Enmos
Valued Senior Member
It's obviously complete and utter nonsense. Seems like she has resorted to blatant lies to make her inane 'point'.
Why does evolution select against atheists?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
It's obviously complete and utter nonsense. Seems like she has resorted to blatant lies to make her inane 'point'.
it also doesn't comply with any known natural phenomenon either.
the same can be said of the existence of life too.
I've seen how athiests are left free to attack theists here and how theists' complaints are ignored. I've already said this before, but when I first came here and was stalked by some of the atheists of this forum, in response to my complaint Cris essentially said suck it up. There have been many instances of people being treated very shabbily and the moderators twiddling their fingers, but when the tables are turned, the moderators will jump in with purple pandas and threaten a ban if "evidence" and "citation" is not given.
So yeah, forget the big picture, I've seen the whole painting in progress. One of the nastiest ones was the treatment of sandy
Last edited:
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
So yeah, forget the big picture, I've seen the whole painting in progress. One of the nastiest ones was the treatment of sandy
You must be kidding..
Theists are not attacked here, their beliefs are.
You were not attacked at all, your beliefs were.
Why can't you tell the difference?
What does any of that have to do with hatred or bigotry?
We can do better than that. We're Muslims.
Jews should not have moved to a predominantly Muslim state.
The difference is that when Muslims occupy, the power remains with the local people.
If it's antisemitism to oppose the Jewish takeover of Palestine, then I'm a proud antisemite.
I would rather be free to practise my religion even if it is obstructive to them (atheists), than have them be free to be obstructive to me.
Yup, all still correct.
Yeah, that's what I thought. You still don't get it.
A general note around
S.A.M., James, (Q)
In truth, S.A.M. has something of a point about atheists at this forum. Not all of them by any means, but some of our atheists have turned into the same kind of zealous bigots we've always rejected of religious people. And, yes, our natural disposition toward the rational potential of atheism has left the moderation perhaps a little blind to it.
It's one of the reasons I don't post much in the Religion forum anymore. Does anyone remember the long posts explaining the history of Christian theology, of how the psychology developed over time, and how I wondered why more Christians don't know the history of their own faith?
I don't blame you if you don't. With only a couple exceptions, none of our atheists ever really cared. Rational potential is one thing, but let me know when that potential bears fruit.
I remember once I tried to explain to atheists that in asking a Christian to come away from faith, they were asking that one give over their foundation for morality. And then I asked them to enlighten us on their own moral and ethical foundations. And the response I got was essentially cowardice: Atheism doesn't have a moral assertion. Yeah, I know, but what about an atheist? Without God telling the newly-freed mind how to behave, how do they figure out right and wrong?
Atheists really didn't want to answer.
I used to be a regular defender of atheism in the Religion subforum. But when I realized the atheists by and large just didn't care that much, I decided to leave them to it.
Atheism at Sciforums is represented in an exceptionally deplorable manner, often being treated specifically as a club to beat over stupid people's heads. With only a couple of longstanding exceptions, I really don't give a damn what our atheists have to say about religion because not only is so much of it uneducated bullshit, but so many of the atheists have no interest in actually learning about what moves them to complain. They don't actually want solutions. They don't want to understand. Rather, they're just a bunch of supremacists justifying their hatred.
Human history is a fascinating, thrilling, and often morbid tale. Christians, for instance, might view events in a thoroughly perverse context, but at least they understand a little something of the magnitude of what they're looking at. Atheists at Sciforums are suggestive, in truth, of what boomers and Xers fear of Generation Why. I know a lot of these people are smart, but they're just indifferent to that fact. They don't actually want to help the world get over redemptive monotheism. They just like to complain about it.
She may not be seeing the whole picture, but she is seeing what our atheists are offering. And no, it doesn't speak well of them.
Atheists at Sciforums should just say, "Fuck Richard Dawkins". They need to go read well-written, conscientious history about the development of religion. (Ask Cris about Karen Armstrong.) They need to see translations of source documents; seriously, Tertullian is a laugh. It's well enough to view religious people as victims of a great fraud, but that also demands compassion.
The atheistic representation at Sciforums demonstrates virtually no desire to be helpful. It really does look selfish, as if bashing religion is about personal satisfaction, and making the world a better place for our neighbors and future generations is too much to ask people to even think about. Oh, unless, of course, you can mold that into a bludgeon.
