Is there a downside to atheism?

[Xev]

Re: Xev, if you don't understand, don't speak. Easy enough?

When an atheist declares that there is no God, and bases that wholly on the image descended from the Judeo-Christian tradition (I made a point of this in response to a poster in one of your threads), the only God it's declaring against is the God of the Judeo-Christian experience in the Western mode.

Or could it be that the majority of athiests you encounter are Westerners?

For the record, there are a few Indian athiest organizations that I've stumbled across.

And for the record, "there is no God" is not the only possible declaration of athiesm.

But you couldn't have known that. It's not as if athiests on Sciforums have been explaining that for ages.....

Like I said, Xev, let me know when you're capable of refuting anything. All you've refuted there is something you've invented for the purpose of refuting.

You claimed that athiests in general were reacting against only one paradigm - the Judeo-Christian. I pointed out that many of us have studied other paradigms.

Like I noted: But so long as atheism only spends its time examining the superficial aspects of one religion in order to reject all religions, that will be about all it's worth.

See above.

Well, Xev, if all you can do is ridicule Loone in absentia and worry, or, as some atheists do, worry about childish bullshit in the Bible, that's all it's worth.

Good lord, Tiassa, get a sense of humor.

Besides, it's rather hypocritical for you, who screamed so loudly when his precious religion was "bashed", to complain that not enough bashing was going on.

If you respect your learning so highly, Xev, you ought to try using it.

Give me a religion to examine and I'll do it. Post somthing of substance and I'll respond with substance.

But you don't seem very interested in doing that.

Likewise, while everybody's arguing about whether or not God created the world in X days, nobody's really paying attention to the way the Book of Genesis affects the foundations of western thought.

If we are not intellectual enough for you, start a bloody topic on it.

Or do most ignore your topics, as the verbosity makes their heads hurt?

You've rejected logical atheism--that is, the idea that the benefit of atheism comes from looking at the world logically-

I've done no such thing.

In the end, what else is there but that core of atheism, that God does not exist?

Or that belief is irrational. We've been through this.

In any case, that's all there is to athiesm.

Why raise atheism to the status of religion?

I've done no such thing. Cris seems to feel that the simple "there is no God, or irrelevent, or illogical, or "dead"" is not enough, that a belief structure such as Objectivism or ethical hedonism or Secular Humanism is needed, psychologically.

Fine. Such may build on the foundation of athiesm, such may be athiestic, but athiesm itself is quite simple.

"There is no God, or irrelevent, or illogical, or "dead""

• Were you changing subjects and invoking doctrinal objectivism? I'll accept that idea except that it seems useless to the debate in which you brought it up.

I was comparing your veiw of athiesm to Randian Objectivism.

After all, if you claim logical atheism has not been rejected by atheists (such as yourself), then please enlighten us all as to what error I made in defending logical atheism despite its inability to function properly in my life.

Your error was in claiming logically based athiesm was arbitrary in its application.

Actually, Xev, it's worth asking if you have the hots for Adam. Are you standing up for your man, or has he finally paid you a retainer?

Neither. I consider Adam to be a rather interesting poster.

Why pursue the personal quarry unless it's all you have left?

No personal quarry. I have learned to ignore you, as I find your posts tedious and verbose, but I decided not to let your latest slide.

 

[Chagur]

tiassa

Bravo!

Thanks for making one of my very few forays into the Religion forum
worth while.

Damn! I even find myself forgiving your many, many long-winded rants
on other subjects when a jewel like your 06-16-02 05:52 PM post turns up.

Take care

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by A4Ever
This is no longer the case here in Belgium, and I suppose in most of Europe.

Unfortunately, the puritans and evangelists left merry old England and arrived here in the US. We've yet to completely shrug off the repressed, in-your-face, judgmental morality and ethics they brought with them.

Consider that there were no other than religious people in those times. Massive secularisation is quite recent.

I was making a point here; Tiassa seems to think that the validity of a concept should be measured by the actions of those who believe it. I was pointing out how weak that argument is. You may point out that secularists have done terrible things too but have you ever heard of anyone going to war or killing someone in the name of Atheism?

What I wanted to say is that religion is not rational. So stop trying to root it there, theists. And stop asking for rational arguments, atheists, cause there aren't any. Believe in God requires an 'irrational'* leap of faith.

Thank you for admitting it. I don't even think you need to go as far as stating they're irrational, merely unfounded or subjective. I have no problem with such beliefs as long as they're admitted as such. I have some irrational, or at least unfounded and subjective, beliefs too. Most people do.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Re: Tiassa

Originally posted by Adam
I can't possibly describe the whole of my beliefs with the term "atheist". However, I do use the term when the matter under discussion is religion. It seems appropriate.

I can't find a single term that adequately describes my beliefs either. I find most religious people to be quite disingenuous actually; I've yet to speak at length to a single one and not find some point of their professed doctrine that they don't disagree with or at least tend to ignore.

I agree with you, that in a religious forum, that Atheism is an appropriate stance. I believe I pointed this out to Tiassa earlier.

~Raithere

P.S. Off topic, but regarding our discussion on appropriate terminology I'm starting to lean towards secularist as a somewhat more comprehensive definition, though it may be a bit stringent for me personally:

n. One who theoretically rejects every form of religious faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only the facts and influences which are derived from the present life; also, one who believes that education and other matters of civil policy should be managed without the introduction of a religious element.

 

[Tiassa]

Another one for you to avoid, Xev

Or could it be that the majority of athiests you encounter are Westerners?

Aside from the implication that Westerners do not examine issues outside their most relevant paradigm when making conclusions about those things outside their most relevant paradigm, what is the significance of that?

