They can beg all they want, I'm not signing anything.
Why do Americans still dislike atheists?
- Thread starter Fraggle Rocker
- Start date
Well now, see here. Take a group of Atheists together and if i make it know i have a belief, say any belief, or even if i make one up for myself and i beleive it. May be true, may not be true. For all they know it can surely be true, they have not checked, have no proof it is not true. How would the Atheist group react towards this person? I think we all know the answer to that.
:blbl:
:blbl:
Really? We all know?
oh, yeah. we all know. in a small group it is more dependent on the personalities of the individuals, primarily the obvious one. In a much larger group does not seem like the person would be accepted.
Quoted for truth.
More likely to come to our homes and slap us on both cheeks or in my case since I am an agnostic, one face cheek and an ass slap!
The atheist claim to be rational and scientific, yet neither are necessary conditions to become an atheist. There are many irrational atheists, since the only requirements are "say no to god" and learn some basic talking points, most of which need to be critical and/or parasitic of religion. Beyond that one has more freedom for irrationality compared to religion. Atheists can get away with more.
The misrepresentation of atheism being rational makes some people think this is an evil religion, especially since it has no positive message but relies heaviely on negativity for recruitment. One can take a person out of religion, but you can't always take religion out of a person. Many irrational atheist have simply made atheism their new religion.
When atheism finally develops a postive message, and does not have to always be a parasite onto religion, to help recruit its irrational minions, it will start to get more acceptance.
Let us try to discuss this subject, without any atheist parasite talking points, to see how close atheism is to upgrading.
The misrepresentation of atheism being rational makes some people think this is an evil religion, especially since it has no positive message but relies heaviely on negativity for recruitment. One can take a person out of religion, but you can't always take religion out of a person. Many irrational atheist have simply made atheism their new religion.
When atheism finally develops a postive message, and does not have to always be a parasite onto religion, to help recruit its irrational minions, it will start to get more acceptance.
Let us try to discuss this subject, without any atheist parasite talking points, to see how close atheism is to upgrading.
I'm somewhat amused by the implied definition/characterization of "religion" in there. Apparently it's just some set of emotionally-held pretexts for being irrational and ganging up on others. That people are willing to eviscerate their view of "religion" in order to make it into a term for tarring atheists, is something of a facepalm spectacle.
Also, I like the implication that all atheists are necessarily "converts" from some religion, and therefor presumably weirdos/rejects who didn't fit in with a "good" religion. Not "like" in that I agree with the characterization, but "like" in that I enjoy the underlying chauvinism being made so apparent, apparently unwittingly.
Not according to Christians... lol
You continue to make a total ass of yourself. Yes, you don't need to be rational to be an atheist, since technically atheism is defined by only one philosophical position. However, in reality, if you want to be rational, most religions are not your friend. Faith is the opposite of being rational. In reality, modern atheists tend to accept secular humanism, which is a far more ethical position than accepting the word of some bronze age militant chauvinists.
In one paragraph, you curse atheism for being a religion, then you condemn them for not being dogmatic enough to match religion in it's moral codes. You can't have it both ways. If it lacks a defined dogma, it's not a religion!
And you must be unable to read. His contention that "atheism is a religion" has been shown to be incorrect a number of times here, let alone elsewhere in the real world. And that has been pointed out to him. Yet he persist in repeating it while failing to justify his repetition.
Just a defense mechanism to swipe at atheism. Same with the "science is a religion" stuff. It is only religions that are religions, these all having to do with a god.
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
That is true (and the same can be said about any philosophical or theological position), but in my experience there is a strong correlation between atheism and rational materialism. Rational materialism is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to be an atheist, but is being black is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to playing in the NBA—yet the correlation is definitely there.
The reason for the correlation seems self evident. People who lean towards an analytical view of the world tend to be disproportionately dissatisfied with answers to questions that must be taken "on faith". People who are less analytically inclined have less of a problem with taking things on faith. Once an individual has determined that "faith" is not a compelling reason for him or her to believe in a thing, you start casting about looking for other belief systems than the one you were raised with. Once you determine that all theistic religions lean strongly on faith at some level, it becomes very easy to identify oneself as an agnostic. Once there, though, you have to acknowledge that being agnostic, and saying that you do not know whether there is or is not a God, is very much akin to saying that you do not know whether there is or is not a Flying Spaghetti Monster....with the only difference being that "God" and various other deities have a lot more believers (none of whom have objective evidence of His or their existence). So the last step into atheism is pretty straight forward (unless one is happy to admit there there could be a Flying Spaghetti Monster and to remain "agnostic" on his existence too).
Rational materialism is an easy add on for these people, because it is a philosophical position that pervades science and does not require that one believe in any particular set of unprovable propositions. It does allow one to believe in many unproven and unprovable things, but all that it otherwise requires is that one discard objectively disproven hypotheses (like the Biblical Flood story, on the notion that world is balanced on the back of the World Turtle).
Last edited:
This "truth", is always proven by the atheists, which is a conflict of interest. I don't think that can be that rational. We need an unbiased third party to decide. Polititian tend to tell you what you expect to hear.
If you look at the history of science, science constantly evolves and changes as new data and theory appears. For example, the discovery of DNA altered the earlier versions of evolution, which had failed to include this. Because change is normal in science, dogmatic insistence of truth, using the current state of the art, is an illusion based on science history data.
Unless you are objective to the changing trends in science history, dogmatic insistence make atheism a religion. This is enforced by using a prestige effect as though the word science carries magical attributes that make the temporary appear steady state. I come up with new ideas all the time, since I know permanent is a religious illusion.
Empirical black box science uses the same special effects that are tradtionally called an oracle. With an oracle, one is on the dark (black box) trying to predict the future. It does not use reason and logic, exclusively, but looks at signs from the oracle. Would atheist renouce all oracles in favor of logic? That is more pagan than mainstream religion.
We need a third party to arbitrate.