Don't listen to him. He's not really an atheist.
Do you atheists feel safety and happiness when ...
- Thread starter arifulislam
- Start date
Don't listen to him. He's not really an atheist.
Not until you stop blatantly contradicting yourself.
You asserted that you believe that there are no atheists in foxholes.
After much asking...
You said you would not accept anecdotal evidence only to later claim that you would. After I pointed out the difficulty in "proving" it.
You claimed that Injury has no bearing whatsoever on demonstrating ones belief, (After I pointed it out) yet you called signs of injury to be "solid evidence." You said that this pertains to the claim of "There are no atheists in foxholes." Since you raised the issue - it is in relation to the claims about belief.
Psych records are clearly not a red herring- they were offered, on a silver platter, as a means of trying to find that evidence you demanded.
What you did, Syne, was you tried to play 'clever.' All your anger and ad homs and claims to have been misunderstood fall to pieces looking at your inconsistencies.
You're not being misunderstood or distorted. You have been very inconsistent. This is what happens when one is inconsistent. I'm no suggesting that you lied. I'm suggesting you didn't think it all the way through.
Last edited:
There are two ways to find out what someone else believes: by what they say and what they do. The first source is unreliable because they may lie, or misunderstand concepts or misuse words. The second source is unreliable because it's subjective interpretation. There is no measurable, objective evidence.
If Arifulislam says he gets the warm'n'fuzzies from his god, i take that at face value. I can only speculate as to why it should be so, as i have no such feelings myself. He asked what i feel instead and i replied truthfully. I don't see why anyone should refute anyone else's statement about their own belief (including that of the boys in soldier outfits) but one may question the aetiology of those beliefs.
If Arifulislam says he gets the warm'n'fuzzies from his god, i take that at face value. I can only speculate as to why it should be so, as i have no such feelings myself. He asked what i feel instead and i replied truthfully. I don't see why anyone should refute anyone else's statement about their own belief (including that of the boys in soldier outfits) but one may question the aetiology of those beliefs.
Last edited:
I also hear there are no idiots posting on science forums... :bugeye:
There is no reason to think that there are any fewer Atheists in foxholes than there were before getting into the foxhole. I have no experience with foxholes, but would standing behind the blast sheild of a 50 cal on the deck of a small boat somewhere on the Mekong count? I can tell you from personal experience that god never crossed my mind no matter how many pings of small arms fire I heard.
The "There are no Atheists in foxholes" meme is one Christians created to make themselves seem less irrational for buying the whole skydaddy thing, suggesting that the more rational Atheist will abandon their rationality in the face of death. It's the same kind of lying as the Death Bed Conversion scam they are always pulling, claiming that some lifelong Atheist finds god seconds before expiring. It's just within the realm of the possible, I guess, but not likely.
Grumpy
The "There are no Atheists in foxholes" meme is one Christians created to make themselves seem less irrational for buying the whole skydaddy thing, suggesting that the more rational Atheist will abandon their rationality in the face of death. It's the same kind of lying as the Death Bed Conversion scam they are always pulling, claiming that some lifelong Atheist finds god seconds before expiring. It's just within the realm of the possible, I guess, but not likely.
Grumpy
You are overlooking the fact that widespread socialization is a relatively new innovation in the history of humans. At least civilization appears to have taken millions of years to take root.
A human is a lot of things despite what you say here. There is an inherent capability in all reasonably healthy people to thrive alone on in isolation if that's what they choose, or even if they have no choice.
If anything acculturation is in part founded on the ability to weaken the individual's native ability to survive in independent competition with all other humans.
There are plenty of loners in the world making it on their own without anybody else's help or intervention. If push came to shove, you would no doubt be forced to fend for yourself, too. Presumably you could do so, at least for a while, and maybe a good bit longer.
Well, good luck synthesizing breathable air, carbohydrates, proteins and such!
You people grossly underestimate how much is necessary for a human to survive.
One:
I assume that when people use words, they have some idea what those words mean, or that they have some idea what they mean by those words.
So when seagypsy said "we do not depend on any god", I assumed she means something by the word "god" in her sentence, and I inquired what that meaning was. Which she refused to supply.
Two:
I said:
Clearly, I was not assuming that reality follows from a definition.
Just that there are particular conclusions following from definitions.
One of those conclusions is that one cannot operate with the usual definitions of God, and then nevertheless claim one is independent of God.
Go back and see that I never argued that there are "atheists in foxholes" nor that there aren't.