Of course the majority of atheists I encounter are Westerners. To reject the Judeo-Christian God because of what the Bible says, or because of the conduct of Christians, is perfectly acceptable. To reject all gods because of the Bible or Christians is another issue entirely. And yes, we know you've addressed that, and so will I in turn.

For the record, there are a few Indian athiest organizations that I've stumbled across.

Good. Good. And?

And for the record, "there is no God" is not the only possible declaration of athiesm.

Why don't you positively identify one of them instead of anti-identify the other?

But you couldn't have known that. It's not as if athiests on Sciforums have been explaining that for ages.....

And Christians have told me much about the benefits of their ways, too. It does not mean that what they claim is true. It's just that I would expect a more educated response about issues outside the Judeo-Christian paradigm.

See above.

Keep saying it all you want.

Try showing it.

Good lord, Tiassa, get a sense of humor.

For heaven's sake, the purple cow's sake, and your own sake, get a sense of dignity.

Besides, it's rather hypocritical for you, who screamed so loudly when his precious religion was "bashed", to complain that not enough bashing was going on.

You're welcome to explain what that desperately-flung horsepucky means.

Give me a religion to examine and I'll do it. Post somthing of substance and I'll respond with substance.

But you don't seem very interested in doing that.

True, I've been too busy dealing with your childishness.

Is it necessary that I post the question? I'm quite happy to, but it's not obvious that it will be understood. Here, try this thread on Adilbai Kharkovli. There's one that nobody was willing to touch. It's last autumn, but if criticisms of Sir Loone are what you mean with that earlier vomitous spatter, then you're welcome to search through his posts and see what the criticisms in this post refer to. At least, however, he was here and spewing hateful pucky at the time. It's not like I had to sit around bored on a weekend making fun of somebody who wasn't present. So there's that, for ya, too.

But take a stab at it. Revive a topic that blew by everybody, to both my pride and my disappointment.

You can see the comparative incorporation of Christianity, Fundamental Islam, and Sufism, among others. It aims toward a broader idea of religion than any one god or church. Give it a whirl. Honor me.

I've done no such thing.

I see we're getting toward that point.

Or that belief is irrational. We've been through this.

In any case, that's all there is to athiesm.

Well and fine.

I've done no such thing. Cris seems to feel that the simple "there is no God, or irrelevent, or illogical, or "dead"" is not enough, that a belief structure such as Objectivism or ethical hedonism or Secular Humanism is needed, psychologically.

Fine. Such may build on the foundation of athiesm, such may be athiestic, but athiesm itself is quite simple.

"There is no God, or irrelevent, or illogical, or "dead""

Without that objective, logical approach, atheism offers no advantage from which to criticize others. Ridicule is surely up to the individual, but hey, it is an observable result that tells us how atheism operates within the human endeavor. I'm critical of religions on this relationship, too.

I was comparing your veiw of athiesm to Randian Objectivism.

And why would you thus change the subject? Perhaps so that you might have a point to argue one way or another? Was there something unsuitable about the expression you chose to respond to that you had to respond to something else?

Rather dishonest, Xev.

Your error was in claiming logically based athiesm was arbitrary in its application.

It would seem to be. Why have you waited so long to make this claim when you could simply have explained your perception of it, and offered an example of your own position? Why sit around screaming like a child and letting your emotions get the best of you? We could have saved ourselves both a lot of time and effort.

Neither. I consider Adam to be a rather interesting poster.

Well, I won't deny his entertainment value.

No personal quarry. I have learned to ignore you, as I find your posts tedious and verbose, but I decided not to let your latest slide.

Well and fine. I mean, it ain't War and Peace, but I well understand that words confuse some people.

And therein lies an interesting consideration: If it's too tough for you to figure out, well, there's an observable result of what atheism has brought you. It's unfortunate, but it seems to be the result. Both you and your client seem to enjoy admitting that you don't know what you're responding to.

Oh well, at least you're being honest.

--Tiassa

 

[Bebelina]

The downside of atheism lies mainly in denying your mind the freedom to explore what it doesn't yet know, to wander and get lost in beliefs that can become your reality for extended periods of time. All work and no play?
The same goes of course for any other strictly stuck up -isms.

Ps, don't mind me, just wanted to chat a little...

 

[Tiassa]

I was making a point here; Tiassa seems to think that the validity of a concept should be measured by the actions of those who believe it. I was pointing out how weak that argument is. You may point out that secularists have done terrible things too but have you ever heard of anyone going to war or killing someone in the name of Atheism?

So the observable result of an idea in society is independent of its human value? Communism sounds like a nice idea on paper, remember. And the Nazis, well, there was order in the streets, right? Christianity makes the best out of the circumstances it describes, but we see what that perception earns us in observable results.

It would seem that some atheists forget what they're challenging when taking on religion. When pursuing the basis of an individual's morality, as religion often is, one might look to the comparative moral result observable across the spectrum of atheism. And they might find specific demographic advantages--e.g. average household income--but that's about it.

We tend to look at things in terms of Koresh-styled deviations. Consider the Christians for a moment for parallel concept: We tend to point out the idea that someone proactively distorts the Christian message and this result is what we seem to be after--the priests who molest, the suicide-cults, and the absolute morons of the religious echelon seem to comprise the general focus.

But there also exists in this paradigm problems which are inherent, and do not require proactive recognition or participation. We see in some Christians a certain lack of compassion, most spectacularly demonstrated in Ronald Reagan's choice to do nothing about the growing AIDS epidemic because he thought of the disease as God's punishment against the sodomites. The inherent result of his beliefs compelled him to a bad decision that will affect millions, and perhaps billions, when the score is settled.

