Do you atheists feel safety and happiness when ...
- Thread starter arifulislam
- Start date
I know I wasn't raised in a culture of theism, from which your notion of gratitude is derived.
Pick a side.
Pick a side.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
I am grateful to civilization for all the wonders with which it fills my life. And I am grateful to the billions of people who built that civilization. As to a debt, yeah okay. But I was long ago taught that except in very specific circumstances, rather than paying someone back who is probably more prosperous than I am, I should pay it forward to the next person I see who needs the help.
I once found a cellphone on the subway. I could have turned it in to the station manager, and with a little luck the owner might have gotten it back in a couple of weeks. Instead, I took it home and started dialing the numbers I found in it. When a voice answered, "Hi Mom!" I knew I was in business. He called her, she called me, and we arranged to go back the next day to the same station where she got off the train and I got on, me carrying a giant placard with her name on it.
She was in tears to discover that a "white" man was so willing to help a "black" lady. (One of the most remarkable things my parents did for me, in the 1940s, was to teach me by example that the color of a person's skin is no more important than the color of his eyes--apologies to Haile Selassie for stealing his line.) She tried to push a $20 bill into my hand and I could tell by her clothes that twenty bucks was a lot more money to her than it was to me. I asked her where she was heading and she named a Washington neighborhood where I know there are a lot of poor people. I told her that when she got off that train and walked out of the station there would be a lot of sad-looking people standing there hoping that someone who rides the Metro--and therefore probably has a job--would take pity on them. I suggested that she hand the twenty to one of those people instead.
She thought she had run into Jesus in Union Station. I was just being the person I had been taught to be.
I would like everyone to be as happy to be part of this wonderful civilization as I am. Twenty bucks at a time, if that's the best I can do. That's how I show my gratitude to those who came before, and I taught that kind lady to show her gratitude to me same way.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Why? In most situations there's always a finite probability that that the disaster you see coming will be averted by weather, humans riding to the rescue, your faithful dog dragging you out of the well, or your own foolish miscalculation.
If you're simply referring to end-of-life issues, well hey there's a reason we call it "end of life."
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
God the category. You are asking for a particular definition.
God, as a category, covers all of the definitions wherein God is some sort of supernatural entity (whether conscious or not) that is in tune with humanity.
I suppose that is the definition you seek.
It sounds to me like one of the best arguments in favor of atheism I've ever heard!
So was I. Who exactly do I owe a debt of gratitude to for the air I breathe?
Perhaps you should save little snipes like this for the mirror, which is clearly where they belong.
Really?! "Atheists in foxholes" is a meme used by theists? Like I said, pay attention.
Again, pay attention. I'll already fully covered the ease with which the information can be obtained, and I've already specified soldier who, by definition, have some foreknowledge of such life-threatening conditions.
What the hell is that gibberish suppose to mean? What "other" purpose? Do you have some sort of paranoia?
How about mentally deficient liar?
Syne said:
Read the bolded bit above. You made the claim that you were the first to point out the anecdotal nature of subjective belief. This makes you a liar.
Yes, I referred to anecdotal evidence in general prior to post #94, but post #94 was the first time the bolded above was stated, and by me at that. You are just so simple-minded that you go and find any post with the word "anecdotal" and just assume that it was referring to the same thing.
Syne said:
Are you too dense or biased to see where the only evidence mentioned is that of "imminent threat of death"? Very likely, as that would force you to give up your precious straw man.
You are either dense or a liar, and this thread is ample demonstration of it.
When someone insists upon ignoring what their opponent actually says in order to continually attack the same straw man which has been repeatedly exposed and explained they provide ample evidence that such ad hominems are not fallacious.
I have only attacked your use of straw man arguments with ad homs, and rightfully so. Now whenever you think you can manage to address my actual arguments then I will treat you with the respect of someone actually engaging in a debate rather than just trolling.
Try to see if you can tell the difference between these two statements:
1. Threat of imminent death does not required visible injuries.
2. Objective evidence of threat of imminent death requires permanently disabling injury.
If you can't see the difference then you don't possess the comprehension to be debating the issue. Yes, I questioned the validity of the picture, but no, I did not say anything about changing the content of a simple picture being capable of making the argument valid (too many straw man arguments to count at this point).
