use as a slur, and it means nothing.
Disagree. Many of us are using the word to refer to a real and demonstrable phenomenon.
Buck Crick wrote:
It is a relatively new term, and there is no fallacy in interpreting its meaning by its roots. From Wiki:.[11] Coined by George Weinberg, a psychologist, in the 1960s,[12] the term homophobia is a blend[13][14][15] of (1) the word homosexual, itself a mix of neo-classical morphemes, and (2) phobia from the Greek Phóbos, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear". Weinberg is credited as the first person to have used the term in speech.[11]
Disagree. You are ignoring the counterexamples. When words like photophobia and lipophobia were coined, there was no concept of fear or even hatred - just aversion. You don't get the meanings of those words by assigning the meaning "fear" to their suffixes. Doing so would be the root fallacy.

Homophobia is best defined as an aversion to homosexuals and homosexuality, which may or may not include hatred and/or fear, and is almost always unsupported by evidence or reason, i.e., irrational.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#195166 Dec 22, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
If you disbanded all organized religions then you will kill the seed of spirituality.


Au contraire. Christian doctrine is antithetical to authentic spirituality, the sine qua non of which includes a sense of connectivity to oneself, to one's family and community, to one's fellow man, to all other life, and the to world it all plays out in.

Christian philosophy undoes all of those. You are told that you are an alien spirit in a flawed fleshy vessel, a member of a failed and diseased species, and temporarily trapped in a temporary world of base matter that you are to despise like you do your own flesh. You are admonished to remain separate from it all, and to redirect your attention to a hypothetical place outside of the universe, and to a time after your death.

How can you develop a sense of spirituality once laden with that?
Dave Nelson wrote:
I doubt a secular state will educate in such things.
I would hope not. That is not the proper function of a government.
Dave Nelson wrote:
You just have to prevent an official state religion, and that includes "secular humanism" and "progressive liberalism". They already have priests ready to move in lead the faithful, and punish the miscreants.
You render yourself irrelevant as soon as you wear that mantle.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#195167 Dec 22, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Pott, Mao, and Stalin killed for advancement of a society without the shackles of theism. They were atheists, and killed for atheism.
That's absurd, Buck. They were psychopaths, and they killed to accumulate and consolidate power. Atheists don't do anything for atheism. When we are activists, we are activists for the purpose of resisting organized and politicized theism.

When that beast has been tamed, atheists will likely not be heard from again as atheists. If we promote anything, it will be secular humanism as secular humanists. That is how I identify myself, not as an atheist. Some atheists are quite alien to me, such as people into astrology or Scientology. I have little more in common with them than I do with the Stalinists and Maoists you're always trying to connect us with. Atheism doesn't connect us any more than the other nonbeliefs we have in common, like aleprechaunism and avampirism.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#195168 Dec 22, 2013

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#195169 Dec 22, 2013
River Tam wrote:
There is only one endless night, Tide.
Would you like to contribute to Teen Suicide Awareness?
http://www.yellowribbon.org/
I would like to.

I don't know if I would be able.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#195170 Dec 22, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
Consider the king who has two bodyguards. Each guard has a unique skill set. For the king, this means that he is protected from a broader range of attacks than he would be if he were protected by only one guard. Most of the time, the guards can work together to protect the king. Sometimes, however, the guards differ about how best to protect the king. If neither are able to compromise, they compete to protect the king. The king is less protected while his guards are divided. Evolution has given humans a mind capable of internal competition. We tend to be at our best when our entire mind is in agreement. When we are at war with ourselves, a struggle called cognitive dissonance, we can't live up to our potential. Cognitive dissonance is a great tool to have. The discomfort it causes is a sign that something isn't right. We're capable of believing anything, but as soon as our mind is exposed to the efficacy of skepticism, part of our mind cannot deny it's value. This becomes a problem for anyone who has beliefs that are justified by faith. Exposure to information which contradicts those beliefs make its way into the mind, adding to cognitive dissonance, which increases the psychological discomfort of the internal struggle. The part of the mind that needs to keep the faith is forced to engage in drastic measures. A kind of quarantine can go into effect, eventually divorcing a person from their ability to critically evaluate information.
Nice. We definitely have multiple smaller compartments of our minds that may be in conflict, including our urges and our aspirations.

Much of theological mind control is devoted to quelling the cognitive dissonance you just described, which can arise from either of two faculties: the rational faculty and the conscience, or moral faculty. We feel dissonance when they warn us that our ideas are self-contradictory or immoral.

The faithful are told that these messages that they are hearing are from Satan, who speaks to them through doubt.They are told that spiritual strength is defined as the ability to ignore that voice and to maintain the faith in the face of it, which is just telling them to ignore their faculties of reason and conscience and continue to believe based on nothing more than the will to believe.

Those that can quell the dissonance have no other defense against that parasitic doctrine. I owe my freedom from all of that to the fact that I could neither kill that dysphoric feeling nor ignore it indefinitely, which allowed me to burrow out.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#195171 Dec 22, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I would like to.
I don't know if I would be able.
My friend killed himself.

Dead in a pool of his own blood.

I was talking to him yesterday. Blab, blab, blab and I didn't see it coming

BOOM, dead, fuckyou River.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

NCAA Basketball Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 13 min shinningelectr0n 1,172,033
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 28 min Patriot AKA Bozo 3,003
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 35 min Mychihuahuawillbite 307,743
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 4 hr Bruin For Life 28,702
Should child beauty pageants be banned? 8 hr squeezers 728
I got my loan from stephenloanhelp@hotmail.com (Jun '13) Sat RICK SERVICE 32
San Diego State hoping Dwayne Polee II gets a shot Fri alanparkcity 1
More from around the web