So we need not focus exclusively on those who bomb abortion clinics or shoot doctors or rape ten year-olds while claiming to be the messiah. We need not focus solely on the obvious deviations from the central core. We can, indeed, examine more inherent issues and track their development in history. And this process contributes more to human progress than mere criticism and superficial worry.

Likewise, one need not go out killing religious people in order to bolster their atheism. If atheism relates to the moral structure at all, it will manifest itself in many forms. There is a long worry by American Christians that atheism will remove the cause for moral restraint, and while this worry is largely misplaced, we certainly do see a specific shift in moral perspective toward a more exclusive notion of self. One cannot blame atheism should someone decide to go on a hedonistic, inhuman rampage, but one can certainly blame atheism if, in its relation to human processes and structures, it lends to conditions of discord and division.

In fact, the logical atheism I refer to, and which has been noted to be my error, is one atheists offered in response to the Christian accusation that atheism removes moral necessity. That's one of the things that I find both laughable and tragic about the current circumstances.

The errors of anyone operating under any given paradigm do, in fact, help define the viability of the paradigm. To wit, we consider certain equalities and liberties self-evident. Yet it took how long and what conditions to bring that concept into the world? There is nothing inherently wrong with the system of monarchies and tyrannies of European history, except that those who subscribed to the concept of divine right and absolute authority (e.g. monarchs and tyrants) made the system problematic.

The Bolsheviks, as misguided as they were, nonetheless took their cues from Marxism. The value of Marxism includes this testimonial to its dangers. When we approach Marxism as something we might adopt, we compare its benefits and its drawbacks. If the manifestation of the drawbacks is severe enough, we reject the idea.

The Christians, as misguided as they seem, nonetheless take their cues from the Bible. The value of the Bible includes this testimonial to its dangers. When we approach Christianity as something we might adopt, we compare its benefits and drawbacks. If the manifestation of the drawbacks is severe enough, we reject the idea.

The atheists, as rightly-guided as they would like us to believe they are, take their cues from a multitude of sources in a manner not seen in Christianity or Communism. The value of atheism includes the testimonial to its application in the form of the conduct of atheists, much like the value of Christianity or Communism includes the conduct of their respective adherents.

Consider the Catholic situation: Do not the current revelations of child abuse and coverup testify toward the potential danger of Catholicism? The paradigm may not prescribe such conduct, but the living result of the paradigm's application has resulted in the present mess that affects thousands in terms of victimization, millions in terms of familial concern, and the whole world in terms of the scale of Catholicism. Wherever it goes, the idea must eventually come to terms with the current situation. It must adapt or wither and die. It must necessarily evolve, else its dangerous results will cause the idea to die.

When I think of how many Christians have, at this site, over time, rejected the notion that the actions of Christian individuals reflect in any way on the Bible, I wonder why atheists would attempt the same stunt.

We might look to another part of your post, Raithere:

I have some irrational, or at least unfounded and subjective, beliefs too. Most people do.

How do those concepts affect the living process? Do they have any negative results? Do you try to curb those negative results? Or do they not matter because they're independent of everything else?

I agree with you, that in a religious forum, that Atheism is an appropriate stance.

There's no reason atheism should be excluded from the forum, per se. But when it's merely ridiculing from afar and not undertaking any religious ideas, it belongs elsewhere, like Free Thoughts.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Tiassa]

We could, I suppose, discuss the detail of atheism 3,000 years ago

I'd say you are referring only to modern formal atheist philosophy. The concept of being without religion, however, obviously predates religion. As I have said many times, we are born without it

And I find your hopping between "modern" and premodern interesting. I mean, we could look to the time when Christians were considered atheists. You're right, I'm speaking of modern atheism. Furthermore, your limitation to the idea of religion is of secondary importance at best. Gods arose before religion. And superstition arose before gods.

Um ... we could ask the old-school atheists. But they seem to think Jesus Christ is God.

She's not on my payroll. I give you my word as a liar, a cheat, and a scoundrel.

Well enough. Now, hang on for just a moment:

Dude, don't bring me into your tiff with Xev. I'm just an innocent friggin bystander. Now, I know I'm not as all-growed-up as you two, but please avoid these references and just stick to the topic.

I would suggest, sir, that you tell Xev that, and not me. What's wrong, is your perception of the facts incorrect? I mean, really ... if you don't want me responding to what Xev includes in the debate, I would suggest that you try f--king yourself.

You may be a bystander, but the lack of honesty in your post indicates a lack of innocence.

We can only wonder at what the hell your problem is, Adam. Why can't you address me honestly?

--Tiassa

 

[Tiassa]

Chagur

Your kind words mean more than I can presently express.

Seriously, I never know quite what to say. Hopefully, "Thank you," will suffice.

Thank you.

,
Tiassa

 

[Raithere]

Athiesm and freedom of thought

Originally posted by Bebelina
The downside of atheism lies mainly in denying your mind the freedom to explore what it doesn't yet know, to wander and get lost in beliefs that can become your reality for extended periods of time. All work and no play?

Not at all. I frequently enjoy explorations of fancy and imagination. I also find significant value in thought experiments involving various paradigms and beliefs. Atheism does not exclude such exercises. In fact, atheism and irreligiosity, free me to seriously consider possibilities that religious dogma would otherwise restrict. I am not bound to a single manuscript in my search for truth but free to explore any alternative.

~Raithere

 

[Tinker683]

Reguarding the topic:

The only downside that I've come to find is the lack of understanding of what exactly athiesm is. And it doesn't suprise me, personnally, as athiesm isn't exactly a topic of casual conversation ( atleast, here in the Deep South, it isn't. )

I also feel I should note: Athiesm doesn't make any promises. If you want a more indepth philosophy, I would recommend Secular Humanism.

