Religious Nonsense

[Musika]

Whatever that is supposed to mean (or supposed to imply, without the accountability of meaning), no such endeavor appears in my posts.
Projection? I am not the one trying to frame atheism, after all - you are. And that is typical of the nonsense expected from Abrahamic theists.
Note: Your characteristic word fogging tends invariably to personal disparagement, rather than refutation however vague - as noted before, a strikingly prevalent tactic among overt Abrahamic theists posting on science forums.

It doesn't, of course. Which is obvious, even if it were not repeatedly debunked above.
It just observes the presence of you and your kind, and responds to their actual posting.

Which is nothing if not thread relevant.

Which is an interesting topic, actually.

Dumping word salads on your personal decrees and red herrings doesn't make them any less personal decrees and red herrings.

 

[sideshowbob]

The state advocated the destruction of religion, and it officially pronounced religious beliefs to be superstitious and backward.

Religious beliefs are superstitious and backward. How does eliminating them equate to oppression? Do you equate education to oppression too?

Hence your disagreement with them lies on the effect they bring to the cause, and not the cause itself.

I can disagree with the means without disagreeing with the desired end.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Wow, we get to go around that circle?



Don''t give me that shit.

Seriously:



That's just effing stupid. I give you as much effing credit as I can, and you change the subject in order to go around that circle in order to put on that arrogant pretense after having posted that stupidity.

How? How do you expect to be taken seriously?

Do you think that little cry baby rant improves your credibility?
You mentioned an atheist philosophy, I questioned that, you rambled on about some nebulous atheist philosophy and I quite rightly pointe out that there is no such thing and then you get all bitter and twisted and start slinging ad homs all about. The subject wasn't changed by me. You need to work on your self awareness.

 

[iceaura]

Dumping word salads on your personal decrees and red herrings doesn't make them any less personal decrees and red herrings.

Refutation is hard, isn't it. Not even worth attempting, apparently.
Especially in defense of religious nonsense, a task from which reasoning from evidence and so forth has been excluded.
Projection, on the other hand, is easy once practiced a while (Personal decree! Word salad! Red herring!) . And since Abrahamic theists would be (by definition in part, as well as sociological circumstance) projecting from a common base and viewpoint, that would explain some of the common features of their posting on these science forums.

We have Progress, in the most significant matter of substance introduced in the thread.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I don't necessarily presume zombie reiteration genuine.

And, seriously, it's not a subtle sleight; after a while, the pretense of people pretending to be intelligent while only exercising those faculties to duck out on saying anything useful is ... I mean, come on, really? How many times have we seen this, before? It's like, yes, yes, his non sequitur happens to be true in its own context, but it's a non sequitur.

At this point, I don't really care why he's changing the subject; in a more general context, though, we eventually reach a point at which the amount this behavior comes up within an argumentative range starts to become significant of ... well, something. As to what, that's a larger question.

But, no, there is a lot going on around here that falls into a range where the question is a lack of competence or restraint, whether one is mistaken for ignorance or as a matter of will. And, really, it's not like those conditions are exclusive; our neighbor can fail according to both at once.

WOW do you feed that unwarranted hubris every day?

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

The state advocated the destruction of religion, and it officially pronounced religious beliefs to be superstitious and backward.

Religious beliefs are superstitious and backward. How does eliminating them equate to oppression? Do you equate education to oppression too?

Musika - offered IMHO only
the definition of a religion is contentious, and the wiki definition is intentionally vague, but adequate
I would also include the legal definition:

The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/religion

(lots of good information in that legal link)

also, religion, as defined by wiki and the legal dictionary, typically surround a faith in something, which is a belief without evidence (2b), though this isn't always the case

that would mean, as sideshowbob said, it is far, far more likely that a religion would be "superstitious and backward" as opposed to logical, though most people of any religion would vehemently support their religion as being logical and not superstitious ... best demonstrated by the Abrahamic religions, their many factions, and the fact that they're still usually at war with each other over who is more "right"

And since Abrahamic theists would be (by definition in part, as well as sociological circumstance) projecting from a common base and viewpoint, that would explain some of the common features of their posting on these science forums.

can I hear an AMEN?
LOL

 

[iceaura]

"Why can’t I communicate with gods?"
Probably for the same reason most people can't replace U joints, adequately represent themself in legal matters, analyze a pathology report, build a brick wall in a straight line, bake a wedding cake or have lunch with the president of the USA.

This, for example, is largely projection from the common base. It's silly (in the sense that it conflicts cartoonishly with dozens of other claims by Abrahamic theists about the Abrahamic deity ("God")), but it has an obvious ground in the theist's projection of communication with a deity as a signifier of skill, achievement, recognizable status, unto others. Something that a person can attempt to do and fail at.
Even something like: 'Probably for the same reason you can't live by eating grass or arrange passing clouds into alphabet shapes,'
doesn't come up. A less question begging analogy, such as 'probably for the same reason you can't count the angels dancing on your pinhead' isn't even on the radar.
And a more significant question along the lines of 'Why can't gods communicate with me' is almost forcefully excluded.

