RE: What do the atheists get right? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


vincentML -> RE: What do the atheists get right? (5/10/2014 7:49:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: altoonamaster

okay lets test gods greatest accomplishment/adam@eve created by god/they sinned and were banished/now where in the bible is it written what happen to them

How are they God's greatest accomplishment? Is not the Universe a greater hoot?

Actually, the first couple are running a Starbucks in Seattle. Look it up.





mybabyboy -> RE: What do the atheists get right? (5/10/2014 7:06:51 PM)

What Atheism gets right: that there is no god or goddess.

Its not like that is a big DERRR either. God was an idiot idea primitive man invented, to explain things in a complex world he didn't yet have an explanation for. Like why the sun came up, why it rains, why his crop fails, why the heavens revolved, why his kid died from some mysterious thing, why the world was the way the world was.

Today we know *a lot* of better reasons why the world and universe works the way it does. The sun does not come up because some god makes it, nor do the heavens revolve.... we now know why it rains, and its not because of god... why your crops fail *probably from lack of rain, for one thing), why your kid died (hey, probably pneumonia, or some other complication or disease, your doctor can pin it down), etc. Without going into great detail, we have millions and millions of much more credible and testable answers, as to how and why the world works the way it does... and its not because god is pushing a bunch of magic buttons everywhere.

That people still believe an idiot explanation of "god did it" or "god does everything" or "god is some secret prime mover" in today's day and age, is completely idiotic. Read wikipedia for starters some time, people....

There is a simple litmus test. I call it the Just ask test. Its that simple. Just ask.

"Hey god, are you there?" Wait. Did you get any answer? Try again. Do it louder? Still no answer?

What should that tell you. It should tell you (a) there is no god (b) if there was, he's not all powerful, and (c) you'd be an idiot to believe there was.

Here's another great test, I challenge all theists with... I call it the Wednesday Addams test.

Its quite simple. You, the theist, stand there. I take this loaded revolver, and point it at your head.

If there is a god, and your faith in him is true, and if he is all powerful, or at least somewhat powerful, and a just god, he will stop my bullet from tearing an inch wide pathway through your skull.

If, on the other hand, there is no god, and my bullet will work according to the rules of hard physical reality, it will indeed tear an inch wide hole through your head, and you will probably die... instantly... and more than likely, not go to any heaven, because that is also a bunk concept.

So, lets begin. Before we do so, I will ask you one last time. Which do you have more faith in, your god, that he will stop this bullet from blowing your brains away... or you're very real world experience about how bullets work, and the science of explosions, gas expansion, mass, inertia, momentum, and kinetic energy... and that this bullet will indeed blow your brains away.

So far, with all theists I have presented my Wednesday Addams test with, have suddenly found out they really don't have a whole lot of faith in god, but rather, much more faith in concrete reality.

And that ends the debate, if there is a god, forever. Because we get sick of beating a dead cow to death.

There is no god.

And all the rubbish stories built up around such a thing... are just that, rotten rubbish created by a bunch of desert wandering illiterate snake oil salesmen who go too much sun on their head, to explain a harsh world around them... started hallucinanting from heat exhaustion, and seeing people walk on water (mirages) or talking burning bushes.... or people surviving under water in the belly of whales. What does your common sense tell you? Is any of that possible according to your real world experience of how the world works?


If there is a question we don't yet know the answer to yet... people tend to fall back on that crap answer, only god knows, or god made it or did it or birthed it. Its a crap answer. Because time and time again, we've found the real answer eventually, and never has it ever turned out to be any... god.




chatterbox24 -> RE: What do the atheists get right? (5/10/2014 7:30:29 PM)

You are quite charming. Can I take you home to mother?




altoonamaster -> RE: What do the atheists get right? (5/10/2014 7:41:02 PM)

i was thinking making the first so called humans was it sorry/oh on tv a few months back a preacher had his answer for my question
it seems eve wandered in the wilderness for 8 yrs and came upon a village(its a miracle more humans)/she was chosen their queen and ruled for many years
before dying/adam then shows up claims the body(god must have told him where to go) and buries it in a secret place(by the way please send in your $1000 pledge yu made




CobaltRose -> RE: What do the atheists get right? (5/10/2014 7:53:30 PM)

My opinion on Godde is this: If They (im using "They" as a gender neutral pronoun) wanted to be found and believed in, They would have appeared to us throughout the centuries in public for all to see instead just to a few select people. Godde clearly does not want to be found, or, even more likely, They want us to become athiest and transcend the need for Them, to live independently.




