He's a plagiarist and a hypocrite. He finds articles on the internet, reads them on his videos and then claims it's his stuff. Whenever he actually has an idea of his own, it's usually just ad hominem attacks on theists. He has one video where he complains that theists either don't allow others to comment or delete the comments when it suits their purpose. Brett does exactly the same thing. The guy really doesn't have a clue, and from what I've seen of him, he's simply got an emotional personal problem with his own theist upbringing.
Letter from school..
- Thread starter SnakeLord
- Start date
He's a plagiarist and a hypocrite. He finds articles on the internet, reads them on his videos and then claims it's his stuff. Whenever he actually has an idea of his own, it's usually just ad hominem attacks on theists. He has one video where he complains that theists either don't allow others to comment or delete the comments when it suits their purpose. Brett does exactly the same thing. The guy really doesn't have a clue, and from what I've seen of him, he's simply got an emotional personal problem with his own theist upbringing.
Therefore I don't ask you to show me how I realize it - I ask you to show how what i realize is imagination/ a con (preferably without confidence statements, tentative claims and ad homs)
and the general principles you utilize to determine that you do, are?
all you have indicated is that there are two parties with different and opposing views. As for claims who is on what side of the bubble wall, you will require more than confidence statements
and indoctrinated atheists never grow up to become theists?
given that all the advancements we have in science and philosophy would not be possibel unless society at large was influenced by religion (its bit difficult to look through your telescope or ruminate on the nature of the absolute in peace while your community is getting pillaged and raped by marauding bands), its not clear how you came to this conclusion
yes, according to the value systems of an atheist (even though developing such a value system would not have even be possible without religion)
according to the atheists, yes. But the theist, who actually has knowledge not only of the theory, but the practice and persons who have applied the practice, may beg to differ
and given that people still suffer in atheistic empires that wage war du eto economic development, it tends to illustrate was the actual cause is
a coherant argument requires general principles, not tentative claims and confidence statements (and of course, no ad homs if you please)
hardly - actually the view is that god is special and everyone else, from the ant to the tyrant, is eternally dependant on such an entity
obviously you don't mean the ideologies of pol pot, stalin, hitler and mao
there are very good reasons why comedians on the whole are not philosophers
Were is the evidence of what you been taught? this nothing more than fanaticism, when an individual claims an existent but yet fails to show any credible evidence of such a thing, but claims that you must have "faith" and "belief" that what he claims is true. It's through tradition, whether you admit it or not, that you come to believe what you believe today. Had you been born in the ME you'd be here trying to prove Allah, and that Islam is the true religion. You are a product of regional belief. Hence you had never been out of the metaphor "bubble of theism" to look from the outside in, to have an objective, logical, and rational thought, of the subject "religion".
Reason & logic!
If you are perceiving my statements as "confident" are yours then "doubtful?"
I don't make generalizations, nor do I claim existents of which I can't provide evidence of, however by mere observation, I can tell you where religion has oppressed humanity, caused wars, and basically destroyed human principles of justice, by claiming original sin.
Hardly, when one becomes an atheist, their's very little chance these same individuals revert back to "unreason" and illogical, irrational beliefs.
Which religious faction was doing the raping and marauding?
It is clearly here that you are quite acting the fool, and fail to see religious history, or basically you haven't paid any attention to the many links posted on the subject of religious prosecutions of pagans, heretics, non-believers, which hunts, crusades, inquisitions, do you need a history lesson? http://skeptically.org/enlightenment/id7.html
http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Religious atrocities.htm
http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm
Or should I say! what's the use, posting links here when you don't even read them
I'll get to the rest of your nonsense latter!
Godless
Or perhaps we should widen it up a bit more - since we all exist in a historical continuum (past/present/future)
On what grounds do you establish referring to the past to define the present in preparation for the future is an act or irrationality?
an example of a general principle would be "something real can be distinguished from something false because (I do not see it/because I say so/etc etc). Therefore religion is false"
Just like I can tell you about theists who have brown hair. i can tell you about atheists who have brown hair. And I can tell you about people's who's stance on god is not apparent to me also having brown hair.
It seems that people with brown hair can be found in all walks of life
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=57157
how do you define "credible"
how do you establish that atheism doesn't have its historical traditions?
Or perhaps we should widen it up a bit more - since we all exist in a historical continuum (past/present/future)
On what grounds do you establish referring to the past to define the present in preparation for the future is an act or irrationality?
That is another answer that is bereft of general principles
an example of a general principle would be "something real can be distinguished from something false because (I do not see it/because I say so/etc etc). Therefore religion is false"
in the sense of doubting the platform that your confidence rests upon, yes
and I can tell you where the same has been done in the absence of religion. And I can tell you where the same has been done under atheistic regimes too.
Just like I can tell you about theists who have brown hair. i can tell you about atheists who have brown hair. And I can tell you about people's who's stance on god is not apparent to me also having brown hair.