NOW..... since this topic has fallen far off it's orignal course...

Tiassa,

While I'm not sure of what I'm about to say has any relevance(sp?) I thought I would say it anyway.

Firstly, I admire you sir. You've always struck me as a man whom is very knowledgeable person, a person who knows what he's talking about, and is prepared to discuss a broad range of topics.

I like that. I really do.

Secondly, I'm not going to try and measure up to you intellectually. What I mean by this, is that I'm not going to profess a knowledge on the deeper sciences, or of other religions. I'm just a newly high school grad, it's all I'm going to play up to be.

Well. NOW that we've gotten that out of the way, I thought I might interject some thoughts of my own ( I do hope this is still a discussion, yes? )

Tiassa, since you seem to be the bur in everyones saddle, I think I will address your points ( Since I'm in agreement with Adam, Xev, and Raithere reguarding the definition of athiesm ( that is the direction this topic has taken, yes? ))

• Reactionism: Atheism is reactionary. Specifically, in the West, what we refer to as atheism is a reaction against the Judeo-Christian experience and,largely, the "Newtonian" God. This would not be problematic if that reaction was broadly-based. But to base it broadly requires a certain amount of honest learning about religion in general. To wit, the frequency with which Sciforums' atheist posters react against "religion" while describing a God-phenomenon held by only one paradigm. Unfortunately, atheism rarely transcends this perspective.

Are you infering that inorder for one to have a "complete" perspective on athiesm, one must actively examine and reject every religion of every part of the planet? If that is not so, then please do correct me.

Going on that,I disagree with this line of reasoning. Firstly, I woould invoke Occam's Razor when dealing with other religions. I.e.. If they require that I make some " leap of faith " as Christianity does, then why should I regaurd it any less irrational than the Christian paradigm. While I will not refute that other religions have their moral points, if we have no reason to believe in a God, then I have no reason to believe that the "morality" that these other religions may teach is restricted to that way of thinking. After all, since I've no need to include God into the equation, religions then are simply human institutions. And thus, I can take from them what I wish, and I have no further need to give so much as a thought to the rest of their methdologies.

• Not much to it:......

You and I are in agreement ( up until the part which you reiterate your above point, which I have already addressed.

• Declaratory:.....

I agree with this.

• Logic: This point derives from the presumption that atheism is logical. This presumption has been soundly rejected by atheists.

Has it really? I came to the conclution of athiesm after 6 years of doubt and questioning. "Logic" and Reason was what brought me to Humanisms' door.

• Narrow range of atheism:

I agree with this point as well.

• Cacophony: Welcome to it. Take a look around Sciforums at the behavior of our atheists.

Well, you did say that one's athiesm is unique to each person paradigm, yes? Just the same ( As Rathere and Adam pointed out ) as with the thiests. One of the alway-occuring commonality I find among thiests, ironically, is how they " pick and choose " the aspects of their religion they find appealing, and how they ignore the rest. Of course, it's not my place to point out their hypocrisy....

However, I would submit that one thing that all athiests do agree on is that they have no reason to believe in a God(s)(ess). I ponder if thiesm ( collectively speaking, as it's fracturely into an inumerable sub-sets of ideas and paradigms ) can say the same.

some of our atheists resorted to a desperate bashing of whatever they could find, in order to have something to bash and, presumably, an identity.° At this point, any merit one might achieve, any advance one might accomplish, because of atheism, is challenged if not nullified. Atheism becomes "just another voice in the crowd", which babbles incoherently about stupid things.

I thought I'd retain this piece of your post for future reference.

Also:

However, atheists tend to make a poor expression of the result of atheism. Think of it this way: what we see of atheism, for instance, at Sciforums, is a bunch of brats with nothing better to do than clutter up a religion board with their non-religion and childish humor. Put it in Free Thoughts, or Ethics & Morality, or World Affairs. But so long as atheism only spends its time examining the superficial aspects of one religion in order to reject all religions, that will be about all it's worth.

In the end, then, I would congratulate atheists for putting so much thought into such a narrow issue in order to achieve such a ridiculous end. And I'm not sarcastic in those congratulations. Someone had to try that avenue, and there's no shame in failing when attempting to pioneer an idea. Such a condition cannot necessarily be called failure, for the concept is thitherto untried, and at least now we have a result to examine.

Such razor-witted commentary! I shall have to note this for future reference Tiassa

Well, one can always hope that one of the atheists actually has a point to discuss. Is atheism a religion? Am I not the one that recommended atheism be taken to the Free Thoughts or Ethics & Morality or the World Affairs forums in order to accommodate the fact that it is not a religion?

One would hope that an atheist in a religious discussion forum might have a point to discuss about religion. But atheism isn't a religion, so I don't know why it appears in this forum at all. After all, if, as you've pointed out, anyone who tries to include any further philosophy is simply using a confused terminology. Why compare atheism to religion? After all, if atheism is a simple disbelief in God, then why bother with the religion? It seems you're tacking extra philosophy onto it.

tiassa, to say that atheism has nothing to do with religion is like saying water has nothing to do with tea! Remember, atheism is a term reltated to the word God. To say that atheism would have no connection to religion is silly.

In the meantime, the only problem with bashing for the sake of bashing is that it shows how stupid and desperate the bashing poster is. It has little to do with the argument, but much to do with the credibility of the poster.

Really?