GotSteel -> RE: What do the atheists get right? (5/12/2014 7:16:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24
I have awe of the cosmos too, I have no problem with studies, and investigation.

I don't deny all knowledge, just some things I really have no desire to know.

So is my previous understanding of your position correct:

quote:

ORIGINAL: gotsteel
Unless that light happens to be contained in "book or worldly knowledge" which conflicts with your religious beliefs, if that happens you'll be left in the dark.

In other words that you have "no problem with studies, and investigation" if and only if they don't conflict with your presuppositions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24
There is no reason one can not pursue rightful knowledge and practice their beliefs also

Some people do seem at least largely capable of that using rationalizations such as non overlapping magisteria However rejecting knowledge whenever it conflicts with belief does cause such a conflict.

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24
ITs relevant because I find it interesting...

Those are not actually the same thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24
and not all of it is myth.

Such as?

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24
You are very stubborn are you a Taurus or Leo? lol. What is the relevance of that question? Because I like guessing that's why. I haven't got a chance to watch Cosmos but I will.

Capricorn.




chatterbox24 -> RE: What do the atheists get right? (5/12/2014 8:49:17 AM)

Oh look at that, you proved me wrong you are not a Taurus or Leo but a stubborn goat!
I am one huge recessive gene from height, hair color, eye color, and even my hand I use. Would that be a gene causing that or is that something else, hmmm, maybe I will look it up. Maybe I am a little freaky or a lot freaky lol. They say lefties are smarter then righties and I definitely believe it true. Ha! On a more serious note one example is I have never met a lefty who was not creative nor swaying to beliefs of paranormal type correlations, the ones I've talked too. A host of different things are true but yes some are myth.
Take satanism, I wouldn't be studying that, it would be stupid. I won't be studying chemical mathematical equations because it's sooooo boring. It's hard for me to understand it anyway.
I wish you would stop using big words or words I don't know, constantly having to look it up and study it is getting on my nerves. Lol
Do you speak hill billy? If so maybe we can quite arguing[:D]
Oh and let me add, haven't you figured out yet, if I find it relevant it is. Whether you find it odd or not. Sooooo....




GotSteel -> RE: What do the atheists get right? (5/12/2014 1:02:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24
Honestly no I cant. I don't make assumptions about people. So its guessing.

Well, I wouldn't consider what I'm recommending (deductive reasoning) to fall under either of those terms. I'm also curious what would you consider the difference between assuming and guessing to be?

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24
Typing on a computer in no full way gives you a real feel or knowledge of a person.

I would agree that's probable for you, however that has a lot to do with neglecting your mental capabilities. It is by no means a universal road block.




BenevolentM -> RE: What do the atheists get right? (5/12/2014 1:41:51 PM)

I take it that atheists are into anything thought of at the time as progressive, saying "It is thought of as progressive; therefore, I must believe it."

quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria

Jacoby cites Sam Harris who says that science can frequently demonstrate whether particular beliefs increase or decrease suffering and Harris derives moral values from this. For example research has revealed that cultures where women are forbidden education or free sexual determination have the worst health and highest poverty rates, therefore Harris maintains subjugation of woman cannot be morally acceptable regardless of religious beliefs and Jacoby feels the viewpoint of Harris is helpful.


That is a ridiculous conclusion. Women's rights are expensive and when you are poor you cannot afford such luxuries. When you are poor you are forced in some respects to live closer God and live life as God intended it to be lived.




freedomdwarf1 -> RE: What do the atheists get right? (5/12/2014 1:48:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM

I take it that atheists are into anything thought of at the time as progressive, saying "It is thought of as progressive; therefore, I must believe it."

quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria

Jacoby cites Sam Harris who says that science can frequently demonstrate whether particular beliefs increase or decrease suffering and Harris derives moral values from this. For example research has revealed that cultures where women are forbidden education or free sexual determination have the worst health and highest poverty rates, therefore Harris maintains subjugation of woman cannot be morally acceptable regardless of religious beliefs and Jacoby feels the viewpoint of Harris is helpful.


That is a ridiculous conclusion. Women's rights are expensive and when you are poor you cannot afford such luxuries. When you are poor you are forced in some respects to live closer God and live life as God intended it to be lived.

More bullshit BM??

Firstly, atheists, no more than any other religion (including catholics), believe such tripe.

Secondly, women's right don't cost anything, not a bean!
All it takes is for the men to allow those equal rights so that women can enjoy the same things as men do.




BenevolentM -> RE: What do the atheists get right? (5/12/2014 1:56:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

Secondly, women's right don't cost anything, not a bean!
All it takes is for the men to allow those equal rights so that women can enjoy the same things as men do.