It seems that people with brown hair can be found in all walks of life
on the contrary, when many atheists grow up they can discard the chip they had on their shoulder as a rebellious teenager and see the reason and logic behind it (the unreasonable and illogical nature of godless life usually acts as a catalyst)
the ones that weren't established in religious principles and saw no sin in killing a person to take their things - there are still some jungle cultures like this in the world (africa, PNG, New York etc) - if they can kill you and take your stuff they honestly think that they are the good person and that you, lying in a pool of blood are the bad person - the evidence is that they can take your things and you can't do anything about it, so you are the loser
old news bub
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=57157
Last edited:
That's awesome.
When it is evidence is not just in your fucking head!
Ahteist don't bend the knees at any junction, we don't pray to invisible dieties, most atheist try to hide the fact that they are atheist! specially in the past, since theist such as yourself made it a sport to kill the unbeliever!
Yup! you could say that's been the atheist tradition, remain in the closet, keep opinions to themselves for fear of life, laugh at the theistic stupidity, and morn theistic atrocities done to mankind!
This shit is non-sequirtus nonsense!
It's more to it then that, start by taking your head out of your ass!
LOL...You truly show your ignorance!
There's no sense in arguing with an idiot, I truly tried!
When I was at school, the subject that interested me most was 'economics' (at the age of 14), not because I was actually interested in the subject, but the teacher was really good. I was instantly, after the first lesson, able to understand (basically) how this country (UK) operated financially. It was ridiculously practical.
I found religious studies a complete bore.
My first real entrance into the world of seriously trying to understand God and spirituality, opened up when I read Khalil Gibran's, "The Prophet". It was profoundly deep, and I had to get more gear to satisfy my spiritual starvation.
Jan.
Godless
If you are not willing to discuss what you state in bold, what am I supposed to think of your response?
so in other words something is credible if you can perceive it - so I guess the high school drop out's claim about the falsity of electrons is credible because they don't see them
a theist could also assert that they don't rely on invisible constructions like abiogenesis, the notion that consciousness is emergent from matter etc - in other words it appears that atheism is also bending its knees along the line there since they rely on unverifiable conclusions
if your inability to venture civilized discussion on the topic is any indication of the standards of atheism, its understandable why it was a topic suitable for the closet
thats what i thought of your original post to, but in an effort to not appear unnecessarily contentious and uncivilized I didn't express it like you did
on the contrary , the steadfast reluctanceto discuss the general principles of one's ideas, and instead relying on confidence statements (and ad homs) indicates that one is probably sitting on one's brains
If you are not willing to discuss what you state in bold, what am I supposed to think of your response?
the moment you feel secure enough to leave the comforts of ad homming and confidence statements. progressive discussion may be possible
No, science has a perceivable and even calculatable value. Religion does not.
On top of that, science is a choice at the end of third form correct? Academia is a series of steps of learning and honing - exposure and choice. A student can choose business, or the arts etc after being exposed to all groups of academics. Religion offers no choice other than worship or burn.
You'd have no objection to that of course; however, it is immoral to force your own values on impressionable minds. Especially without the knowledge of parents. This is a cowardly form of conquest.
The fact that Snakelord was not made aware of this fact, and had to discover it AFTER enrolling his daughter is enough indication that indoctrination was clearly the intent. On top of which, the learning of religion as a historical curiosity is completely different from worshipping.
Of course it does not seem like force. Children are sheep, very impressionable. You'd never feel like you were forced because it wasn't a strenuous effort. It was BORING yes, but not strenuous or even painful. It is still however a display of force, of power and of unrelenting conquest.
This is not paranoia, this is reason. I know that religion is there, matter of fact my own personal experience gave me, the student, the option to stay away from it. That's why I'm shocked at the behaviour of the school under discussion. Also, when Snakelord found out and removed his daughter from the indoctrination, the principal was supposed to say "Ok, noted for future reference". Plain and simple. Instead we get a letter war. Why?
I.E. Everything that is presented in a communicatable form.
I can flip this to say as a gross theist/spiritualist or whatever, understanding reality (for you et al.) is akin to an asylum patient perceiving what is clearly a stone and metal building as a giant marshmallow. And trying to convince others to grab a bite.
No it isn't, but you bring to the table an excellent parallel. "The Wind Cries Mary" is a perceivable artistic piece. The bible is a perceivable piece of literature. However to believe the Wind ACTUALLY cried "Mary!!!" is questionable at best, and to teach other people's children that the Wind can actually scream "Mary!!!" is grossly irresponsible.
The only thing I claimed to 'know' is that the school authority is wrong to assume that all parents would agree to a wholly christian worship time period, and to make all the students go as a default action.
I've read enough of scripture to fill me for the rest of my life. I've had enough of literature passed off as history. The creation of god is not the only weapon in a non-theist's arsenal. The existence of any god is almost beside the point. Real questions for example are "why is he worthy of worship?" or "why create a race of 6 billion humans for the sole purpose of worship?"
Absolutely incomparable. Science encourages growth of intelligence. Religion encourages the fostering of a sheep mentality.
Unmitigated garbage...the law gives parents the final unchallengable right to wield the right for an underage child. See following:
Worse again...I just read the link myself...the government guidelines state that the indoctrination be distributed...ie not solely focused on christianity. 49% of the total time is for other faiths...While I find this a bit staggered to favouring christianity (aside from the fact that religion has no place in politics), it is less dictatorial than the Snakelord's daughter's school seems to suggest.