Well, Xev, if all you can do is ridicule Loone in absentia and worry, or, as some atheists do, worry about childish bullshit in the Bible, that's all it's worth.I had an interesting couple of minutes yesterday. I was reading a literary history and as I came to a bit about John Dos Passos, I found myself having an interesting moment. I could hear Sciforums' skeptical/atheist crowd arguing with the river, dammit .... It was amusing in that sense. It's like rejecting e.e. cummings because it doesn't rhyme. Sure, whatever. But it's superficial. I don'tcare if you have a PhD in literature and poetry; if that's as good as one can do, it's superficial.

with....

If you respect your learning so highly, Xev, you ought to try using it.

along with....

That's why I find your position at present so anemic. If you'd like to be careless with your words, then don't complain if you're not perceived as you'd like to be. But you're welcome to revisit the older topic and clarify, or to do so here. But when you say the idea of logical atheism has not been rejected, I'm curious what the fuck your problem with it is, then? You have, in the past, referred to my defense of logical atheism (even against theists) as "my error". Why is it "my error"? After all, if you claim logical atheism has not been rejected by atheists (such as yourself), then please enlighten us all as to what error I made in defending logical atheism despite its inability to function properly in my life.

We're waiting.

Actually, no, we're not. I'm not even waiting. I'm interested to know if you even have an answer for it, Xev, but at some point, it would be nice if you would get to know the concept of communication.

Also with...

If only you were here, Xev, you could hear the beautiful sound of the two tiny violins playing, "Cry Me a River (Stereo Mix)".

Funny, that ... when I do post other topics, atheists (since we're considering them directly) seem to prefer to continue bouncing their egos off the superficial concepts of religion.

alongside...

Wow, now you and Adam are both using schoolyard metaphors when you run out of things to say. Now, do you have anything to say to the grown-ups, or do you wish to remain in your schoolyard metaphors?

Next to...

True, but most humans are as petty and obsessive as you.

Here with...

Aw, Xev, giving up so soon? Just because you can't escape your own words without putting a little thought into them does not mean you should stick your lip out so far. Cheer up, kiddo. You can learn from it or not. It's up to you.

But don't get pissy just because I give such ideas more thought than you do. Neither piss nor envy are your colors, dear.

I can only hope that when you grow up, Xev, you'll learn to examine and explore religion, and not make it your outlet for frustration. Just because you want it one way doesn't mean you're going to get it. And if you can't say what you mean, and if you can't debate honestly, and if you can't remember what you actually wrote, I'm hardly disturbed by the conclusions you have reached. They were predictable, Xev. So much for diversity.

I can list a few more than you've posted on this thread, But I feel I have adequately made my point. While you play up to the trumph card of an arrogant, condenscending person, your best act of yet is your hypocricy. First you condemn slander and " ego " boosting, and then you yourself do it over and over again! Simply amusing.

For heaven's sake, the purple cow's sake, and your own sake, get a sense of dignity.

Slander and pressing your ego over her. Tsk tsk tiassa. Are you infering that Xev has no dignity? Come now, even the best of my old school mates came up with better put downs than that!

True, I've been too busy dealing with your childishness.

Do forgive me, Zeus, I didn't think someone atop a thunder cloud as high as yours would care much for my puny thoughts.

would suggest, sir, that you tell Xev that, and not me. What's wrong, is your perception of the facts incorrect? I mean, really ... if you don't want me responding to what Xev includes in the debate, I would suggest that you try f--king yourself.

You may be a bystander, but the lack of honesty in your post indicates a lack of innocence.

We can only wonder at what the hell your problem is, Adam. Why can't you address me honestly?

Hypocrisy AND Vulgarity! My my, quite the little spitfire, aren't we tiassa? I suppose it was my error to assume someone as enlightened as you would know that cursing somebody out was, well, beneath someone of your stature. Forgive me.

Really ... the problem with atheism is atheists. They are, largely, laughable.

Laugh at me all you will, I could care less tiassa. Although I have to admit, finding your hypocrisy makes me laugh at you.

Cheers!

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by tiassa
So the observable result of an idea in society is independent of its human value?

No but you need to demonstrate causality and you haven't. The point I've been making is that your assumption that these behaviors and attitudes you despise are caused by atheism is incorrect.

When pursuing the basis of an individual's morality, as religion often is, one might look to the comparative moral result observable across the spectrum of atheism.
You'll have to look deeper than the simple declaration of atheism to find such an affect. Identify the deeper philosophy that you have a problem with, Tiassa, chances are you'll find me in some agreement with your assessment.

I find your evidence of the atheistic posters here somewhat lacking in significance for several reasons: 1) I do not believe that atheism is the motivating factor in most of the behavior you've denoted. 2) The demographic here is very narrow and unrepresentative of the whole. 3) You fail to note or explain any exceptions. 4) You've included in your depiction of atheism a larger set of beliefs that does not belong there. 5) Most of your arguments do not stand up to logical analysis.

We can, indeed, examine more inherent issues and track their development in history. And this process contributes more to human progress than mere criticism and superficial worry.

I quite agree and believe I contribute to this process. As, I believe, do several of the more prolific atheistic posters here. I too would like to see and participate in some more progressive threads and have been considering some topics. I also get annoyed when valuable discussions get sidetracked with idiotic and irrelevant posts, unfortunately that often the way things go in public forums. This, however, cannot be exclusively be blamed on atheists and I find it disingenuous of you to suggest.

one can certainly blame atheism if, in its relation to human processes and structures, it lends to conditions of discord and division.

As opposed to the harmony and unity that theism and religion have so successfully maintained throughout the last 10,000 years of world history? Please. It is exactly this point that many atheistic, irreligious, and secular posters have brought up as one of the major problems with religion and demonstrated with a great deal more significant evidence than disharmony in a discussion board.