Do the math.




freedomdwarf1 -> RE: What do the atheists get right? (5/12/2014 2:00:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

Secondly, women's right don't cost anything, not a bean!
All it takes is for the men to allow those equal rights so that women can enjoy the same things as men do.


Do the math.

Math??? What math?? There isn't any!!

Just let the women do what the men are allowed to do.
Doesn't cost one red cent to do that!!!




chatterbox24 -> RE: What do the atheists get right? (5/12/2014 2:03:39 PM)

Are you doing a case study? I guess for fun. I try not to assume on important things. If I am serious I will use reasoning, I am not totally gone in the head, just partially. [:D]
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24
Honestly no I cant. I don't make assumptions about people. So its guessing.

Well, I wouldn't consider what I'm recommending (deductive reasoning) to fall under either of those terms. I'm also curious what would you consider the difference between assuming and guessing to be?

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24
Typing on a computer in no full way gives you a real feel or knowledge of a person.

I would agree that's probable for you, however that has a lot to do with neglecting your mental capabilities. It is by no means a universal road block.






chatterbox24 -> RE: What do the atheists get right? (5/12/2014 2:06:27 PM)

[sm=rofl.gif]
Expensive? You need to break that down Ben.
quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1


quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

Secondly, women's right don't cost anything, not a bean!
All it takes is for the men to allow those equal rights so that women can enjoy the same things as men do.


Do the math.

Math??? What math?? There isn't any!!

Just let the women do what the men are allowed to do.
Doesn't cost one red cent to do that!!!





BenevolentM -> RE: What do the atheists get right? (5/12/2014 2:39:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24

Expensive?


Even in poor Africa it is understood that if you can afford 4 wives you are entitled. The women go along with it because it means food in the belly for the wife and her children. Which would you prefer? Starving children or well fed children? Go to poor African. Have the women explain it to their husbands how women from American prefer rights over food. When you are poor it is not about rights, it is about food and what puts food in your mouth. As a wife in poor Africa if you are more concerned about the right to wear make-up over whether or not your husband can find work, there is something wrong with you.




freedomdwarf1 -> RE: What do the atheists get right? (5/12/2014 2:44:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24

Expensive?


Even in poor Africa it is understood that if you can afford 4 wives you are entitled. The women go along with it because it means food in the belly for the wife and her children. Which would you prefer? Starving children or well fed children? Go to poor African. Have the women explain it to their husbands how women from American prefer rights over food. When you are poor it is not about rights, it is about food and what puts food in your mouth. As a wife in poor Africa if you are more concerned about the right to wear make-up over whether or not your husband can find work, there is something wrong with you.

That's because the people and the country are poor.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with it being expensive to allow women's rights.
Those rights are controlled by the men and it wouldn't cost anyone a bean to allow the women those equal rights.
If the men starve the women because they want to keep them enslaved, that's down to the people involved.
It has fuck all to do with expense - because there is no expense involved.




chatterbox24 -> RE: What do the atheists get right? (5/12/2014 2:54:36 PM)

Of course they will pick food. Many women probably dont know anything different because its part of their culture. You cant miss something you never knew.
I would seriously miss my make up!!!!!
I feel very fortunate for what I have, rich even.




Kirata -> RE: What do the atheists get right? (5/12/2014 3:40:15 PM)


In the following quote box, I've added the initial post in the exchange for clarity...

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

having hung out in BM's threads and interacted with him extensively can you really make no deductions about his thought process?

Honestly no I cant. I don't make assumptions about people. So its guessing.

Well, I wouldn't consider what I'm recommending (deductive reasoning) to fall under either of those terms. I'm also curious what would you consider the difference between assuming and guessing to be?

In deductive reasoning, a conclusion is reached reductively by applying general rules that hold over the entirety of a closed domain of discourse, narrowing the range under consideration until only the conclusion is left. In inductive reasoning, the conclusion is reached by generalizing or extrapolating from initial information. ~Wikipedia

Drawing conclusions about another person's thought processes requires one to use inductive (not deductive) reasoning because deduction demands epistemic certainty. Induction leads to a more or less informed guess. You can only reason deductively in these circumstances by assuming that your perception of the person's posts is correct and superior to any other possible perception, which is rather obviously a fraud.

As a bonus, I've answered the difference you asked about. Look for the pretty red words.

K.





BecomingV -> RE: What do the atheists get right? (5/13/2014 3:17:24 AM)

Sorry, I hit the wrong button.




