I'm agnostic BTW.
Extreme Atheism - leads to a Proxy God by default.
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
- Status
which is the most objective position one can take.IMO.. cheers!
and also earns the label of extremist IMO
Ok... so you believe that "extreme atheism" leads to a proxy God which leads to atrocities... is that evidence to you that free will is not an illusion.???
Firstly, do you believe every question should be answered no matter how stupid they are?
Secondly, why do you think I need to provide evidence for something that is self evident?
QQ... if you ant willin to discuss you'r beleifs... mayb its cause you need new beleifs 
Maybe i do...QQ... if you ant willin to discuss you'r beleifs... mayb its cause you need new beleifs
Might try Amazon and see if there are any for sale. I hear zoriadistism is going cheap. What do ya reckon?
Good for you... it will be nice to actualy discuss stuff wit you.!!!
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Naaah.....
You may want to read up on Hypatia, to get a taste of religious persecution of Academia.
Cyril was the head of the Christian Church in Alexandria.
Cyril was later canonized by the church for this vile onslaught on Academia, deal with the guilt.
The call to the Crusades was an atheist endeavor?
No one is claiming that. Theists are accusing atheist of that.....difference.
Atheist are people just like all other people. They just don't believe in mythology and fairytales except as a form of amusement. Don't need to be saved from Unicorns.
Unicorns are nice people.
p.s quasi-religious is NOT religious. Look up the definition.
That's why atheists can claim the universe appears to functions quasi-intelligent, without invoking a non-existent god.
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Answer the question! Preferably without ad hominem.
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
No, extreme theism leads to the practitioner declaring themselves as proxy gods.
Extreme theists have permission to act on gods behalf.
I would contest that, according to the early going in the thread. Your confidence in expectation is its own, but your own statement—
—is a bit doctrinaire. Additionally, some of the early responses seem at least as ridiculous as you hold his general posture. Inasmuch as the audience might recognize his topic post for what it is, that isn't reflected in those early responses. Even my initial response considers a different aspect.
I have lost count of the times people calling themselves atheists have relied on some assertion of logic that is just as religious as religion. The difference between God saying so, to the one, and that's just the way it is, to the other, is precisely nil. Pretending the other somehow has greater merit because it doesn't use the word "God" is an article of faith.
Additionally, most of us would call certain behavior extreme, but as you have it, not if it applied to atheism. In this case, we come back to the statement that atheism is a word that means "without god", and that's all there is to it. And if that was all there was to it, we wouldn't be having this discussion, or any number of others that go on around Sciforums.
We can find people complaining, similarly to the demand that atheists believe in something or other, about the bit asserting no morality without God, and we can find that one specifically enumerated here at Sciforums among the perpetual what-about-the-theists bawling. Within that range, there is also a standard by which an atheist must apparently declare something done in the name of atheism before it can relate to atheism. Nor is there any mystery why anyone would posture themselves in a position to be the only valid speaker on in the discussion.
The truth of the matter is that if a decision is made without consideration of God, it is an atheistic decision.
Understanding how those decisions work is not the same as demanding an atheist believe in something particular. And while your point might address a different aspect, I don't think it is entirely separate or unrelated.
Still, in the question of an identification based on the objective rejection of a proposition, one form of extreme atheism would be precisely what atheists at Sciforums seem terrified by when I ask about comparative psychomoral structures, that one seeks similar objective confidence in every little thing. In the sense of hardline coupon-clipping, for instance, or packratting—both of which got reality TV shows describing problematic behavior—yes, we would call such insistent minute application of complex ontological monologue deviant at least, if not extreme; at some point, it becomes dysfunctional. Setting aside explicit expression of atheism, since the writing occurs in a different context, obsession with application of complex minutiae is actually part of a character archetype in manga and anime; that is to say, the idea that one can fall too deeply into the minutiae of objective living reality just isn't controversial.
I admit his statement, "when taking Atheism to the extreme using Determinism to justify such extreme", is not without its problems, but neither does his position defy an old line of mine, that the name of God will be a mathematical equation. Accepting determinism, such as the postulation would, requires it be measurable, and there is, to be certain, a fantastical question of what is the value of predicting the future; to the other, though, the quest of finite minds to comprehend determinism of such scale as the Universe itself eventually becomes impractical as a matter of living function. One shouldn't need cartoon character archetypes to make the point.
Try evopsych. What I mean by that is, sure, there are religious stereotypes leading to much of the misogyny and crimes against humanity we see therein, today. The lack of God in any given argument might not mean much, though, if the alternative is that men exist to promiscuously get on women, and women exist to receive their produce. It's the wanker joke, that they're not looking far enough back in history, that sexual differentiation didn't require the male gamete went inside the female, but, rather, that it was distributed. Seriously, though, we ought not need to parse the issue as such; the evopsych take on promiscuity and dominance that PUAs exploit is an arbitrary, pseudoscientific argument about how that's just the way it is.
Like I said: What atheists at Sciforums seem terrified by when I ask about comparative psychomoral structures.
You know the question. It has to do with evangelizing atheism and abandonment of religion, and facilitating moral transferrence away from its investment in God. This apparently has nothing to do with atheism, which in turn would seem to have nothing to do with the evanglization itself, which in turn abandons any what-about-the-theist pretense of trying to actually do something useful by such discourse. If they want people to come away from religion, there are ways to help facilitate that, and for years, the question has confused, at the very least, atheists at Sciforums.