In fact, the logical atheism I refer to, and which has been noted to be my error, is one atheists offered in response to the Christian accusation that atheism removes moral necessity.

Atheism does not indicate any moral stance. One must look elsewhere. Most likely the Atheists were responding with moral codes that are not derived from a Theistic position, this does not mean they are to be equated with Atheism only that they are compatible with it.

The errors of anyone operating under any given paradigm do, in fact, help define the viability of the paradigm.

Seriously, how many times do I have to repeat this? Atheism is not a paradigm. If you want to examine a particular paradigm that includes atheism you need to identify it so we can discuss it.

If the manifestation of the drawbacks is severe enough, we reject the idea.

We may reject using or applying the idea based upon an evaluative judgment but if the idea is logically sound you cannot refute its logical validity simply on the grounds of consequence. Further, as I asserted above, I find that you have failed to demonstrate causality.

Consider the Catholic situation: Do not the current revelations of child abuse and coverup testify toward the potential danger of Catholicism?

You consider the evidence of deviant minority groups to be insignificant but not of individuals? This current issue speaks more to me about the institution of the Catholic Church than to its paradigm of belief. Further, I find the hypocritical behavior rather typical, if extreme, of religious people in general.

I wonder why atheists would attempt the same stunt.

They don't. Christians by definition lay claim to a specific moral code expressed in the Bible. Atheists as a whole do not lay claim to any particular moral code. Once again, you're looking beyond the definition of Atheism trying to find a unifying philosophy that doesn't exist. It makes no more sense to try to find such a underlying philosophy for Atheists than it does to find one for people who don't believe in Santa Claus.

There's no reason atheism should be excluded from the forum, per se. But when it's merely ridiculing from afar and not undertaking any religious ideas, it belongs elsewhere, like Free Thoughts.

Following that logic; in a forum about evolution those who take a stance against evolution or question it's validity should not have a voice? They should find a different forum?

Additionally, I find the accusation to simply be false. I find many Atheist's posts to be quite relevant to the religious discussions. Yes, some atheistic posters merely ridicule and bash but I hardly find these posts to be noteworthy. I similarly dismiss such idiotic posts from religious people. I have even begun to ignore many of Jan's posts which are often provocative but ultimately unsatisfying as he refuses to entertain any rational discussion.

~Raithere

 

[Xev]

Re: Another one for you to avoid, Xev

Aside from the implication that Westerners do not examine issues outside their most relevant paradigm when making conclusions about those things outside their most relevant paradigm, what is the significance of that?

*Shrugs*

It has been my experience of Americans that we are rather insular. Westerners per se? I haven't travelled enough to say.

The significance is that we reject the God we are familiar with. I see nothing inconsistant in rejecting that which we know is false, and maintaing an agnostic position regarding the rest.

A very dedicated athiest/skeptic would study other religions for the purpose of exploration, but, meh, life is short.

Honor me.

Treat me with respect and I shall.

Or no, don't even fucking bother.

Without that objective, logical approach, atheism offers no advantage from which to criticize others.

Correct.

And why would you thus change the subject? Perhaps so that you might have a point to argue one way or another? Was there something unsuitable about the expression you chose to respond to that you had to respond to something else?

No. Frankly, I do not keep records of my intentions or thought processes. I trust the aliens who are controlling the mind-control rays of the Illuminati to do that.

Dishonest? Such was not my intention. Perhaps you ought to concentrate less on insulting me, and more on what I say.

You could have simply asked. I thought that the capitol "O" was clear, but, meh, your choice.

The fact remains that even if I had conceded such a point, I am not the spokeswoman for athiesm. Even if I had said that athiesm was irrational, why would my opinion represent that of all athiests?

Really ... the problem with atheism is atheists. They are, largely, laughable.

Meh, whatever. Lemme know if you decide to forgive whatever offense I've commited.

 

[Adam]

Bebelina

Originally posted by Bebelina
The downside of atheism lies mainly in denying your mind the freedom to explore what it doesn't yet know, to wander and get lost in beliefs that can become your reality for extended periods of time. All work and no play?
The same goes of course for any other strictly stuck up -isms.

Ps, don't mind me, just wanted to chat a little...

Bebelina, as you know when discussinf religion I refer to myself as an atheist. But as you also know, I don't shut out the possibilities you are referring to.

 

[Xev]

Hmm, big pink letters. Nice change to be insulted in pink rather than blue.

 

[A4Ever]

You may point out that secularists have done terrible things too but have you ever heard of anyone going to war or killing someone in the name of Atheism?

No. They use other reasons. In the name of the free world. In the name of capitalism, whatever.

I don't say one is more or less evil than the other. People will always find a reason: in religion or elsewhere.

 

[Adam]

Tiassa

True, I've been too busy dealing with your childishness.

Although not directed at me - this time - I feel I should help you out with something. When you accuse someone of being childish, a liar, ignorant, a bigot, or any other favourite catch-word, it does not make you look adult and rational. Quite the opposite. It seems, whether intended or not, that you are doing a child's "No, you are!" and poking out your tongue. I'm not saying this to be insulting, just trying to point out how it comes across. I suggest you try to avoid such things.

Well, I won't deny his entertainment value.

*Takes a bow.*

Gods arose before religion. And superstition arose before gods.

Indeed. However, humans are also born without superstition.

I would suggest, sir, that you tell Xev that, and not me. What's wrong, is your perception of the facts incorrect? I mean, really ... if you don't want me responding to what Xev includes in the debate, I would suggest that you try f--king yourself... You may be a bystander, but the lack of honesty in your post indicates a lack of innocence... We can only wonder at what the hell your problem is, Adam. Why can't you address me honestly?