BecomingV -> RE: What do the atheists get right? (5/13/2014 3:20:07 AM)

Atheists - that's a word that means "not" a theist. It's like "not" a pedophile. In both cases, it refers to not-ness. Not being a pedophile does not mean that the person is normal. They could be lots of things. Same with an atheist. You'd need to inquire more to know what that person actually is. Or, what about non-white. What does that tell you? Only, that a person is non-white. You would have to ask to know more beyond that.

So, BM, stating "Atheists are..." is going to be a concept that alludes. You only know what atheists aren't - theists.

Second point. I don't think atheists are getting enough right yet. I'd love to see improvement in my lifetime. The exploration of designating theists as mentally ill - delusional type, can't happen quickly enough. The implications of what this means politically are dire. Religions just inspire conflict and violence and terror. These people should not be in positions of governmental trust.

Third point. Atheists are beginning to make progress towards eliminating tax breaks for those whom live as if they have an imaginary friend whom is real. State-funded delusions are not okay.

Final point. You asked why no one was "biting" at your provocative, albeit, irrational soap-boxing. Here's a clue. The posts are mean and disjointed and crazy, really. Any atheist whom has engaged in theological conversations knows that MOST believers have stopped questioning because they know the answers. Having a debate is rarely an option. It becomes an argument - and that's just how the institutions of religion that wage war, get to express more of the same on a smaller and more intimate scale. Atheists want no part of it.

So, common ground?

Both believe that the other is wrong.

Both believe that the other may benefit from a bit of new knowledge.

Both are human beings.

Both can choose to treat others kindly, respectfully, or not.

Take a look at this thread. BM - some very nasty posts you put out there. And, yes, I didn't like it when someone questioned your virginity. That kind of attack happens when people have no substance to offer, so they attack the other speaker/poster. Pathetic. Same when you did it, too.

My personal stuff - born Catholic, educated Catholic, and educated kids and grandkids Catholic. I like the education. I became a Wiccan High Priestess. Later, I became an agnostic. Which does not mean that I think there is a god, it means I'm open to proof. Right now, the proven bit is that there is no proof of the existence of a god, only of the unknown.

My closest friends truly are family. One is a Sicilian, 53 yr. old virgin - never married, Catholic and devout. Crucifix-wearing, rosary bead carrying and Missal carrying Catholic! She volunteers reading to the blind. She takes care of her elderly, sick, impaired, mother. She gives out Communion at Mass, which she attends almost daily. Her brother is gay. She supports his life, loves and respects him and enjoys all of the musicals. :) She teaches children while they are hooked up to dialysis machines. This also means that she attends children's funerals - a lot, and these are kids she taught one -on -one, for years and grew to love. So, yeah, some Catholics rock!

Another friend is an "old Jew" as he puts it. He got between me and a physical assault. It was his boss whom attacked me and it cost him. His life partner for years was a black actress with a daughter. He's a tan, white guy and back then, it was a hostile environment for inter-racial couplings. He got involved in their culture, religion and lifestyle. He stood by me, vouched for me at work, when I was the only female and it cost him to speak up about that (that's a REAL man), and later, he married my childhood friend.

She is a Goddess- worshipping, bisexual, feminist, recovering Catholic. She pioneered and worked to provide abortions for the community (as well as birth control education and access). She's a highly educated woman whom used her birth into economic advantage for the betterment of others, including the elderly, the infirm and the outcast.

Then there's my eldest friend. We met as one year olds. He became an elder in the Methodist Church. He fought for human rights as a minister, for decades. For women and for gay people in the Church. He created a protocol for Church-goers to support child-molesters whom wished to live differently and within the religious community. (the protocol was based on protection of children first and then on protection of him) My friend, he's very, "how would Jesus love this person?"

What these 4 have in common (besides their decades-long friendship with yours truly) is a love of others. No matter what others were living or believing in terms of dogma, these four recognized a need to treat others with respect. In addition to being huge-hearted, these 4 are also INTELLIGENT. That means, when I said, I no longer believe in God. This feels so weird (in time, that feeling disappeared). What all 4 of them did was ask questions. They didn't judge, cajole or postulate. So, they knew what I was experiencing because they were open to knowing.

^^^ You, BM, are not offering posts which sincerely express a desire for understanding anything beyond that which already fills your own head. This is why so many posts here are between others whom comment upon YOUR non-responsiveness.

This thread is, I'm now sure, an example of what I've read about here. A flamer. A troll. An example of a need for attention.

Most of all, it's the opposite of all of God's children (varied tho they may be - such as my friends), getting along and showing the others what it feels like to be in contact with God's love.

This thread, is about postulating - which is why atheists don't engage.




Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.589844E-02