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

reply to post by IAMIAM


Dude, seeing as how you've gone like a century off topic and are making less sense than a granny with Alzheimers maybe this is an appropriate time to ask you abut your avatar .

Is it really you do you realize that it's quite scary ? Don't get me wrong I'm no oil painting so am not making a comment about your looks and am not breaking T&C, but maybe should consider not hugging up to the camera next time as your much too close giving you the appearance of The Hills Have Eyes.

Now The Hills Have Eyes and long winded god thumping ramblings are not such a good mix if you get my drift and it's kinda difficult to concentrate on reading whilst being stared at by a picture that looks as though it wants to eat my liver with fava beans and nice Chianti .

With Love

Your friend

The Djin

Here is my take on the situation

Atheists are no better than religious people because they have classified themselves into a category

It is one thing to disagree with a religious perspective, but you also have taken your position as well

An atheist wants to argue about religion and prove there is no god

Why? If you don't believe then merely walk on in your life, but to try to debate the topic of religion from the perspective of atheism serves nothing other than to satisfy a fear

A fear of what? Of the unknown. As a religious person wants to believe in something more, an atheist battles with the acceptance of nothing more

Re IAMIAM

Quote: ["I am not preaching my friend. I am bilingual and trying to translate the conversation for two sides who cannot understand each other. I am a translator."]

That's what Melchizedek said also. And see what happened.

Originally posted by The Djin
Dude, seeing as how you've gone like a century off topic and are making less sense than a granny with Alzheimers maybe this is an appropriate time to ask you abut your avatar .

Is it really you do you realize that it's quite scary ? Don't get me wrong I'm no oil painting so am not making a comment about your looks and am not breaking T&C, but maybe should consider not hugging up to the camera next time as your much too close giving you the appearance of The Hills Have Eyes.

Now The Hills Have Eyes and long winded god thumping ramblings are not such a good mix if you get my drift and it's kinda difficult to concentrate on reading whilst being stared at by a picture that looks as though it wants to eat my liver with fava beans and nice Chianti .

With Love

Your friend

The Djin

LOL Now THAT is funny, I don't care who you are.

Well the photo is me sitting where I usually sit. I have not considered anything as a representation of me, sooooo....

What should I use for an avatar? I have am not one who knows much about all this graphic arts stuff nor do I know how to take a better photo (been trying all my life to no success).

Do you have a recommendation?

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by bogomil
Quote: ["I am not preaching my friend. I am bilingual and trying to translate the conversation for two sides who cannot understand each other. I am a translator."]

That's what Melchizedek said also. And see what happened.

I am what I am my friend. You may not be far from the mark.

With Love,

Your Brother

Re ADUB77

You wrote:

["Atheists are no better than religious people because they have classified themselves into a category"]

Yes, the category of wanting a positivist proof concerning the concept 'god'.

Quote: ["It is one thing to disagree with a religious perspective, but you also have taken your position as well"]

Yes, the position of wanting a positivist proof etc

Quote: ["An atheist wants to argue about religion and prove there is no god"]

I don't know ALL atheists, but those I know, are too intelligent to make such an argument. How can you prove, there's no god, relying on common sense, logic or contemporary science?

Quote: ["Why? If you don't believe then merely walk on in your life, but to try to debate the topic of religion from the perspective of atheism serves nothing other than to satisfy a fear"]

Why should the atheists bugger off? Why not the theists? Why should anyone bugger off. Do anyone have special privileges?

And an old friend. The pop-psychology explanation. It's only a day or two since it was aired last time. But to be honest, you may have a point even if it's pop-psychology you present. Some people MAY have a fear of being burned on a fire, and react thusly with some reservation to evangelists.

Based on your answers atheism wouldn't exist if religion didn't

So you are a product of religion

Re Djin

To return the compliment. I enjoy your humour too.

reply to post by ADUB77


...atheism would exist if religion never existed. It would just be implicit rather than explicit.

I would disagree

Religion is the idea of god or god

Atheism is the idea of no god

Had there been no religion the idea of god would not exist

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by ADUB77

 

...atheism would exist if religion never existed. It would just be implicit rather than explicit.

Religion is the wine of old

Science is the wine of new

Atheism is just another wine critic.