Remember that post you refused to really examine? I've already told you:
1. Permanently disabling injury is evidence of imminent threat of death, thus it is evidence of the condition of "being in a foxhole".
2. The status of a person's belief has nothing to do with 1. The status of a person's belief is only a matter of whether they were an atheist.
I believe it was in that post you ignored that I already explained to you that ample service record information is publicly available through the Freedom of Information Act (I even provided a link). I've never said anything about accepting a picture as evidence, and I've already spelled out for you the acceptable evidence, so this picture nonsense just seems to be another red herring.
Yeah, you seem to be missing a lot in this discussion, including my actual arguments.
Perhaps you'll understand when you're older, or somehow more intelligent/less biased. See the FOIA info for how "vague" that assumption need be.
Atheists (status) in foxholes (condition). Both can exist independently. The crux of the question here is explicitly whether they coexist. Even though the status of atheism must be accepted on anecdotal evidence, the condition this status must coexist with has empirical evidence.
So far you just keep wanting to make it all anecdotal so you never have to be held accountable for making an evidence-based argument. Exactly like theists.
Bingo? I agreed with something I've NEVER REFUTED. What EXACTLY is inconsistent about that?
Liar.
Whatever you say Syne.
You admit you didn't clarify about how you define anecdotal now until post 94.
You never dealt with the fact that permanent disabling injury is NOT supportive of the conclusion that person must have faced death.
My suggestion of records was a lot more helpful for actual Evidence.
The whole post is just more ad hom attacks and crap.
Get over yourself.
You admit you didn't clarify about how you define anecdotal now until post 94.
You never dealt with the fact that permanent disabling injury is NOT supportive of the conclusion that person must have faced death.
My suggestion of records was a lot more helpful for actual Evidence.
The whole post is just more ad hom attacks and crap.
Get over yourself.
Last edited:
Really? You've learned that there is no need to pay for things?
One can't be grateful to a thing.
Last edited:
I have only ever heard "There are no atheists in foxholes" from theists, apparently as some kind of "evidence" that everyone believes in God anyway. The atheist "Atheists in foxholes" seems to be simply a reaction to and derive its meaning from "There are no atheists in foxholes". So I see the two expressions "Atheists in foxholes" and "There are no atheists in foxholes" as parts of the same, two-part meme.
It is not rare for atheists to be passionately against some notion that theists are in favor of; the atheists generally seem to be into that kind of automatic, reactive opposition.
If a theist were to claim that snow is white, some atheists would probably have the urge to claim it is black, just to spite them.
Atheism, at least in the West, tends to be a reactive position to theism and is shaped after it. Atheists don't seem to be making any truly unique or original claims about God, they just oppose existing ones.
God exists. - No, he doesn't.
God is good. - No, he isn't.
God loves you. - No, he doesn't.
God is not evil. - Yes, he is.
There are no atheists in foxholes. - Yes, there are.
That is the kind of exchange that tends to go on among theists and atheists. With neither side having much to offer by way of evidence. It seems rather, that people pick sides first, and then as if retroactively, provide reasoning for why they picked a particular side.
Although I am sure that there is plenty of evidence for people with permanently disabling combat injury who utter "Oh my God, oh my God" as they are in pain, some of these same people, when asked "Do you believe in God?" would say that they don't and that they are atheists.
But if they are atheists, then why do they say "Oh my God"? Some will hurry to say that "Oh my God" is just a very common, cliche interjection - but wouldn't an atheist be careful to purge his vocabulary of any theistic notions?
I don't think that collecting evidence of someone's beliefs about God is as easy as simply asking the person about it. Not necessarily because people would lie; but because the nature of belief in God is so complex that it transcends the simplistic dichotomy of theism-atheism.
IOW, I don't think there is much hope to get objective evidence of "atheists in foxholes."
Last edited:
In that case, you're either fine with taking things for granted (such as air or the fact that plants and animals are able to produce the food you need to survive);
or you believe you don't need them,
or you believe you can produce them yourself.
I take 'em for granted, myself. Unless Spaceballs show up we're not going to just up and lose the atmosphere and my Air Bill is paid up until December 21st 2175.
What a spectacularly incorrect assessment of the God Debate. Did you just wake up, or something? :bugeye:
As long as your end-of-life considerations include helium bags and such, all your talk about the wonders of human civilization remains unconvincing.