Which raises the question of the audience. If I note the fact of your classic argumentum ad hominem, it's not that I particularly disagree with it. Rather, it isn't quite clear what any particular justification of which atrocity or regime has anything to do with the question at hand, unless it does, but the question arises if that difference, too, is arbitrary. Meanwhile, if I note the point that our neighbor is a quack, well, it's written on the shingle, so I tend to read his quackery as if I am forewarned.
But his audience is also Sciforums, which makes its own point; additionally, it is atheists at Sciforums, which further makes its own point. And whatever prejudice he brings to the discussion is his own, just as anyone else's is theirs. As I noted earlier in the thread, we have an atheist demanding what God is allowed to be before we can discuss It. Nor is that religious demand form atheists unique to that individual or this thread.
In that context, as much as we might find variations on what "extreme atheism" can be, the point at hand is our neighbor's audience, and even without the question of tyranny and ethnic cleansing, the mere idea of "extreme atheism" demonstrably offends atheists at Sciforums.
That he might not be expressing his underlying idea well is hardly a new phenomenon at Sciforums, and is what it is.
That he is disqualified by judgment of prior action is what it is to each judge.
Your argument—
—isn't so much about any notion of "extreme atheism", but, rather, the advocate. To the one, sure, his version isn't well defined. To the other, tough, the general atheistic retort sounds approximately like it always does, regardless of the advocate or expression.
But as there are multiple places his conduct has apparently gone awry—(before the thread, in the topic post, when he raised the speculation about Lamparello)—what are we to take of this?
That someone we judge against from the outset fails expectations is unsurprising and of little significance. Observable failure to properly express for himself what he means is its own proposition. Still, though, inasmuch as people recognized the thread for what it is, and nobody expected anything better—which suggestions need not be untrue—it seems all the more curious that any of those would bother engaging him at all. After all, the quackery is listed on the shingle.
Priorities are also individual questions, internal judgments.
Toward which, if "'extreme atheism' does not exist", and "his changing the meaning of words to make it all fit" won't change that, I'm going to pick out the word, "his", and simply wonder why, then, we should continue to focus on him.
More directly: You have declared a condition in re "extreme atheism", and nothing said by someone you have already disqualified will change that condition or declaration. I don't know, file under "Duh"?
I admit I'm more fascinated with other aspects of this discussion, as is probably evident in my other posts. But I am, indeed, sanguine about my assessment of his audience in terms of this community, that all he accomplished is offending atheists.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Is it sufficient or is it lacking in clarity? How can it be improved on?
How can an atheist argue against an unknown, undefined quantity posed by the accuser (advocate)?
To be clear I do not advocate (proselytize) for atheism. It isn't necessary.
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Define the other.
(perhaps after you have explained how God manages to speak, or is god speaking through proxies?)
I'm sure you realize you are creating an equation, a mathematical construct.
But if you can't define one side of the equation, how do you expect to equate the other side of the equation, by any means?
If you want to propose that universal mathematics constitute a proxy god, then you are stretching definitional credibility to the breaking point, IMO.
Last edited:
What has any of this got to do with communist Russia?
Or is this just another change of subject by you that is as subtle as a news helicopter crashing into an orphanage?
Your crashing of the news helicopter into the orphanage suggests otherwise.
Whatever.
But it is still subject to extremeism and everything that goes with it.
I know.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Russian atheists are attacking Academia (Science)?
I haven't crashed anything. You are.
I agree there. Extreme behavior can be found everywhere. A super-nova is an extreme event.
In fact there are entire species named "extremophiles". They must live in extreme environments (where nothing else can survive) or they die.
In humans extreme behavior is usually associated with mental instability, not with any specific belief system.
Last edited:
So this thread has gone from a rather silly but obvious game of provoking and insulting the atheists who happen to believe in determinism by labelling them "extremist" and then inanely linking them to extremist behaviour (example the troubled man, and more recently, to the satisfaction of Godwin's Law, Hitler, Stalin et al), to now just a thread about whether atheists can be extreme in action? Well, dur. The answer to that is, sure. History is littered with them. So what? Where is the link from that extreme behaviour to their philosophical belief in determinism? Is there any? Did they even hold such a philosophy? And if you can't even identify their philosophy as deterministic, of what relevance are they in this thread? Seriously, what relevance?
Trying to link the holding of certain philosophies to belief in a "proxy-God", whether one deliberately aims to insult those who do hold them by using the term "extreme" or not, is a reasonable point of discussion, even if the case for it is hampered by ignorance, and inability with logic, to be able to put a coherent or worthwhile argument together. But now? Seemingly it's just about whether atheists can be as extreme as their neighbour - not in terms of the philosophical position they hold with regard determinism but simply by their action.
The purpose of the thread, as in the intellectual purpose rather than any other agenda, has vanished, if there ever genuinely was one in the first place. Isn't it time to put it out of its misery?
Trying to link the holding of certain philosophies to belief in a "proxy-God", whether one deliberately aims to insult those who do hold them by using the term "extreme" or not, is a reasonable point of discussion, even if the case for it is hampered by ignorance, and inability with logic, to be able to put a coherent or worthwhile argument together. But now? Seemingly it's just about whether atheists can be as extreme as their neighbour - not in terms of the philosophical position they hold with regard determinism but simply by their action.
The purpose of the thread, as in the intellectual purpose rather than any other agenda, has vanished, if there ever genuinely was one in the first place. Isn't it time to put it out of its misery?
Goldtop
Registered Senior Member
If atheism is already the lack of accepting the claims of theism, how can one lack something to the extreme?
I lack an extreme belief in Leprechauns racing Unicorns in the Kentucky Derby. Doesn't really make much sense.
Well yes, that was what was actually being discussed, before you zealously pushed your way into the pilot seat of the helicopter.
- Status