With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by IAMIAM

Do you have a recommendation?

Yeah dude sit back from the camera so it doesn't make you look like Ben Turpin, your smile is ok in normal circumstances I would imagine but in this pic it's asking me "Why so serious ?"

Re ADUB77

You wrote:

["Based on your answers atheism wouldn't exist if religion didn't "]

I 'PROVED' that theism is a derivative of atheism on page 41. Not atheism is a derivative of theism.

Quote: ["So you are a product of religion"]

So what?? That I, Bogomil, am a product of religion. How so, as I'm not part of the argument by not being an atheist.

But I will graciously give you absolution for this blunder, as you probably didn't read my post to you very carefully, but decided to react on it from instincts instead of intellect.

So: In the name of the flying spaghetti monster your sins are forgiven.

Originally posted by The Djin
reply to post by IAMIAM

 

Do you have a recommendation?

Yeah dude sit back from the camera so it doesn't make you look like Ben Turpin, your smile is ok in normal circumstances I would imagine but in this pic it's asking me "Why so serious ?"

When I say I am no graphic you do not understand how long it took me to get this photo taken, sized appropriately, and put up here on this forum. It was easier for me to part the red sea! LOL.

I will see what I can do tomorrow when I have better light to take a pic, if I can figure it out again.

With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by something wicked

Originally posted by something wicked
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

So you play to the audience entertainment a key factor, focus on one religious group as it's the one you know best and are selective even at that point. Ok, a troll then.

Logical fallacy: Ad hominem attack.

Do not twist my words. I don't play to the audience entertainment factor, I use a rule from entertainment that should apply to all discourse: Know your audience.

My audience are the people on ATS, the people on ATS who are religious are mostly Christians, so I talk about Christianity.

You can't not believe in a deity if you don't know what a deity is - hence my point about implicit atheism that you didn't actually answer.

Yes, I did. I will put it simply.

You do not believe in any of the things you do not know of.
There are whole pantheons of deities that you and I have no knowledge of, yet we do not believe in them.
There are entire concepts that we are unaware of that we also don't believe in.

There isn't a third state here. If you can actually explain to me rationally how 'not knowing of a concept' does not necessarily imply 'not believing in that concept' I will gladly hear it.

You say Jesus wasn't right about everything so you acknowledge such a person existed and the new testament is a record of his life

Wow...that's a stupid assertion to make. That is the epitome of twisting someone's words. No, when I refer to Jesus it is as if I am referring to the Incredible Hulk. A character that commits actions within a text.

Even if he were real, the majority of the New Testament is not a record of his life.

I do not acknowledge that a person named Jesus (or some original source name as Jesus is a linguistic corruption) exists because there is a distinct lack of evidence for it.

Your division of atheism is actually stupid - you are aware of the concept of a deity and say you do not believe in it - that makes said person an atheist.

And if they've never heard of a concept they can not believe in it. If you are not believing in it, you do not believe. If you do not believe in any deity, you are an atheist.

1: You are unable to believe ideas you are unaware of.
2: If you are unable to believe something, you do not believe it.
3: People who do not believe in any deity are called atheists.
4: People who are unaware of the concept of deities are unable to believe in them.
5: People who are unaware of the concept of deities do not believe in them.
6: Therefore; People who are unaware of the concept of deities are atheists.

QED

If there is any doubt over belief then they are not an atheist. You can say differently as much as you like, frankly it doesn't make you right, it's your opinion. I've said I consider your opinion ridiculous, it is.

And that's your opinion. You've repeatedly given your opinion, but you've not even bothered with some basic reason. Asserting something repeatedly doesn't make it right.

I just checked in a dictionary in case rules had changed. Atheism is defined as a disbelief in God. That's it. Stop trying to over complicate things to make it sound more interesting.

Guess what? Argument from authority. I'm not going to stop a discussion because a common use document contradicts a logically valid point. The document has no basis for its claim, my claim has a basis.

I have no desire to ridicule you as a person (although I find the fact that atheism has organised groups a little laughable, what would you talk about all night - oh, let me guess, not your lack of belief in God, but your scorn for those that do),

Actually, it tends to do with the social difficulties that arise from being an atheist. In America there are atheist groups because atheists are such a distrusted minority. Most atheists are closeted due to the myriad problems they could encounter for merely being themselves and honest about it.