S.A.M., James, (Q)
In truth, S.A.M. has something of a point about atheists at this forum. Not all of them by any means, but some of our atheists have turned into the same kind of zealous bigots we've always rejected of religious people. And, yes, our natural disposition toward the rational potential of atheism has left the moderation perhaps a little blind to it.
It's one of the reasons I don't post much in the Religion forum anymore. Does anyone remember the long posts explaining the history of Christian theology, of how the psychology developed over time, and how I wondered why more Christians don't know the history of their own faith?
I don't blame you if you don't. With only a couple exceptions, none of our atheists ever really cared. Rational potential is one thing, but let me know when that potential bears fruit.
I remember once I tried to explain to atheists that in asking a Christian to come away from faith, they were asking that one give over their foundation for morality. And then I asked them to enlighten us on their own moral and ethical foundations. And the response I got was essentially cowardice: Atheism doesn't have a moral assertion. Yeah, I know, but what about an atheist? Without God telling the newly-freed mind how to behave, how do they figure out right and wrong?
Atheists really didn't want to answer.
I used to be a regular defender of atheism in the Religion subforum. But when I realized the atheists by and large just didn't care that much, I decided to leave them to it.
Atheism at Sciforums is represented in an exceptionally deplorable manner, often being treated specifically as a club to beat over stupid people's heads. With only a couple of longstanding exceptions, I really don't give a damn what our atheists have to say about religion because not only is so much of it uneducated bullshit, but so many of the atheists have no interest in actually learning about what moves them to complain. They don't actually want solutions. They don't want to understand. Rather, they're just a bunch of supremacists justifying their hatred.
Human history is a fascinating, thrilling, and often morbid tale. Christians, for instance, might view events in a thoroughly perverse context, but at least they understand a little something of the magnitude of what they're looking at. Atheists at Sciforums are suggestive, in truth, of what boomers and Xers fear of Generation Why. I know a lot of these people are smart, but they're just indifferent to that fact. They don't actually want to help the world get over redemptive monotheism. They just like to complain about it.
She may not be seeing the whole picture, but she is seeing what our atheists are offering. And no, it doesn't speak well of them.
Atheists at Sciforums should just say, "Fuck Richard Dawkins". They need to go read well-written, conscientious history about the development of religion. (Ask Cris about Karen Armstrong.) They need to see translations of source documents; seriously, Tertullian is a laugh. It's well enough to view religious people as victims of a great fraud, but that also demands compassion.
The atheistic representation at Sciforums demonstrates virtually no desire to be helpful. It really does look selfish, as if bashing religion is about personal satisfaction, and making the world a better place for our neighbors and future generations is too much to ask people to even think about. Oh, unless, of course, you can mold that into a bludgeon.
The short answer to the question is to do exactly what our genetics are programmed to do... ask two questions:
1) Is the other life form mean?
2) Is the other life form valuable?
Unfortunately, trying to explain to a Christian that morality doesn't necessarily originate entirely from a single book of myths and superstitions has been fruitless.
You were saying...
Ok. What about an atheist? What does not accepting the unfounded claims of the supernatural from Christians (or any other cult) have to do with making a moral assertion? You're talking about two difference things. You seem to be just as confused as Sam on this topic.
If morals didn't exist before Christians claimed they did, we wouldn't be here. Hence, morals did exist and had very different beginnings, just like the morals of everyone else. They evolved along with us.
Would a Christian ever agree to that?
That's certainly not a fair critique, considering the many centuries of religious indoctrination compared with recent scientific thought.
Nonetheless, the explanations of how morals have evolved over millions of years right along with our species and many others.
"In Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, Ivan puts it another way: if there is no God, then we are lost in a moral chaos. "Everything is permitted." De Waal calls this "Veneer Theory." In this view, human morality is a thin crust on a churning urn of boiling funk. In reality, de Waal reminds us, dogs are social, wolves are social, chimps and macaques are social, and we ourselves are "social to the core." Goodness, generosity and genuine kindness come just as naturally to us as meaner feelings. We didn’t have to invent compassion. When our ancestors began writing down the first codes of conduct, precepts, laws and commandments, they were elaborating on feelings that evolved thousands or even millions of years before they were born. "Instead of empathy being an endpoint," de Waal writes, "it may have been the starting point."
"Primates and Philosophers" by Frans de Waal.
And, what solutions would you suggest considering blind faith, myth and superstitions and the conviction to them are the formidable opponents?