If you want to say certain claims are not "meaningful", sooner or later you will have to get around to delivering a standard for "meaningful"

Nope. Core and essential and clearcut meaninglessness comes first, exact and clearly defined standards for difficult or borderline cases, senses, etc, after.

 

[Tiassa]

Religious beliefs are superstitious and backward. How does eliminating them equate to oppression?

How are you going to "eliminate" "religious beliefs"?

(A stage these discussions rarely reach ....)

T: So, Bob, you gonna pay all those therapy bills?

S: What therapy bills?

T: Well, if we're getting rid of religious beliefs, what's going to fill in the void?

S: [choose one]

▸ Huh? What are you talking about?
▸ That has nothing to do with atheism.
▸ Why would anyone have therapy bills?
▸ Stop oppressing atheists!​

​

Okay, I admit, I was reaching on that last one.

But since you're on about eliminating religious beliefs, you might as well take some time to explain what that means.

Seriously, you're not eliminating religious beliefs. And if you feel the need to try, I really am interested in learning what method you intend to apply that isn't just brutish supremacist bullying, and if you really, really want to make the point about how religious people act, I will acknowledge the point, recognize your place in having joined them, and congratulate you on at least having done something.​

 

[sideshowbob]

How are you going to "eliminate" "religious beliefs"?

It was a short post. You could have read all of it. The answer is in the next sentence: education.

Seriously, you're noteliminatingreligiousbeliefs.

I didn't say I was. I was talking about the communists.

 

[Musika]

Refutation is hard, isn't it.

Especially when you are dealing with persons who have nothing of quality or relevance to say.

To extend you the greatest charity, perhaps you have a very clear picture of how you see the topic, but when it comes to presenting these ideas, you skimp on details and just throw a muddled mess with undertones of aggession out there that you expect others to trawl through.

If all attempts to clarify your decrees or ramblings about the relevance of bringing accusations against the abrahamic simply bring further decrees and irrelevant accusations against the abrahamic (along with further aggressive undertones), your discussions will be short lived. You can interpret that as a "victory", if you want, but people will assume you engage in discussion with others because you require someone to make up the numbers.

 

[Musika]

Religious beliefs are superstitious and backward.

According to atheist values, sure. Oh wait, but atheism has no values, apparently.
As a further query, is facebook and instagram permissable in your NWO, or are the strange superstitious beliefs they generate merely relegated to things like the outcome of USA presidential elections and the like?

How does eliminating them equate to oppression? Do you equate education to oppression too?

I would equate education/ mobilization of paramilitary forces with bringing some values to the fore. But atheism has no values, apparently.
I would also equate that persons who render a subject as meaningless, already have some functioning model of meaning to work with. But atheism has no such model, apparently.

To be fair, you can talk of atheism as being bereft of such things, but you are talking of the atheism of gophers and golf balls. They display zero religious affinity, much like they display zero affinity to any characteristics that we would identify as belonging to the "top end" of humanity (such as arts, science, literature, philosophy, etc).

If however you wish to discuss atheism in any sort of dialectical manner, or a "war on illusion", you have left that model far, far, far behind. Its poor form (aka "shadow dancing") for you to throw various prescriptive decrees around ("meaning should be like this" , "education should be like this", "society should be like this") and then depart to the shadows in mock innocence when others question the style of facial hair you may be growing under your nose.

https://theconversation.com/whats-a-politicians-best-tool-a-razor-44484

I can disagree with the means without disagreeing with the desired end.

I never said you couldn't.
I only said you couldn't unless you are bringing values to the table.
If your desired end is atheism, then obviously you will be traversing the same yellow brick road as anyone else who has a desired end in mind, albeit one specific to atheism.

 

[Musika]

Musika - offered IMHO only
the definition of a religion is contentious, and the wiki definition is intentionally vague, but adequate
I would also include the legal definition: https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/religion

(lots of good information in that legal link)

also, religion, as defined by wiki and the legal dictionary, typically surround a faith in something, which is a belief without evidence (2b), though this isn't always the case

that would mean, as sideshowbob said, it is far, far more likely that a religion would be "superstitious and backward" as opposed to logical, though most people of any religion would vehemently support their religion as being logical and not superstitious ... best demonstrated by the Abrahamic religions, their many factions, and the fact that they're still usually at war with each other over who is more "right"

can I hear an AMEN?
LOL

The numerous problems in determining a philosophical ceiling from a legal ceiling are thick and fast.

 

[Tiassa]

It was a short post. You could have read all of it. The answer is in the next sentence: education.

Nice post-hoc.

I didn't say I was. I was talking about the communists.

Something about the next sentence goes here.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Analogy.

When you eat, do you just feed your stomach, or does the food feed your whole body.

If the influencial people, the people who are responsible for the welfare of others, from all walks of life, have good understanding. That understanding will filter throughout life, including the welfare of animals, plants, water, air, etc. Good preaching could definitely achieve this. Just as good food and water will make for a healthy body, and mind.

Jan.

///
Convoluted gobbledygook.

<>

 

[Write4U]

sideshowbob said:
Religious beliefs are superstitious and backward.