I've been looking back through this thread, and I can't really see anything I might have posted which would warrant:
- Telling me to f--- myself.
- Calling me dishonest.
- Assuming I have a problem.
- Doubting my lack of direct addressing.

Think of it this way: what we see of atheism, for instance, at Sciforums, is a bunch of brats with nothing better to do than clutter up a religion board with their non-religion and childish humor.

Please first refer to the opening paragraph of this post. Then think on what Horace said: "What prevents me from telling the truth with a smile on my face?" If I make a joke with a point in the middle, does that invalidate the point? I note that to date you have relentlessly focused on the joke as a way of avoiding the point.

Well, one can always hope that one of the atheists actually has a point to discuss. Is atheism a religion?

Unless you are being thoroughly "dishonest" here, well... Please read through every post I have ever made at Sciforums regarding atheism. I believe there have been a great many point by me and by others regarding the very same topic. Perhaps you could go and read this thread again.

Am I not the one that recommended atheism be taken to the Free Thoughts or Ethics & Morality or the World Affairs forums in order to accommodate the fact that it is not a religion?

Atheism belongs in the Religion forum in the same manner that disbelief in Special Relativity belongs in the Physics forum.

Tinker683

Regarding your remarks on Tiassa's posts:

I can list a few more than you've posted on this thread, But I feel I have adequately made my point. While you play up to the trumph card of an arrogant, condenscending person, your best act of yet is your hypocricy. First you condemn slander and " ego " boosting, and then you yourself do it over and over again! Simply amusing.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees this. My thanks. I'm sure Tiassa is quite intelligent, or at least well-read and stocked with many nice quotes, but unfortunately he has a tendency to divert threads in which he participates toward, well, bashing.

Raithere

Atheism does not indicate any moral stance. One must look elsewhere... Seriously, how many times do I have to repeat this? Atheism is not a paradigm. If you want to examine a particular paradigm that includes atheism you need to identify it so we can discuss it.

Yes, it does seem many theists in particular miss the entire point of atheism. Atheism is part of my beliefs concerned only with religion (hence it is discussed in the Religion forum). It is not and has never been a term to encompass a person's entire philosophy.

And finally to the topic...

Well, I have yet to see a single downside to atheism in this thread, apart from those based on incorrect assumptions about the nature of atheism. The entire concept of atheism is simple: not believing in gods and all that. It does not dicate any morals or ethics, no laws, nothing like that.

So, given that atheism is only what I just said, what are its problems?

 

[Bebelina]

Oh, there's nothing like a flaming debate...they were red btw, not pink.
I know that you, Adam, is more broadminded than any atheist I have ever stumbled upon, so that proves the exception to the rule, that always has to be there.
Religious fanatics are just as "bad" as atheists when it comes to neglecting their mind to think"what if".

 

[Tiassa]

What would you like, Adam?

Adam

How would you like me to respond? Specifically, would you like me to waste time here pointing out what you intentionally or otherwise have failed to examine, or would that lead you to ask me why I'm focusing on you? In that case, I'd be happy to PM you as well.

However you would like the response, that's fine. But I'm getting a little sick of having to explain such simple things to you and sitting by while you bemoan a course of events which exists only in the plottings of your imagination.

--Tiassa

 

[Tiassa]

Tinker

Tiassa, since you seem to be the bur in everyones saddle

Funny, that. It didn't used to be that way. Oh, wait. Yeah, it did. I don't get a week of peace around here.

Are you infering that inorder for one to have a "complete" perspective on athiesm, one must actively examine and reject every religion of every part of the planet? If that is not so, then please do correct me.

It's not as simple as that. However, it would be quite ridiculous, would it not, to argue against the Christian God when it is the Hindu theology you're trying to undo? I see this habit quite frequently among atheists. Specifically, because atheism is reactionary and an anti-identification, what seems to happen is that the "atheist" will accomplish an intellectual rejection of the religion most immediately affecting him/her self, and, quite often, extend the basis of that rejection toward other ideas about which the atheist is less intellectually aware. The extension is symptomatic of identification needs. And that's why it's important to examine the reactionary nature of atheism. To be consciously atheist, one must necessarily have something to reject (e.g. a god). Thus, the reaction is, as in nature, dependent on the action.

Has it really? I came to the conclution of athiesm after 6 years of doubt and questioning. "Logic" and Reason was what brought me to Humanisms' door.

This is part of an ongoing discussion I'm having with others, who dislike any sense of logical obligation that might come with identifying one's philosophy as rational or logical. It's an issue of consistency, whether or not someone can slap a bumper sticker on a Tonka and call it a Mercedes. However, I would point out Humanism--is it really the same as atheism?

And this is part of a larger issue that I'll try to get back to in a moment.

I ponder if thiesm ( collectively speaking, as it's fracturely into an inumerable sub-sets of ideas and paradigms ) can say the same.

I would imagine a Sufi would, were s/he to deign it necessary to respond to such a proposition.

Furthermore, we might point out that atheists have no reason to believe in their own conceptions of God. Beyond that, they're working with imperfect communication. Certes, we might reject the apparent symptoms of any given individual's religious faith, but we cannot confirm the experience.

tiassa, to say that atheism has nothing to do with religion is like saying water has nothing to do with tea! Remember, atheism is a term reltated to the word God. To say that atheism would have no connection to religion is silly.