The preference is to be rid of monotheism, but do suppose that will happen any time soon?
Let's not forget that you are just as confused as she is about atheism.
No, it does not demand compassion.
And, none should be forthcoming until the slavery and oppression of monotheism has been eliminated.
It's time to take a stand and not kowtow to the religiously deluded.
Thanks for the pathetic, disgusting, grotesque, hateful drivel; you make their point
Don't blame your own personal failures on Christians this time.
It often seems as if our atheistic evangelists think it's an easy thing, just drop God like you would toss an empty can in a recycle bin.
Look at them as human beings first, instead of Christians. They're like anyone else. In this case, many don't understand how morality can come about without an establishing authority. Our atheistic fundies make no real attempt to explain this.
It's not about making things better when you go about it like that. It's about pride, and petty denunciations to make one feel better about himself.
What the hell are you talking about, (Q)? The question was never about whether or not you or any other atheist should accept supernatural claims. Are you really so self-centered that this is all you can see?
No, (Q), you're just playing the role of bottom-shelf bigot on this.
Not when a raving lunatic is spewing it in his face.
Just ... try for once, (Q). That's not too much to ask is it? Or is human sympathy off-limits?
To reiterate, in asking a Christian to come away from faith, they were asking that one give over their foundation for morality. This creates a vacuum. Atheistic evangelists generally offer nothing to fill that void. This isn't a consequence of atheism specifically, but of the bigotry of various atheists.
The Christian's question would be, So where does morality come from? Simply saying it's always been there is about as nebulous as saying it comes from God.
An example? Camus' Myth of Sisyphus; Rilke's Letters to a Young Poet; Perdurabo's Book of Lies. Indeed, that latter has theistic overtones, especially as Perdurabo was a magicker, but one must necessarily be capable of looking past that. These are just a few from my own canon. Camus makes sense compared to observation. Rilke appeals to humanity, compassion, and truth. Perdurabo's lies are philosophical riddles that often make valid observations about the human mind and its passions.
Just for starters. "God" is a simple answer. Baring your conscience for another to consider is a lot more difficult.
But you, you're too wise for that aren't you? You're too good for that, aren't you? By no means should you have to stoop to being honest and trusting in the presence of religious people, should you?
Your sense of fair is about as significant as a corpse's sense of life. It's a fair critique when atheists dodge the question and say, "Atheism doesn't make any moral assertions."
Of course it doesn't. But atheists still have morals, don't they? Or were the zealots right when they said that atheism can only lead to amorality and immorality?
Atheistic evangelism has for so long been nothing more than an exercise in psychological self-gratification that it's no wonder many have gone blind.
Goodness, generosity, and genuine kindness are a bit subjective a measure, don't you think? I mean, some people beat their kids or spouse, and believe they're doing it for love. Some people condemn civil rights, and say they're promoting justice. Not every kindness is kind. Not every goodness is good. Not every generosity is generous.
Everything is permitted: Well, what, then, are the boundaries one draws? How does one justify those boundaries? These are the questions our atheists dodged.
Certainly not an equal measure of the same.
I don't know ... maybe if atheists are supposed to be so much smarter than the superstitious, they could try showing it for once.
Not as long as atheistic fundamentalists continue to inflame religious people's fears. As I see it, there's a cycle going on like we see in politics. Keep them angry, keep them defensive. That way you can just go on being a complete bigot and never actually have to do anything genuine, honest, or useful.
Let's not forget that you're a hack bigot with zero credibility under the sun. Your atheism is a disgrace to humanity, (Q). It is nothing more than a variation on a toxic theme.
Then you will only perpetuate your sorrows. But that's a convenient outcome, isn't it? Because then you can just keep on sacrificing your intellect to hatred.
So what, then? If you're not going to communicate with ideas, will bullets work any better? Really, what do you suggest if honesty and reason are anathema?
(Q) said:
Don't blame your own personal failures on Christians this time.
It often seems as if our atheistic evangelists think it's an easy thing, just drop God like you would toss an empty can in a recycle bin.
Look at them as human beings first, instead of Christians. They're like anyone else. In this case, many don't understand how morality can come about without an establishing authority. Our atheistic fundies make no real attempt to explain this.
It's not about making things better when you go about it like that. It's about pride, and petty denunciations to make one feel better about himself.
What the hell are you talking about, (Q)? The question was never about whether or not you or any other atheist should accept supernatural claims. Are you really so self-centered that this is all you can see?