Musika said:
According to atheist values, sure. Oh wait, but atheism has no values, apparently.

How do atheists display an apparent lack of values?

And while you are spelling out the long list of Atheist moral decrepitude, why don't you address the Catholic church (priests), Islam (fanatical fatwahs), religious wars, all which clearly display a lack in values. In fact they display the exact opposite values of what they claim as good and sacred.

Keep it fair and balanced, can you? Read the "Skeptic's Annotated Bible" and learn the flawed values (as well as the good ones) in the three major theist religions.
https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

 

[iceaura]

Especially when you are dealing with persons who have nothing of quality or relevance to say.

Instead of dealing with their posts, honestly and in good faith. Yep.

If all attempts to clarify your decrees or ramblings about the relevance of bringing accusations against the abrahamic - -

The bullshit "if", followed by the garbling of the Abrahamic theist on a science forum. It's a field mark, like the beak on a parrot.
(To forestall misunderstanding: there have been posted no such attempts at clarification.)

If all attempts to clarify your decrees or ramblings about the relevance of bringing accusations against the abrahamic simply bring further decrees and irrelevant accusations against the abrahamic (along with further aggressive undertones), your discussions will be short lived.

And since they aren't short lived, but instead much longer lived than good faith exchange would have made them, - - - - - maybe it's time to take a look at how observations and conclusions argued from evidence become "decrees" and "accusations".

The remaining subject of discussion becomes this posting nature, a format of nonsense so closely associated with overt and declared Abrahamic monotheists on science forums as to almost identify them.

 

[Musika]

How do atheists display an apparent lack of values?

And while you are spelling out the long list of Atheist moral decrepitude, why don't you address the Catholic church (priests), Islam (fanatical fatwahs), religious wars, all which clearly display a lack in values. In fact they display the exact opposite values of what they claim as good and sacred.

Keep it fair and balanced, can you? Read the "Skeptic's Annotated Bible" and learn the flawed values in the three major theist religions.
https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_(semiotics)

It was less ethics, more semiotics.

 

[Musika]

Instead of dealing with their posts, honestly and in good faith. Yep.
The bullshit "if", followed by the garbling of the Abrahamic theist on a science forum. It's a field mark, like the beak on a parrot.
(To forestall misunderstanding: there have been posted no such attempts at clarification.)

And since they aren't short lived, but instead much longer lived than good faith exchange would have made them, - - - - - maybe it's time to take a look at how observations and conclusions argued from evidence become "decrees" and "accusations".

The remaining subject of discussion becomes this posting nature, a format of nonsense so closely associated with overt and declared Abrahamic monotheists on science forums as to almost identify them.

QED

I'm beginning to think that in your haste to proclaim your views online, you somehow forgot you are not engaged in a discussion with someone representative of the abrahamic religion

 

[iceaura]

QED

Late. Earlier:

I would also equate that persons who render a subject as meaningless, already have some functioning model of meaning to work with.

Of course atheism demands that we live in a universe bereft of any sentience that is independent of external nature. Therefore clauses requiring an omnimax personality to get out of hiding and appear within the language of something one can kick around on a field is simply a use of language to maintain the status quo.

Hinduism, buddhism and islam vs christianity as an inherent religious (distinct from a political, economic and geographic) dichotomy?
At the very least, you desperately need a new buzz word aside from "abrahamic" ...

And the kicker is, without the fog of camouflage language employed in defense of the indefensible, the core of a serious critique of theistic religion as it exists in the context of modern civilization would become visible.
Imagine this rethought and recast as sense;
without the bullshit "if" twice in the first paragraph, the deaf misuse of "Far be it from", the fogterm "secularism" as a "mode of governance", the garbled presentation of a path that has capabilities of steering, in the second:

If you want to analyze absurd, self destructive behaviour based on myths and lies, look no further than industrial civilization fueled by consumerism. If you think the solution lies in disempowering or disenfranchising religion, you can't see the elephant in the room.
Far be it from secularism to be the form of government that rises to save humanity in its darkest hour, it appears to be the mode of governance that will be at helm when the world finally goes to hell in a handbasket.... or, to put it in more optimistic terms, there is no obvious path available to secularism that appears capable to steer civilization away from a trajectory headed to unprecedented levels of ecological, social, economical, political, etc disaster.

Modern religion isn't doing its job, in other words.
Could its ceaseless emission of nonsense in the face of scientific endeavor and discovery, exemplified here and on so many other science forums, suggest why?

 

[iceaura]

I'm beginning to think that in your haste to proclaim your views online, you somehow forgot you are not engaged in a discussion with someone representative of the abrahamic religion

There is no such thing as "the abrahamic religion", as has been long noted and well established here.
In my posts your posting exemplifies. It does not represent.
You do not discuss, either, and I have never thought of you as engaging in a discussion - there was nothing to forget.

The emission is ceaseless, multisourced, ubiquitous. That means motivated, funded, enabled, supported - agenda driven. Sense can be independent and still coordinate, based in a common reality. Nonsense in common indicates origin in common, guidance in common - dependence.

If we need religion to do its job, that dependence may have to be addressed.