My bad, that was a spelling mistake ... should have been :
their example shows there is nothing intrinsic to atheism to rein in genocide, persecution, etc.
Religious Nonsense
- Thread starter StrangerInAStrangeLand
- Start date
- Status
their example shows there is nothing intrinsic to atheism to rein in genocide, persecution, etc.
... says the guy who thinks (¿demands?) he is arguing with an adherent of abrahamic religion.
Last edited:
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
and, therein lies the peculiar vision of the anti-abrahamist who stylize themselves as anti religious atheist, who would define god and then reject their defined deity. In no small part, they are arguing against a creation of their own imaginations.
Last edited:
I brought up communism to illustrate how atheism can and has played a role in delivering ill effects when coupled with an aggressive political ideology.
I brought up secularism to illustrate how limiting or denying religion any inherent political or judicial voice (or relegating it to the civil sphere), far from having taken the helm to navigate a path to world peace, has simply delivered more of the same intra and international conflict with the added whamy of industrial civilization stacking the wager to a historically unprecedented level of catastrophe.
In this context, equivocating secularism and communinism begins and ends at the point of establishing that atheism fails to be a panacea that the faithful commonly allude it to be.
Last edited:
Yes, the shadow boxing of an "abrahamic atheist" is certainly a "thing".
Last edited:
As is the never ending shadow dancing of the fill in the blank theist.
Fixed that for you.
You guys never - never - guess right.
The question becomes whether you intend to guess right - since you never guess anything but insult, simple trolling suffices to explain inveterate error.
Here's a free one: What I think? You are an Abrahamic theist. That's what I think. Why? Because you identified your beliefs in multiple posts here, complete with Biblical references and characteristically framed references to a deity you label "God".
Irrelevant. He was talking about me, and wrong again - and I always take a theist's word for their deity.
But I do hold them to those words.
As far as other atheistic folks setting out to "define" some god or another - it happens. It's not nearly as common as a theist "defining" other people's deities for them, though. That's almost universal.
And notice, again, this fog in the language. One doesn't "define god", or "reject" a "defined deity". That doesn't mean anything, if read carefully. Reading the typical overt and aggressive theist's post in a science forum is a continual exercise in extracting meaning from muddle via intentional fudging and unfocusing - like those pictures that emerge from scattered dots if you cross your eyes.
It's as if someone were camouflaging their thoughts, rather than presenting them.
Last edited:
Had any meaningful interaction with your shadow deity lately?
Just a recent contribution of yours ....
You : Not for referring to Abrahamic religions and their adherents, such as yourself.
If I say, " There are persons who cannot discuss ideas beyond the kaleidoscope of their imagined enemies, such as yourself", have I not just identified you with a category?
It's so clear, it's difficult to understand why a rational person would call it a guess.
Whoa, that doesn't read right.
I own to being responsible for your presumption and any honest confusion, in this case. Carelessness, my only explanation.
The plural there - Abrahamic religions - was meant to forestall the accusation of accusation of any given one, meaning any formal and institutionalized one. As always, I have to imagine a bad faith response, see, and try to block the obvious.
Rereading your accurate near quote
(- which oddly you do not put in quotes, as you do for your misquotes and misled paraphrases; what's up with that?) I see where you got that without bad faith, necessarily. So whether or not you are in fact a free-lance Abrahamic theist - reader and believer in the Bible but in no sense Christian, say - I owe an apology.
The presumption remains, though, wrong: - and of course nothing in my responses rests on your adherence to any particular religion. We aren't dealing with discussion-relevance, just personal insult, here.
You can't possibly tell us you don't recognize the concept of a straw man fallacy.
The difference between what one can recognize, and what these guys actually post, was the point.
When you ask questions like that, it just begs the question why you have to run off again into the shadows and claim that atheism does not bring with it any prepackaged ideas.
I'll go with, A'ight, then.
Part of it is just—
—sometimes the way in which you're correct sounds like a joke. Like agreeing that atheistic folks generally don't "'define' some god or another", but only because they don't seem capable of defining even whatever pretense of God they are criticizing.
Quite frankly, these are the weirdest discussions to watch.
• • •
Atheism certainly does not bring with it any prepackaged ideas other than its fundamental assertion that there is no God.
Atheists, however, are human, and as full of prepackaged whatnot as anyone else.
In other words you haven’t had any meaningful interaction with deities lately. Have you ever had any such interactions?
In spades.
University finds prominent astrophysicist Lawrence Krauss grabbed a woman’s breast
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018...sicist-lawrence-krauss-grabbed-woman-s-breast
Slartibartfast
Registered Member
Do you even understand what the term atheism means? It would seem not, from the posts you submit.
Only a minority of atheistic people harbor atheism, in that case.
Most atheistic people - world wide and history long - either don't know or don't care, for a wide variety of reasons. They aren't going around making assertions about gods that are not part of their lives.
No, in very specific words you are suggesting there is some criteria for a meaningful interaction with God. Unless you were bringing tools of assessment to the table, your wouldn't even think to suggest such criteria.
- Status