No, (Q), you're just playing the role of bottom-shelf bigot on this.
Not when a raving lunatic is spewing it in his face.
Just ... try for once, (Q). That's not too much to ask is it? Or is human sympathy off-limits?
To reiterate, in asking a Christian to come away from faith, they were asking that one give over their foundation for morality. This creates a vacuum. Atheistic evangelists generally offer nothing to fill that void. This isn't a consequence of atheism specifically, but of the bigotry of various atheists.
The Christian's question would be, So where does morality come from? Simply saying it's always been there is about as nebulous as saying it comes from God.
An example? Camus' Myth of Sisyphus; Rilke's Letters to a Young Poet; Perdurabo's Book of Lies. Indeed, that latter has theistic overtones, especially as Perdurabo was a magicker, but one must necessarily be capable of looking past that. These are just a few from my own canon. Camus makes sense compared to observation. Rilke appeals to humanity, compassion, and truth. Perdurabo's lies are philosophical riddles that often make valid observations about the human mind and its passions.
Just for starters. "God" is a simple answer. Baring your conscience for another to consider is a lot more difficult.
But you, you're too wise for that aren't you? You're too good for that, aren't you? By no means should you have to stoop to being honest and trusting in the presence of religious people, should you?
Your sense of fair is about as significant as a corpse's sense of life. It's a fair critique when atheists dodge the question and say, "Atheism doesn't make any moral assertions."
Of course it doesn't. But atheists still have morals, don't they? Or were the zealots right when they said that atheism can only lead to amorality and immorality?
Atheistic evangelism has for so long been nothing more than an exercise in psychological self-gratification that it's no wonder many have gone blind.
Goodness, generosity, and genuine kindness are a bit subjective a measure, don't you think? I mean, some people beat their kids or spouse, and believe they're doing it for love. Some people condemn civil rights, and say they're promoting justice. Not every kindness is kind. Not every goodness is good. Not every generosity is generous.
Everything is permitted: Well, what, then, are the boundaries one draws? How does one justify those boundaries? These are the questions our atheists dodged.
Certainly not an equal measure of the same.
I don't know ... maybe if atheists are supposed to be so much smarter than the superstitious, they could try showing it for once.
Not as long as atheistic fundamentalists continue to inflame religious people's fears. As I see it, there's a cycle going on like we see in politics. Keep them angry, keep them defensive. That way you can just go on being a complete bigot and never actually have to do anything genuine, honest, or useful.
Let's not forget that you're a hack bigot with zero credibility under the sun. Your atheism is a disgrace to humanity, (Q). It is nothing more than a variation on a toxic theme.
Then you will only perpetuate your sorrows. But that's a convenient outcome, isn't it? Because then you can just keep on sacrificing your intellect to hatred.
So what, then? If you're not going to communicate with ideas, will bullets work any better? Really, what do you suggest if honesty and reason are anathema?
I'm not rejecting them because they are zealous, but because they are being zealous in the name of irrational fairytales. There's nothing wrong with being zealous for science, rationality, and humanism!
There is no goddamn answer. The religious have a book with a set of answers that someone somewhere just made up. You and I have to make them up too, based on what seems right. There is no absolute right and wrong act for every situation.
I'm not indifferent to the great tale that is humanity with all it's faults and religions. Without it there would be no Beethoven or Cathedrals, but we need to move on. We just have to quit being irrational cold turkey.
Why? He's a great scientist and writer on the subject of religion. He pisses the religious off because his insights are so true and compelling, and he does so in a perfectly calm, rational way.
Of course, posting here is about my personal satisfaction. I'm under no pretense that I'm trying to do good, or change society. Religion has much to answer for, it deserves the bashing it gets.
When the Jews abandoned their religion, they came up with Zionism. They replaced Tikun Olam with racial ethnocracy and murdered people for land and resources. Now they bulldoze homes orchards and chickens to prove their moral superiority.
Atheism is incompatible with civil society.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/06/israel-human-rights-police
Atheism is incompatible with civil society.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/06/israel-human-rights-police
Wow.
I suppose I should have seen this coming, given that atheism and Israel are S.A.M.'s twin passions, and the enthusiasm with which she conflates those that disagree with her.... but still, I'd imagined that this final leap was just too ridiculous even for her.
Nor is it a secret that Jesus was a Jew. That doesn't make Christianity into an instance of Judaism.