Perhaps there are, perhaps there aren't.
The picture posted earlier may have well been of atheists - but certainly not of people in a foxhole.
I agree with what another poster said early on -
And as another poster noted, "There are no atheists in foxholes" seems simply like a thought-terminating cliche.
The cliche seems to have originated on the theist side of things, or at least it tends to be used by theist preachers.
However, the idea of conversion under durress seems to be generally frowned upon by theists, sometimes even doctrinally so.
From what I've heard, death-bed conversion is not thought of highly by Christians, and conversion under durress suggests that the convert had ulterior motives (ie. instead of pleasing God, he just wanted to save his own ass).
Then in Hinduism, durress of any kind is a matter of karma, and karma has nothing to do with spiritual matters. From a Hindu perspective, whether a person turns to God in times of ease or in times of durress, possibly makes no difference.
Wow. So since you are stubbornly clinging to your original straw man you refuse to comprehend the post where I've painstakingly explained it all to you? You really can't demonstrate more of a cognitive bias than that. In essence, you are saying that even if I try to answer you you still won't listen. Then why are you arguing at all? Your argument, straw man that it is, has basically just outright refused to address any actual argument I have made.
And you seem far too dense to realize any of this.
I haven't asserted that there were no atheists in foxholes (yet another straw man), only that I could not affirm any on currently available objective evidence.
I haven't contradicted myself in the least. I said that I would not accept anecdotal evidence where empirical could be available. In other words, I wouldn't accept wholly anecdotal evidence. I have consistently maintained that permanently disabling injury (along with corroborating FOIA service records) are ample proof, with no difficultly at all, of imminent threat of death. The only supposed difficulty was just one your red herrings.
I called permanently disabling injury "objective evidence" of imminent threat of death, NOT PERSONAL BELIEF. Damn, I just explained all this to you, you insufferable troll. The condition of a foxhole can be objectively proven, personal beliefs cannot. Get that through your immensely thick skull.
Beliefs can only be accepted on anecdotal evidence, i.e. whether someone was an atheist at the time. The condition of imminent threat of death, i.e. a foxhole, can be sufficiently and objectively proven.
Psych records are a red herring, as they would not reflect a person's belief at the given time.
The only inconsistency here is in your appalling lack of simple comprehension, your insistence upon arguing straw men rather than anything I've actually said, and your occasional red herrings.
If you can't be bothered to think beyond the sorry excuse for a straw man you have been using, then there is nothing more I can do for you. You'll just have to wallow in your own idiocy.
I have been specifically addressing the meme of "atheists in foxholes" and its dubious photographic evidence. Try to pay attention.
Last edited:
Anecdotal unless you can offer some resulting permanently disabling injury as objective evidence.
I'm simply asking for the same quality of evidence atheists demand of theists. And in this case the burden should be fairly light, as we know atheists and foxholes both exists, so it is only a matter of proving their coexistence.
No.
You said you would not accept anecdotal. You called it "Useless." The exact word, if I recall, was "uselessness."
You said you wanted "solid evidence."
Later, you said you would accept anecdotal as to beliefs, when I pointed out that you cannot get anything other than anecdotal.
What is your motive? Like it or not, you strongly come across as one who doubts the meme.
Clarify it.
You say bits and pieces through the thread. You say that anecdotal is useless and that you want evidence of injury.
There are clear problems here: Threat of Imminent Death does not mean there are outward visible injuries. In fact, most of the time there are not.
It's a faulty assumption on your part.
Service records that show Combat experience and psych records (It's not a red herring so don't roll your eyes) are far more likely to demonstrate whether or not a soldier has experienced imminent death and whether or not their mind was altered by the pressure.
Injuries can show that they were injured, but were not necessarily facing death- they were facing a lot of PAIN maybe, but not death.
I was hit by a grenade near Tuzla, Bosna y Herzegovina.
I've been stabbed once, (Not while in the service) and shot twice (While in the service.)
Now, unless I'm naked, you'd never know this. Unless you look at medical records- you won't know this. I do not walk funny from it (was hit in the leg on one occasion, small of my back, the other). I have some visible scar tissue, but it's in areas that unless I'm wearing high legged and low backed shorts you won't see it. (Save your comments about how I got shot in the ass, please, BigDon ran that through the mill and it was NOT in the ass.)
Your ideas of what constitutes "Solid evidence" are faulty and misleading.
