Atheism & Theism: Menaces to Society

reply to post by mr-lizard


That's funny. Since your stance has largely been one of agressive ad hom attack *not to mention distortion*. You say jest but I think I will choose to not to believe you on this one. Jest does not fit in with the larger picture of what your actions have been. Then there is the fact that people often fall back when on "I was just joking." when called on something they have said and believed in all honesty.



[edit on 5-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Nathan_Orin

 

Um, he did not characterize all atheists and theists as militant in their beliefs and thusly the cause of the problem he addresses? And not only that how is he militant in his moderatism? He doesn't claim that everyone must be made moderate. He merely states the problems being caused by the extremes of both sides. Sorry sir or ma'am but I see alot of assumptions treated as fact in this post.

[edit on 4-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

speaking of assumptions...
i never stated that he did characterize all atheists and theists as militant. i merely pointed out that i could be easily placed in the 'militant atheist' category.

i was pointing out his militant "moderatism" in the fact that he continuously claimed that the points of view that he is speaking out against are held by people which he considers to be ignorant, morally-weak, narrow-minded, etc.


i personally find it helpful to hold back on replying to something if i feel myself wanting to write based on an emotional response. it's much more helpful and enlightening for everyone involved, including myself, if i respond from an objective point of view rather than an egotistically-affronted perspective. i might suggest giving it a go sometime.

now that was an assumptive remark.

edited because i accidentally typed 'modernism' instead of 'moderatism'

[edit on 4-8-2009 by Nathan_Orin]

reply to post by Nathan_Orin


No crap that last part was an assumptive response *I would also argue self-rightous and massively assumptive*. I apologise however, I appear to have misread you did not make any such claim as I initially accused you of in your rather self-gratifying/self-rightous intial post. And once again, how is he being militant? He does not attack in such a way as to say that only his view is acceptable, only states that whole petty conflict is caused by extremists who cannot let it be despite the fact neither can prove their point *which you do a resoundingly good job of illustrating the problem with your fluff*. Especially considering he does not state his personal views.

[edit on 4-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

thank you for your apology. i sincerely appreciate it


unless his point was to illustrate a great admiration for a view that was not his own, it's quite obvious that he did show his own viewpoint.

very, very simply, claiming that taking no stance within what you believe to be a dichotomy is, in fact, taking a firm stance. it's a firm stance of discountenance, so to speak.

especially when you state that this position (while claimed to be a lack of position) is the only position which does not lead to one being narrow minded and of weak morals.

it's sort of like that age-old predicament in which the anarchist suddenly realizes that he's been hypocritical in assessing that the only logical form of gov't is anarchy because, surprise, an anarchical gov't could not exist because once anarchy was instated as a structured piece of society it immediately ceases to be anarchy.



have you actually read through this thread any? i'm not insulting you here, i'm seriously asking...because, honestly, if you look at almost anything he's written in this thread he continuously refers to both theists and atheists alike with quite insulting statements, as well as trying ceaselessly to show people how there views were wrong wherever they differ from his own. i don't believe that he is doing this intentionally, however, which is why i made a query to him.


past this, if you want to debate over what someone else is saying and the meanings behind their words, send me a personal message. i'm no longer going to debate over someone else's words with anyone but that person on this thread. if you want to debate with me about your own views here, then leave it between you and i, if you actually want a reply.

i apologize if you somehow feel affronted by this, but it seems very rude to talk about someone like they're not there, even if this is only a forum.


thanks.

p.s. while my posts are almost always certain to be self-gratifying and self-righteous, i do not mean to directly offend. i do, and will always, respect my own opinion far more than anyone else's, but i'm definitely more than happy to be proven wrong. on the few subjects in which i feel confident, however, i don't digress easily.

reply to post by Skyfloating


It seems to me your real gripe isn't against atheism or theism but rather certain individuals who will not rest until everyone believes as they do.

In short: You paintin' with a damn huge brush. (or however the saying goes)...

reply to post by Nathan_Orin


He has been refering to those who are militant in their beliefs and has been continuing this go nowhere destructive little argument that has been dragging science and society as a whole backwards. And he did not state atheists and theists but MILITANT atheists and MILITANT theists. Those who will brook no argument to their stances yet attack constantly everyone else's. Which by the way he does not do, he is merely pointing out how the whole conflict is silly and counterproductive as neither side can really prove their claims *and neither of you can*. Basically that which you consider ok because you think you're superior to, those you consider your enemy.

And kindly leave the analysis of what you think my reaction is to this out of this as you are incorrect.

[edit on 5-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Nathan_Orin

 

And kindly leave the analysis of what you think my reaction is to this out of this as you are incorrect.

