What is with all the threads attacking atheism/atheists lately?

reply to post by canofnothing


In debate, and where opinions differ, people are obviously going to feel "annoyed or even hurt, especially when opposing parties blindly refuse to consider some valid points or arguments.

It's not that the Atheist won't accept your argument either, it's that God requires "faith."

Remember, Atheists are only being honest with themselves, No one knows what the causation of reality was or if causation is even a logical pre-ssumption. So far - no theologian, mathematician, histortian, archaelogist, physicist or astrologer has ever logically or empircally proved the existence of a deity. Neither have they proved any specific religion to be true.

I think a little bit of cautious critical thinking and acknowledgment of our own agnosticism is the most intelligent position to take (at the moment).

reply to post by NewAgeMan

ifdarwinprayed.com...

Atheism isn't equal to "Darwinism" or "Social Darwinism". A lot of Darwins theories have been improved or refined. And they shouldn't be used as a means to ground or set values of human morality. We'll end up getting distorted views of Eugenics like "A master race". We don't want that again

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Annee

 

Totally, a fundamental misconception.

Atheism is the simple lack of belief of a deity. Why can't atheists pursue an investigation into the unknown?

Yes - thank you. You stated it much better then I did.

Atheists are individuals - - there is no group think. There is only one connecting factor and that is lack of belief in a deity.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

ifdarwinprayed.com...

Atheism isn't equal to "Darwinism" or "Social Darwinism". A lot of Darwins theories have been improved or refined. And they shouldn't be used as a means to ground or set values of human morality. We'll end up getting distorted views of Eugenics like "A master race". We don't want that again

Please don't assume what it means or why I posted that, thanks.

To clarify, please see it in the context of my prior posts leading up to my posting that, thanks again.

Originally posted by tiger5
reply to post by Annee

 

You are completely excused. Did you consider the context they chose to express themselves was insulting and offensive? By your definition of atheism there is no licence to be rude, supercilious or to be a troll.

Let me say - - I started out Christian - was raised Christian. At 64 years of age - - I have embraced Atheism.

I know which group is more insulting and offensive and rude. And it isn't the Atheists.

reply to post by Annee

Unless it's insulting and offensive and rude to call the other guy insulting and offensive and rude..

Atheists do not proclaim that no god exists, and atheism is not a belief.

There is a massive misrepresentation here. A claim of "there is a god" or "there is not a god" is more of a gnostic claim. A gnostic believer would say "I KNOW that God exists". I gnostic atheist would say "I KNOW that no god exists". But that isn't what (the vast majority) of atheists say. Instead, it is agnostic atheism (meaning that they aren't claiming knowledge of something that can't be proven) where they say "I do not believe any of the claims of a deity due to lack of evidence to support the beliefs".

Where is the "THERE IS NO GOD" in that???

The point is...Christians are unable to even be honest in the debate, constantly misrepresenting the position of atheists. When you start the debate with a blatant lie, you immediately lose believability...and you have no evidence to back up your belief, so really it comes down to a liar arguing without facts.

Originally posted by bogomil

But signs of some slowly emerging communication ARE manifesting. It's acceptable to roam around at the edge containing fanciful zero-point physics and such stuff as the double-split experiment. This will probably be the new, but housebroken, approach to anomalies, which extremist theists and atheists will 'have to' refer to.

If not for anything else, because a refusal to join such a communication opportunity would indicate pigheadedness for the refusing part, thus loosing face; a terrible situation for an agitator.

Your mention of the double-slit experiment brought another experiment to mind. One that I can't imagine atheists replicating, even with a housebroken approach, because it involves a belief-dependent anomaly - psychic ability. Even though belief-dependent phenomenon are real, it might be beyond the ability of science to study them because skeptical scientists can't switch belief-systems...can't evoke "sympathetic empiricism" and therefore can't replicate such experiments. So we may be stuck at this level of emotional discourse even with a housebroken approach.

Testing nonlocal observation as a source of intuitive knowledge

Abstract

This study explored the hypothesis that in some cases intuitive knowledge arises from perceptions that are not mediated through the ordinary senses. The possibility of detecting such nonlocal observation was investigated in a pilot test based on the effects of observation on a quantum system. Participants were asked to imagine that they could intuitively perceive a low-intensity laser beam in a distant Michelson interferometer. If such observation were possible, it would theoretically perturb the photons’ quantum wave functions and change the pattern of light produced by the interferometer.

The optical apparatus was located inside a light-tight, double-steel walled, shielded chamber. Participants sat quietly outside the chamber with eyes closed. The light patterns were recorded by a cooled digital camera once per second, and average illumination levels of these images were compared in counterbalanced mental blocking versus nonblocking conditions. By design, perturbation would produce a lower overall level of illumination, which was predicted to occur during the blocking condition. Based on a series of planned experimental sessions, the outcome was in accordance with the prediction (z
2.82; P
.002). This result was primarily due to nine sessions involving experienced meditators (combined z
4.28; P
9.4  106); the other nine sessions with nonmeditators were not significant (combined z
0.29; P
.61). The same experimental protocol run immediately after 15 of these test sessions, but with no one present, revealed no hardware or protocol artifacts that might have accounted for these results (combined control z
1.50; P
.93). Conventional explanations for these results were considered and judged to be implausible. This pilot study suggests the presence of a nonlocal perturbation effect that is consistent with traditional concepts of intuition as a direct means of gaining knowledge about the world, and with the predicted effects of observation on a quantum system.