Then to turn around and say anecdotal must be accepted at that point, when a photo of someone with disabling injuries counts as solid evidence of having faced imminent death makes no sense. Yes, imminent death may lead to permanent injuries. But one can quite easily get permanent injuries without facing death and even get them quite easily when unconscious.
Which is COMMON by the way.
Lastly, many permanent injuries received were not on the battlefield. One man I knew was pinned between a tree and an M1-Abrams, during routine field maneuvers. He was not "In a foxhole." Many soldiers get into routine Traffic accidents. Most of them did not face Imminent death, though they faced a hell of a lot of discomfort.
You may as well have accepted anecdotal evidence at the outset for all the good it would have done you.
Service records reporting combat experience and psych reports are a much better source for the kind of evidence you say you require.
Yet, you call them a red herring and focus on injuries that demonstrate only injury- not threat of DEATH. Many life threatening situations can be documented but don't leave physical scars.
Many physical scars do not stem from life threatening situations.
That very good but what point does it serve exactly? IMO, it just luls one into a false sense of security by using escapism and wishful thinking to avoid confronting the odds rather thank doing anything useful.
Syne
Of what, permanently disabling injury? I was pointing out that Atheists don't convert under fire any more than theists do, nor do they survive the experience any better or worse than any theist(though closing your eyes to pray could have serious negative consequences in battle). At what level of injury are you claiming the conversion takes place? If you're claiming a part of an ear and a few shrapnel wounds I can tell you that the level must be higher, too busy trying to see if the REALLY important parts were intact, looking for arterial squirting, while my head was ringing like a bell, trying to make myself as small as possible in the gun well of a fibreglass hull, while my bosun walked all over my head getting to the 50 and the jarheads unleased hell from the stern with 40mm and 16s, watching the skipper backing and filling and the blessed acceleration when he put the hammer down and our problem dissapeared behind us. God never came up, before, during or after. Never gave it a thought.
Grumpy
Of what, permanently disabling injury? I was pointing out that Atheists don't convert under fire any more than theists do, nor do they survive the experience any better or worse than any theist(though closing your eyes to pray could have serious negative consequences in battle). At what level of injury are you claiming the conversion takes place? If you're claiming a part of an ear and a few shrapnel wounds I can tell you that the level must be higher, too busy trying to see if the REALLY important parts were intact, looking for arterial squirting, while my head was ringing like a bell, trying to make myself as small as possible in the gun well of a fibreglass hull, while my bosun walked all over my head getting to the 50 and the jarheads unleased hell from the stern with 40mm and 16s, watching the skipper backing and filling and the blessed acceleration when he put the hammer down and our problem dissapeared behind us. God never came up, before, during or after. Never gave it a thought.
Grumpy
Navy. Knew a guy in the navy that made the fool mistake of standing next to a gun when it fired. Not in front of. Just near to the side.while my head was ringing like a bell, trying to make myself as small as possible in the gun well of a fibreglass hull, while my bosun walked all over my head getting to the 50 and the jarheads unleased hell from the stern with 40mm and 16s, watching the skipper backing and filling and the blessed acceleration when he put the hammer down and our problem dissapeared behind us. God never came up, before, during or after. Never gave it a thought.
Grumpy
Lost his eardrums.
And for our non military readers out there: A gun is like a gun on a ship. Cannon.
A rifle or a pistol is not a gun. Those are weapons, firearms, pistols, handguns or rifles.
A gun is something you cannot pick up and carry.
Army here. But artillery.
Bad news: Anecdotal.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Rather than addressing my point, you have just restated your argument. You need to show my refutation is not valid, or your argument stops in its tracks.
I have pointed out why SG does not need a specific definition in order to speak about the category. The analogy to vampires is apt. SG can dismiss vampires without having to ascribe to some particular author's idea of them. He knows enough to conclude they're categorically not real. Same thing applies to God.
Your question ("to what god do you refer") is not granted as relevant until you can address that refutation.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
That sounds a lot like a lot of other things, such as trade economics, politics and relationships.
Some things don't go away simply because they're flawed.
Those aren't feelings. Here is a list of feelings:
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/list-of-human-emotions.html
Why don't you clarify what you are actually feeling.
It's really hard to say generically as I could feel many different things depending on a specific scenario. I may feel fear, exhilaration, desire, astonishment, aggression, etc.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
The OP said "I feel a strength in my heart".
Would this sit better with you? It does not change the meaning or intent of the post: