Why is there so little intertheist discussion?

[Arioch]

@Jan --

Apart from that millitant atheism is way more interesting.

Wait, so when an atheist says "evidence or GTFO" they're being militant? But when a theist says "believe or be tortured for all eternity" they aren't?

How the fuck does that work?

@lightgigantic --

Just for you, since you seem to dislike atheist quips so much.

"Being an atheist is like being the only sober person in the car, and no one will let you drive."

 

[S.A.M.]

@Jan --



Wait, so when an atheist says "evidence or GTFO" they're being militant? But when a theist says "believe or be tortured for all eternity" they aren't?

How the fuck does that work?

A bit more complicated than what you suggest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists

 

[Arioch]

@SAM --

Wow, really. You're bringing a dead antitheistic but still religious movement that originated in the Soviet Union(by any standards still a theocracy) into this? You do realize that 99.9% of atheists do not fall into that category right? You do realize that the most vocal and active atheists of this day are also the most vocal and active supporters of freedom of(and by necessity from) religion?

And you're doing this with a straight face how?

 

[S.A.M.]

@SAM --

Wow, really. You're bringing a dead antitheistic but still religious movement that originated in the Soviet Union(by any standards still a theocracy) into this? You do realize that 99.9% of atheists do not fall into that category right? You do realize that the most vocal and active atheists of this day are also the most vocal and active supporters of freedom of(and by necessity from) religion?

And you're doing this with a straight face how?

Hence the specific notation of militant atheists

 

[wynn]

Wait, so when an atheist says "evidence or GTFO" they're being militant?

Jan didn't suggest that merely requiring evidence makes an atheist militant, did he?

 

[spidergoat]

Yes it was. One of its founding reasons was Darwinism. hitler’s main tenants was based on survival of the fittest and the subjugation and destruction of inferior examples of human "evolution" to facilitate the accelerated development of the superior race into a perfect race by scientific selective breeding methods.

Sadly for him and his fellow Darwinians their assessments of the superiority of the Arian racial ideal was unfounded. This was proven in the end because they did not manage to subjugate and exterminate the races they considered sub-human.

Many of them where wiped out by these same peoples they considered inferior.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

That's absurd, Hitler's racial theories had nothing to do with science, it was pseudoscience. They rejected any data that didn't fit their preconceived notions about race, and that's about as anti-science as you can get.

Nothing about Darwinism suggests that humans have to do anything to accelerate it. Fittest doesn't just mean the most brutal.

Furthermore, ideas about class and breeding preceded Darwinism by centuries.

 

[Rav]

But that’s YOU using YOUR mind as an assessment tool. Now if you come to the point in your life when you realise your mind is not an infallible and all knowing entity, you may come to the point of discomfort when you will genuinely call out asking for guidance.

I properly realized that my mind was fallible around about the same time that most people do. Somewhere in my mid to late teens I'd say.

Yeah because they want it to be true. The untruth fits their idea of what truth should be. The fault lies within them.

You're no less susceptible to making the same mistake, and are unable to produce anything that demonstrates otherwise. This puts you in no position to make judgments about the legitimacy of the beliefs of others. This need not be tied to the aforementioned examples since you're making the exact same judgments about the beliefs of others that thus far are not so demonstrably false.

If i saw people in such fierce contention over such a petty matter i would shake my head and wind up the window and go look for someone else to give me directions.

The situation is analogous to reality to the extent that no matter how many people you ask, there is still a similar collective disagreement concerning the correct route to the library. So you'd be shaking your head quite a bit.

 

[hardalee]

Then you do not believe God has one will?

Or you do not believe there is one God?

Are you a polytheist, or do you think God suffers from multiple personality disorder? Or maybe you think God plays sadistic games with different peoples telling one group His will is one thing and telling another peoples His will in an opposing thing?



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

God has not informed me of his will. If and when he does, I will obey.

Unitll then, I'm trying to figure it all out. I have no answers and nothing to preach.

This is a "discussion" as he OP states.

I welcome your input in my continuing search.

 

[Adstar]

You're no less susceptible to making the same mistake, and are unable to produce anything that demonstrates otherwise. This puts you in no position to make judgments about the legitimacy of the beliefs of others. This need not be tied to the aforementioned examples since you're making the exact same judgments about the beliefs of others that thus far are not so demonstrably false.

Of course i can make judgements about other peoples beliefs and declare them true of false as i deem fit. And i accept other people will declare my beliefs to be wrong. That’s what discussion and debate is all about. So don't talk to me about "rights" i don't care about rights, i have demands and i will follow them.

People can take what anyone says and decide what is truth. This repeated "you got no right to do it" is a load of bull excrement.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Adstar]

God has not informed me of his will. If and when he does, I will obey.

You made it clear that God has made many paths to Him. And you declared my calim that there is only one way as false.

You said this without being informed by God, And how will you obey God if He tells you there is only One way to Him and that is through the Atonement of the Messiah Jesus when you have made it clear.

I respect your opinion and accept your chosen way as a path to understanding, but cannot, no matter how hard I try, believe it is the only one.

Unitll then, I'm trying to figure it all out. I have no answers and nothing to preach.

Your preaching that there are many ways to God.

This is a "discussion" as he OP states.

This is what it is.

I welcome your input in my continuing search.

Really... I mean truly. Really???



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[hardalee]

You made it clear that God has made many paths to Him. And you declared my calim that there is only one way as false.

You said this without being informed by God, And how will you obey God if He tells you there is only One way to Him and that is through the Atonement of the Messiah Jesus when you have made it clear.

I said there may be many paths undstanding God. God did not say it, to the best of my knowledge, just me and many others. We may wrong.

I have not delclared your opinions wrong. They may be right. Others also may be right or wrong. Maybe none are right.

As to the second paragraph, I will adopt your opinions if God tells me too.

Failing a direct order to do otherwise, I will continue to search and study.

I don't think I'm preaching. I do not declare my opinions right, they are just questions. I take no part in declaring the beliefs of others right or wrong and repect the opinions of others though I may not currently agree with them.

This is a discussion, not a determination of what must be believed.

Kind Regards

 

[Rav]

People can take what anyone says and decide what is truth. This repeated "you got no right to do it" is a load of bull excrement.

I didn't mention anything about 'rights'. I was simply highlighting the fact that you don't have a solid platform from which to cast judgments about the beliefs of others.

When I engage theists in debate about the truth of their propositions concerning intangibilities, I am not declaring that they are absolutely wrong beyond any doubt whatsoever. By main beef is with declarations of certainty in the absence of reliable evidence, especially when they are in direct conflict with other declarations of certainty. So although from your clearly biased perspective you probably see me as yourself translated to the other end of the spectrum (in regard to the certainty you feel concerning the truth of your own propositions about intangibilities) I'm not actually your counterpart at all. I am instead someone who lacks the same degree of certainty that you have. So any appeal to the fact that there are others who are equally certain of the truth of their own beliefs (which are in conflict with yours) to support the idea that it is therefore perfectly fine for people to go around declaring the absolute truth of such mutually exclusive propositions to others (without reliable evidence), really doesn't seem legitimate to me at all.

 

[kx000]

God has not informed me of his will. If and when he does, I will obey.

Unitll then, I'm trying to figure it all out. I have no answers and nothing to preach.

This is a "discussion" as he OP states.

I welcome your input in my continuing search.

Revelation

 

[Arioch]

Jan didn't suggest that merely requiring evidence makes an atheist militant, did he?

Not directly no, however he has implied that those like Dawkins and Hitchens are militant atheists when all they've done is write books which point out that the theists have no evidence. If that's being militant then every single religious person who proselytizes is a terrorist by comparison.

 

[GeoffP]

Militant is a very unfortunate term. A militant should militate; yet, many do not. Thus neither Dawkins nor Hitchens are 'militant' per se: one is merely an asshole, and the other quite godly. (Not necessarily in that order...but, yes, honestly, in that order.)

 

[Rav]

Militant is a very unfortunate term

mil·i·tant
adjective
1. vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause: militant reformers.
2. engaged in warfare; fighting.

Even if one were to accept that "vigorously active and aggressive" is a reasonable description of the type of atheist that would typically be labeled "militant" by a theist, most atheists don't consider their atheism to be a "cause" by default. It would be more accurately characterized as a situation where atheists become combative in response to collective efforts to push theism onto them. Then of course there is the suggestion (if not outright assertion) that resistance results in agonizing and eternal torture, which just compounds the issue.

Make no mistake. Militant atheism is most often a product of theism, rather than the lack of it.

 

[Adstar]

I didn't mention anything about 'rights'. I was simply highlighting the fact that you don't have a solid platform from which to cast judgments about the beliefs of others.

When I engage theists in debate about the truth of their propositions concerning intangibilities, I am not declaring that they are absolutely wrong beyond any doubt whatsoever. By main beef is with declarations of certainty in the absence of reliable evidence, especially when they are in direct conflict with other declarations of certainty. So although from your clearly biased perspective you probably see me as yourself translated to the other end of the spectrum (in regard to the certainty you feel concerning the truth of your own propositions about intangibilities) I'm not actually your counterpart at all. I am instead someone who lacks the same degree of certainty that you have. So any appeal to the fact that there are others who are equally certain of the truth of their own beliefs (which are in conflict with yours) to support the idea that it is therefore perfectly fine for people to go around declaring the absolute truth of such mutually exclusive propositions to others (without reliable evidence), really doesn't seem legitimate to me at all.

I never saw you as my counterpart. You not confidant to stand up for anything. Except for uncertainty. As you say you are not sure, you lack certainty and probably always will for the rest of your life. So because you lack certainly all you can do is attack certainty. Certainty in others makes you feel uneasy,

Oh a counterpart to me would be a committed Satanist who believes satan is the true God and YAVEH the God of Abraham is the evil one.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Rav]

I never saw you as my counterpart. You not confidant to stand up for anything. Except for uncertainty.

Once again you are trying to reduce me to nothing more than a stance on the existence of God, conveniently ignoring my previous elaboration on this topic in this very thread. In other words, according to you I'm not who I say I am. I'm who you say I am. That's a perfect way to go through your entire life not understanding the first thing about anyone other than yourself.

It's funny (although somewhat predictable) how often theists rather quickly turn into ignorant arrogant little children when they are pressed.

As you say you are not sure, you lack certainty and probably always will for the rest of your life. So because you lack certainly all you can do is attack certainty. Certainty in others makes you feel uneasy

And more of the same.

 

[Arioch]

@Adstar --

Why is uncertainty such a bad thing? It's certainly a hell of a lot better than the arrogance that comes from certainty(and ignorance).

 

[Dywyddyr]

You not confidant to stand up for anything. Except for uncertainty. As you say you are not sure, you lack certainty and probably always will for the rest of your life. So because you lack certainly all you can do is attack certainty. Certainty in others makes you feel uneasy

What a marvellous illustration of your own arrogance and a failure to grasp Rav's point:

I was simply highlighting the fact that you don't have a solid platform from which to cast judgments about the beliefs of others.

Plus a false accusation.
Nice.