[...]

reply to post by kallisti36


"was it not Christ who said to His followers 'give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime" What do you mean? How is that relevant? Depak Choprakarwackwhat'sit's is a fisherman now? Or is an Atheist a fisherman? Who is the god?

reply to post by NewAgeMan

There is no way in hell that the universe went from atoms to Shakespeare out of random stabs

Well your source still revealed a misunderstanding of evolution.

Infinite Monkey Theorem is often posed as an argument in favour of creationism. And it's a misconceptiom of how evolution functions. Dawkins has refuted this point many times over and with evidence. It's not random; here's why:-



There,"atoms to Shakespeare out of random stabs" is an incorrect understanding of evolution.

Again, your source still spreads ignorance as opposed to "truth".

Re Awake_and_aware

Personally I have NO illusions of the motives for the presence of christian evangelists here. It's proselytizing, and their bag of tricks for doing that is so much beneath even contempt, that this alone should scare every potential convert away (which it hopefully does).

This polarized opinion above, does NOT include the decent live-and-let-live christian or religionist, who are without any blame, except for believing somewhat in a weird book.

But being weird myself, I have no reason or justification for complaints.

I liked your former avatar better, but there's no accounting for taste.

Re IAMIAM

You wrote:

["The disconnect that is prevalent is that science is trying to explain whats outside the mind, philosophy tries to explain what is inside the mind, and religion tries to find rules where by the two perspectives can co-exist."]

Maybe not necessarily in that order, but I agree on general terms.

Re NewAgeMan

You wrote:

["The new paradigms emerging from modern science, and God, are or can be, entirely complimentary and need not be mutually exclusive by any means."]

You guys are always stretching your elastic definitions or inductive 'reasonings' to breaking-point, and then happily declare something next to be true..

The key-words here are "CAN be complimentary" and "NEED not be mutually exclusive".

By the innumerable tits of the pig-mother goddess, try to get just some small idea of the principles of science and logic, before you start prostituting them.

Re Rustami

You wrote:

["see what I said (pg13 1st) but "majic" is a new one sorry not going to waste anymore time addressing your "hopeful" guesswork as in the past, good luck"]

'Majic' because us non-believers are ignorant, don't know god's real name and can't spell.

I shall miss your wisdom.

Trailertrash

You wrote:

["OMG! I'm about to lose my lack of belief."]

Quote of the week. You'll get a star, hope you spend it sensibly; not on booze and loose women.

reply to post by awake_and_aware

At the same time it's a formative historical causation driven by an arrow of progress with an aim and is therefore not purely randomly generated, which is the point being made, and just one of a number I've offered here in recent posts.

reply to post by adjensen


My bad. I should have used a better example. All of this studying on how Kant and Hegel viewed the categorical imperative is making me forget my ancient Greek stuff.

I was making a reductionist point about how atheists haven't been treated very nicely over the last few thousand years. I should have used a better example.

reply to post by bogomil


I understand your point, and i agree "what is normal?"

Personally, faith is certainly not a "virtue" i respect, whilst i don't have any qualms with freedom of expression (including the right to belief) belief and ideology should not be free from criticism. Of course, practicers of the followers or believers in ideology are indeed going to be offended by the criticisms.

Originally posted by bogomil
Re NewAgeMan

You wrote:

["The new paradigms emerging from modern science, and God, are or can be, entirely complimentary and need not be mutually exclusive by any means."]

You guys are always stretching your elastic definitions or inductive 'reasonings' to breaking-point, and then happily declare something next to be true..

The key-words here are "CAN be complimentary" and "NEED not be mutually exclusive".

By the innumerable tits of the pig-mother goddess, try to get just some small idea of the principles of science and logic, before you start prostituting them.

How nice!

But you fail to recognize the point that's being addressed in your desire to try to look smart and make the believers, in this case me, appear foolish or ignorant.

You are aware I'm sure of everything else you or your atheist friends may have said in the past about the unscientific nature of belief and how science and belief in God are mutually exclusive propositions. I was simply pointing out that that's not the case, at all.

Edit: Let me put it this way..

The creation of the world (universe) is a triumph, of persuasion over force.

See this post for more context regarding that statement

post by NewAgeMan

The question then becomes one of what might tip the scales of evidence, for a curious and inquisitive mind, either one way, or the other..

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


...CERN is taking particles and smashing them together at incredibly fast speeds to see what happens with incredibly sophisticated experiments. How would this cause that sort of event?

Also, Roman paganism =/= satanism
I've yet to see anything that's been claimed to be 'covert satanism' proven to be such.

And lastly: How do you have more respect for the book that commands genocide, mass rape, slavery, looting, and a demonization of the menstrual cycle?