I imagine its a load of hooey in order to cover up the truth.
Then go count for yourself. It's empirical data...can be proved or disproved by anyone. I've compared. Admittedly not an entire population, but a selection. Like my alma mater (did it for the school paper once). The percentages there gave christianity a higher value than the world count (40% instead of 33%), but it was a close enough distribution to make the final world count believable.
The fact that you were called on it should be enough for you to realise...hmm...maybe it's not so obvious....maybe you're the one with jumped-up conclusions that do not apply to everyone. This assumption is anything but obvious and has no relation to reality other than revealing your own bias.
How about folks that gather for Christmas, and Uncle Harold consciously decides he's going to cut loose and have a few, because he's staying at the house he's currently in. Does good old Uncle Harold, who did nothing more than imbibe liquers, burn for eternity in your philosophy? If that is the case does this not strike you as overly cruel? Maybe even...dare you think it...evil?
More to the point...aren't you being judgemental? Sanctimonious even? As your own faith advises against?
Wrong again[Flame Deleted]!
Something is credible when it can be perceived by eveyone! NOT just by one person, i.e. just me or you or the fary who wrote the godamn bible!
Then the theist is not versed in scientific fact! as you claim that scientists or atheist are not versed in bs spirituality!
Atheist were in the closet, cause [Flame Deleted] such as yourself were presecuting them, and killing them! [Flame Deleted]perhaps you would read some fucking history!
seeing that you don't make sense of any bull shit you spout here, is not only observed by me, but many others wether they be theistic or atheist! You still don't make sense to many people as observed by your posts and dribled arguments, from ignorance.
Bull shit! one can't argue reason with an [Flame Deleted]!
Start by [Flame Deleted], as it becomes evident by every single post you make, in contradiction of what one is trying to tell you!
You lack the evidence of what you spout, I don't make assertions that I can't prove, you therefore have to prove that what you believe is true, outside of you just saying so because you "have faith, and believe it" It's not that I don't understand you, it's that you are unable to keep a conversation with out stepping out of context. Demonstrated by your many posts, and others observations!
See you no need to argue [Flame Deleted]!
Last edited by a moderator:
What the hell makes you so sure that the elimination of religion would result in something better than that? In fact, without strict moral codes, I'd say that it would become vastly more prevalent. If you look at EVERY atheistic, "rational" society that has ever existed, you see the same behavior you cited above.
Atheistic societies were ruled by people who had no scruples. That does not prove that Soviet Russian citizens did not get long, that the Chinese do not get along, and that Cubans do not get along.
You should first study the crime rates during the Communist period of each country and compare it to now. Even today, if you compare the percentage of divorced Christians in America versus the percentage of divorced Atheists, you will find the gap disparaging.
Not only that, most people that are in jail, are theist. Either catholics, muslim, christian or any other denomination you care to mention.
The statics of premartial sexual activity, also endicates most theist put their scruples at their convinience.
The statics of premartial sexual activity, also endicates most theist put their scruples at their convinience.
As much as I may agree with you Godless, it is important to remember that there are many more theists than atheists, so stating that there are a larger number of theists in jail proves nothing.
You need to work with percentages instead of numbers.
And the people who ran the Crusades had scruples? I think the interesting thing to note here is that those people in power during the Crusades who claimed to be "Christians" had zero justification for behaving the way they did within the very religion they were trying to spread. Atheists, on the other hand, don't really need that justification.
I'm not saying it's impossible to philosophically justify morality with atheism, but it's morality is undeniably more ambigious and difficult to come to terms with than the blunt, divine and universal laws presented in religion.
I think that a disbelief in God and affirmation of the relative bleakness of human destiny would(overall) poison the human mentality more than any religion ever has.
Last edited:
Haha, that's funny, considering that religious people are MUCH more likely to give to charity; and in higher amounts.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=2
So, for all of the thieving theists, you can rest assured that a good portion of them are giving away their findings to a good cause...
The inherent flaw in divine retribution is fear.
When you fear something (God), you cannot respect it, and we can't understand God, which once again leads us to fear it (because you always fear what you don't understand). In psychology, it is a variable form of operant conditioning - God doles out punishment and rewards sporadically, so we are much more compliant with God's commandments.
That fear percolates into other facets of our life - if he doesn't join my religion, I will be punished for it - his deeds may lead to my destruction - I am acting as a messenger for my God, thus I deal out justice. That fear comes out of a desire to be God, and that is how a majority of religious people function. The desire to be God (in the minds of religious people) plays out in the form of violence.
If we accept that we are God, instead of trying in vain to be it, then where is the fear? We are at peace with ourselves.
Also, referring to your bleak existence, refer to Existentialism. Your Heaven is my Hell, and your Hell is my Heaven - it is all in the mind. If you create purpose for yourself, where is darkness?
Let the wisdom of ages be your guide:
“Every man's life ends the same way. It is only the details of how he lived and how he died that distinguish one man from another.”
- Ernest Hemingway