[edit on 5-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

what in the poopoo are you talking about here? why do you keep imagining me saying things that i haven't said?
could it possibly be my statement in which i apologized if i offend you that you're referring to?
did you somehow read something more into what i've written and deduce that i had come to the conclusion that you were, indeed, affronted?
because, if so, i assure you, i was only trying to be polite. i made no assumption about you.

or are you still hung up on the one time in which i was actually being assumptive- the time that i pointed out my assumption for you in an expression of my annoyance at your own assumptive behaviour?
i have to admit, i almost forgot about that one. it was quite a few posts ago.

oy vey.

you may notice that i'm ignoring your posts which start out with "he said"

i don't want to hear anymore about what he said unless he says it but, i'll gladly listen to what you say if you start saying something.

reply to post by Nathan_Orin

i apologize if you somehow feel affronted by this,

And I could really care less what you ignore and don't *are you the only one allowed commentary as to what he is saying?*. Considering you spend a great deal of time bending his words to suite your agenda of disproving him all the while contradicting his statements and pretending you're not. And all to justify an extremist silly war of who is correct about the answer to a question that neither side has any proof to back up. All well. Some people's self image are obviously so fragile and seem to need the petty conflict to keep any sort of positive self image *the thought of "Hey at least I am better than those 'religious' people." as you attempt so hard to justify even pulling out such tired old tactics as "I know you are but what am I" worded in a different fashion*.

Either way, good day. I have had about enough pseudointellectual, distortionary, self-rightous, self-gratifying gobbledeegook as I can stomach at the moment.

[edit on 5-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by mr-lizard
Because every night i stare at the universe - i don't suddenly think... 'That's amazing - god didn't make it'... i just look at it and think 'wow amazing'.... And i'm not agnostic.

I could also say that not every religious person looks at the Universe and automatically says "God made it" but can simply look in awe.

You claim that the spiritual/religious look at the Universe saying "God made it" and the atheist looks at the Universe without a position either way. But the atheist does have a position and thats "God did not make it". It is the Agnostic who is truly open position-wise.

Well i'm not Dawkins. If his opinion upsets you then write him a letter. I have different opinions to Dawkins, like my catholic grandmother had different opinions to the pope. Simple as that.

Every person has a different version of reality. In this thread I do not care about fringe-opinions such as the previously posted "communist christianity" or your "spiritual atheism" but about that which is promoted to the majority. Why? Because its the majority that shapes society.

Originally posted by whiterider
Santa claus or the easter bunny cannot grant power to overcome the occult rulers of darkness that are trying to enslave mankind through the NWO/Illuminati; but Jesus Christ can!

The greatest evidence of God is the empowerment of the believer to work the works of God, to have the exact same abilities that Jesus Christ had while on this Earth. That is how God has ordained "proof" of His existance, through the lives of His believers. Chances are, you just have never met a real Christian. I am a real Christian, a Christian with great power because a Living God is abiding in me as His Temple and manifesting Himself through me by the destruction of occult Kingdoms and their rulers.

I dont think you`re going to reach any atheists with this kind of talk. Its too far away from the reality-frame of the atheist. They`ll think you are an idiot, nothing more.

Originally posted by Nathan_Orin
while you denounce militant atheism, and militant theism, you are taking a very obvious militant stance in your own beliefs. i guess it would be a militant middleman view.

There have been many statements like this that try to water-down the meaning and intention of the OP. Sine I am not an activist for my views and do not require anyone to believe them, I cant be considered militant. Neither is the moderate/middle stane "militant" in any frame of reference known to man.

Originally posted by Nathan_Orin
even still, atheism and theism are not dichotomies. one is a faith, the other is an absence of faith.

And because they are no dichotomies, I call it a "false dichotomy".

your concept is absurd. to assume that there are no superiors in any pair of opposites portrays a staggeringly poor amount of logic and reason.

When taking part in a debate, first understand the position of the person you are talking to.

but without theism, atheism would not cease to be, it would, in fact, be the only thing left.

Its a sad fact that much of modern academia actually believes this nonsense to be true. The very term a-theism is based upon the word theism. This is blatant. Where no theism exists, no a-theism exists either.
Where no concept of hot exists, no cold exists either.

Atheism is a vaccine against the disease of theism

One extreme does not conquer another extreme but merely rocks the boat even stronger.

Originally posted by Nathan_Orin
very, very simply, claiming that taking no stance within what you believe to be a dichotomy is, in fact, taking a firm stance. it's a firm stance of discountenance, so to speak.

Its a classic atheist tactic to claim that they are taking "no stance".
As such, you are fulfilling your role of being an atheist very well.

What is universally missed is that "no stance" is also a stance.

If I witness some wrong, such as murder, and I ask one of the witnesses on his stance toward the murder and he says "I have no stance on it", that is an expression of carelesness.