Well, if the atheists were to discuss religions, I wouldn't mount such an objection. But by and large, it seems that the Religion forum is, to our atheists, largely a place to rehearse comedy acts that were stale in the last century. So few of them have anything insightful to offer, anything particularly honest to consider. So much of it is masked behind veils of smoky humor and shallow wit that one wonders why they bother. I mean, rejecting the least-educated, most superstitious notions within the whole of the Christian spectrum, objecting as some do to all-powerful gods who are everywhere and see everything ... well, how hard is that, really? What does it gain anyone? If someone's here arguing on behalf of it, then refute it. But it's more than a little disturbing to see people resorting to invented generalisms to object to instead of working with the perfectly nasty quirks of reality that do exist.

I can list a few more than you've posted on this thread, But I feel I have adequately made my point. While you play up to the trumph card of an arrogant, condenscending person, your best act of yet is your hypocricy. First you condemn slander and " ego " boosting, and then you yourself do it over and over again! Simply amusing.

Well, Tinker, they had their chance to play nice. If you'll notice, it takes the both of them in tandem pursuing me. So I would ask you, sir, how much patience I should have with posters who resort to lying about me (e.g. Adam), or who intentionally introduce vagaries into topics in order to muddy the waters (Adam, Xev, both of whom I've pointed these issues out to repeatedly in the past), and who like to back away from their vagaries (again, both)?

Really, if I seem impatient with these two, it's quite simple. This has been going on for a while, and I've been so polite in the past as to spend hours explaining the point to them only to be dismissed rudely. Combative is the way they would like it, Tinker, and that's the problem.

So how many times should I listen to someone make a bigoted declaration (e.g. Adam) only to deny they said it (e.g. Adam), and then have it pointed out to them (e.g. Adam) only to have that ignored while the poster espouses what he "really" meant (e.g. Adam) while constantly being hounded from the blindside for spending so much time on the one side (e.g. Xev)? I mean, Adam's and my disagreement goes back a little ways. I'm not sure what the hell Xev's problem is.

And I really do hate having to dump it on you like that, but I'm curious, sir, what you would recommend. Being as observant and reservedly polite as you have been, I'm happy to ask you for your opinion.

Should I accept people lying to and about me? Just go ahead and say so.

How patient should I be with people who "say it wrong" the first time, and then argue for several posts before telling you that what they wrote isn't the point they're defending? I mean, how many times do I really have to waste how much time on that particular routine?

How many times should I put up with someone changing the subject in order to have something to feel offended about (e.g. Xev)?

I mean, you have justly pointed out how far this little war of words has gotten. Do you have any recommendations, Tinker?

I would hope I've adequately made my own point on this subject. For instance:

Are you infering that Xev has no dignity?

I find it very undignified to ridicule one who is (A) not present, and (B) very possibly suffering psychiatric disability. She told me to have a sense of humor about it. I told her to have a sense of dignity about it. Seems fair. My sense of humor does, in fact, stretch to cover mental illness, but I prefer such humor to be a little less vicious, a little more natural, and a lot more subtle.

Do forgive me, Zeus, I didn't think someone atop a thunder cloud as high as yours would care much for my puny thoughts

And do tell me, good Tinker, at what point I addressed you in that? I'm also open to whatever interpretation gives you offense. Perhaps there's something about the phrase that I don't see, but I'll need you to explain it before I can possibly address it.

Hypocrisy AND Vulgarity! My my, quite the little spitfire, aren't we tiassa? I suppose it was my error to assume someone as enlightened as you would know that cursing somebody out was, well, beneath someone of your stature. Forgive me.

Well, you know, I can only put up with so much of it. Adam bothered to ask me to leave him out of that part of the debate. It's rather annoying, in fact. After all, Xev introduced the argumentative point. Given the fact that they choose to work in tandem in this particular pursuit of theirs, I find the inaccuracy of the summary of events quite offensive. Given the frequency with which I am subject to Adam's unnecessary static, I'm quite tired of his continual posturing.

What he has asked me to do, essentially, is to not address an issue put to me by another poster. He demands that I not speak on an issue that his partner puts to me. I find the demand to be quite ridiculous, and I don't find Adam's position to be worth much respect. If he cannot address me honestly, I would rather he simply not address me. If every time he addresses me, it must be toward whatever game he has chosen to engage, I would rather he leave it be. But he won't, and it's been a few months that I've had to put up with this routine. Even we enlightened have to sometimes stoop a notch or two. In this case, I have yet to find any particular way of talking to Adam which gets a response out of him that doesn't play toward his seeming obsession. If it's too long, he doesn't read it. If it's too short, he demonstrably argues a seemingly irrelevant aspect without ever establishing the relevance. And I must admit that for someone who enjoys bashing for the sake of having something to bash--e.g. to feel superior toward--I was quite surprised how poorly he reacted in the beginning of this; I mean, if it's his nature to go out and seek something to have a problem with, what did he expect?.

Laugh at me all you will, I could care less tiassa. Although I have to admit, finding your hypocrisy makes me laugh at you.

Nah, I won't laugh. I'd much rather see what you have to offer as far as solutions. I mean, you are rightly critical of the tone of this particular topic, but I'm sure you've taken into account the history of the posters involved. Even if not, I can only ask you: Short of letting Adam and Xev staple my mouth shut at this site, what do you think I should do?

(Seriously, Tinker, I don't know how you feel about people lying about you, but I told Adam at the time that I ran out of reasons to respect him when he shifted to that tactic. I'm not inclined to drag Porfiry into it because it's merely a matter of annoyance, and there's no sense of threat to complain about. For Adam's part, I find it to be quite harassing, but I'm generally happy to let people make fools of themselves. It's the lying and the wriggling that gets me hot under the collar. But you've been so kind as to point all of this out, Tinker, so I'm perfectly willing to hear your proposals toward a solution. Xev and I are, hopefully, trying to hammer a few things out in a different thread. But your perspicacity is admirable, and I await your wisdom.)

thanx much,
Tiassa