I just find it strange that such a personal statement as "I don't believe in God" needs anything more to quantify it.

Well, that might be because you're averse to philosophy or just rational thought as a whole. And stop using the word quantify here. This isn't about giving numbers, it's about adding meaning. Qualify.

Originally posted by Condemned0625
reply to post by HarryJoy

 

Incorrect. Infinite regression does not exclude biological life. The universe is always possible without a god. To claim that it's impossible without a god, you must then demonstrate that a god is possible in the first place, which you cannot do. I always notice the loopholes you theists use in your claims.

I am not saying that the universe is impossible without a god....I'm saying that for me it would require a greater leap of faith to believe that it came about without one. After all it does boil down to belief for both of us...The bottom line is theists and atheists have irreconcilable differences that will remain as such until the answers are made evident.

reply to post by tiger5

Originally posted by tiger5
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

On the issue of papers and review I will go with the experts. By example I can compute all sorts of thing to do with petrol but am no mechanic. As a matter of fact there maybe large hamsters on a wheel beneath the bonnet.

Well, in this instance I wouldn't be a mechanic, but I'd be someone who's seen enough engines to know that the hamsters should be on the tiny little wheel in the middle.

I cannot believe that the flaws that you found are valid. I am not insulting you but academia is gruelling and gthe Peer review system is tough. No You are an undergraduate from another disciplin. it seems unlikely.

I did a bit of digging and found no repetitions of the experiments presented in any of the papers you provided. I also found no other articles outside of meta-reviews even citing them.

I do not believe that it is the communications part of the degree so is it the philosophical part. Is it the formal logic aspect?

I learned experimental design and advanced statistics for communications, as it will be necessary for those of us who choose to do a thesis based on experimentation. And yep, I also learned formal logic.

In a similar manner why does your Dad come to you for advice. I am both fascinated and also troubled in a way. From what you say your dad is a seasoned experimental scientist so why? Did you study the philosophy of science?

Well, I did study the philosophy of science...but my father comes to me for grammar and spelling checks. I teach English as a foreign language over summers, so he'll forward me his papers, presentations, proposals, etc.

Sorry something eludes me about this aspect of your activities and I cannot put my finger on it.

Is there a flaw in the teaching of scientists?

No, but these guys don't seem to be the best scientists, though I do admit they're giving it a good go. They definitely have the statistics down from a basic mathematics point of view, but finding a 3% deviation from the expected average in a sample size that small shows that they could use a crash course to make sure they caught everything the first time around.

I mean, they're getting the basic big parts of the setup right, with some experimental design flaws here and there some of which aren't all that major. I pointed to the idea of telling people they're in an ESP study designed to test precognition might actually have an effect. Of course, this could be corrected for by doubling the sample and creating a control group that are told they are testing pattern recognition and by adding a quick survey for each person to fill out that asks some questions about their beliefs in some matters.

Honestly, I'm just good at picking out faults in things. I mean, it's something uncanny. My girlfriend doesn't like going to the movies with me sometimes because I always point out all the things that they do wrong in all aspects (well, when we watch movies where they do more wrong things than right).

Best wishes for the Exams

I appreciate it. I actually got the last one out of the way yesterday, I just have three major assignments to finish up.

Re HaryJoy

Quote: ["I'm saying that for me it would require a greater leap of faith to believe that it came about without one."]

Hang on to the faith-leaping as a key-concept. Mankind is leaping all the time about anything it can imagine. It doesn't help, that some of the leapers want an exclusive world-monopoly for their favourite way of doing it.

That, and not an academic dispute on the intrinsic abstracts, is THE problem.

reply to post by HarryJoy


LOL! It requires a greater leap of faith to believe that it came about by a god. Faith is not needed for disbelief, but it is needed for belief. You can't fool me with your circular reasoning and loopholes.

reply to post by HarryJoy


Or we can just throw up or hands and say "We aren't 100% sure yet!"

I mean, we're sure that the universe started out in a rapid expansion of space (not in, of) and matter, though the exact cause has yet to be determined.

Maybe a leprechaun lost a coin flip?