Epistemologically speaking, there is no such thing as "no stance". Much less for the atheist as he has an anti stance.




[edit on 5-8-2009 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by mr-lizard

 

That's funny. Since your stance has largely been one of agressive ad hom attack *not to mention distortion*. You say jest but I think I will choose to not to believe you on this one. Jest does not fit in with the larger picture of what your actions have been. Then there is the fact that people often fall back when on "I was just joking." when called on something they have said and believed in all honesty.

Actions? You mean debate....

Believe what you want, but i've U2U'd skyfloating telling him what a great thread this was and thanking him for the chance to engage in good discussion and that was BEFORE you piped up.

Hardly the actions of some one of an aggresive nature is it?

Oh well, you're wrong... we all are sometimes. Deal with it.



[edit on 5-8-2009 by mr-lizard]

Originally posted by Nathan_Orin
what in the poopoo are you talking about here? why do you keep imagining me saying things that i haven't said?

You're not alone there. He's just accused me of performing aggresive actions simply because he didn't understand my joke / banter with another member.



--

And yes 'Watcher in the shadows' please contribute something to the thread that is in context to our discussion and quit flaming other members otherwise I accuse you of sending this thread off topic.

Coming here, insulting TWO members and making assumptions with no grounded evidence is fairly immature and lends nothing to debate.



[edit on 5-8-2009 by mr-lizard]

Back on topic:

Sky floating, have you any opinions on the idea of sweden being a majoritively 'atheistic' country.

I understand you used North Korea in your debate, but without using a reflection of a country that is not oppressed then we cannot compare.

Any thoughts?

Great Thread S & F

I enjoyed the debate...

I have noticed strong militant action from religious and non religious on threads before...

I think sometimes even I tend to be a bit OTT.

But I can see why it can be annoying when someone goes completely off topic just to give their 2cents on religion or athiesm.

I believe in energy and feel that the bible is a guidline more than an factual book.

I feel that we are all merely energy - connected and unified - just as the bible (and probably other religious books) describes us as brother and sisters.

Great post OP!

With out restating the obvious or trying to sound too verbose I'll say that personally I see both "atheists" and "theists" as equally wrong, horribly wrong, not even reading the right book.

What I think it really boils down to is an individual's need for acceptance and inclusion in a group from which one might derive justification and reinforcement of those beliefs that, despite being completely unsure of their legitimacy, have become a dominant factor in their lives.

Neither group is better than the other and both have an end objective that would be detrimental to the advancement of humanity as a species. Atheists would have us living in a cold Randian Rapture under the sea, where only the best of humanity may thrive. While religion would have us living back in the dark ages, afraid of anything new or different.

Staunch supporters on both sides sound equally ridiculous, atheists with their contention that all is by chance and without purpose and theists with their contention that nothing is by chance and all is geared towards one purpose.

The atheist's insistence on morals is equally preposterous. If all is by chance, and I am here for no reason what so ever, and nothing happens as a direct result of my actions, then what purpose does it serve me to be a good, moral, and just person?

If we are all here, on this god less rock, floating purposelessly through space then should I not use my intellect and talent, which without a god are products of my own effort, to raise myself above those that I feel are my inferiors? Should I not enlist any means necessary to dominate those around me? If I don't believe in any type of divine retribution then it would seem that forcing myself to live by "morals" defined by others would be a total impediment to my success in this aimless existence. Why would I not go full nihilist and see those around me as wasted flesh, as poorly programmed machines. Why should I not view those with less intellect and less talent as inferior? If they are indeed inferior then why should I treat them as an equal?

I am being completely sincere, as I do struggle with this problem on a daily basis. I struggle with being a "good" person, a "morally upright and just" person, even an "all around nice guy" while I'm surrounded my mentally deficient aholes who take without giving, speak ill of me when I'm not around, and always seek only to gain for themselves. Frankly, I'm getting sick of being nice and am beginning to think that most people aren't worth the flesh their made out of, but I suppose that's a topic for another thread.

So from what i've gathered here.

Most people are claiming that being agnostic is the true way forward?

Originally posted by Nathan_Orin
have you actually read through this thread any? i'm not insulting you here, i'm seriously asking...because, honestly, if you look at almost anything he's written in this thread he continuously refers to both theists and atheists alike with quite insulting statements, as well as trying ceaselessly to show people how there views were wrong wherever they differ from his own. i don't believe that he is doing this intentionally, however, which is why i made a query to him.

Whether my views are "right" or "wrong" or your views are "right" or "wrong" depends on context and values. As I value the experience of spiritual realities, the atheist rejection of such is necessarily "wrong". If my goal were "to bring down religion" then becoming an atheist would be considered "right".