Atheism 2.0

by Qcmbr 384 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Terry
    Terry

    There is no reason for me to discuss anything to do with religion with those who practise it.

    Thank you for PROVING MY POINT!

  • Terry
    Terry

    We cannot even think without words.

    ^ This wasn't always the case. In fact much of our genetics come from lines where there was no spoken language. Those people still wanted to find truth just as we do. I don't believe words are required for truth, but they can be used to expedite it.

    -Sab

    Citation needed, please!

  • Terry
    Terry

    Any intellectually honest person will admit that he does not know why the universe exists.

    I'm intellectually honest and I don't think the question "why" even applies to existence of the universe. So, we are assuming a fact not in evidence.

    Logic relies on Axioms as does Geometry. Axioms are a "given". Would we ask "why" an Axiom exists? No.

    ax·i·om/'akse?m/Noun: A statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true: "the axiom that supply equals demand".

  • sabastious
    sabastious
    Atheism is just a facet of a rational mind, Sab. I identify myself as "An Atheist" only in a context like this one, because in here it comes down to a pinpoint focus on this very small aspect of who I am. I reject faith in ancient books simply because they demand my acceptance of things that cannot be rationalised intelligently. Honesty, in order to be real, has to be manifested first within oneself.

    You have identified yourself as intellectually honest because of your decision of atheism. One doesn't require atheism in order to be intellectually honest, neither does it require believing in a God. It just requires being truly honest with ones self and then the position that comes forth IS intellectually honest even if what comes out is not accepted by others.

    -Sab

  • Terry
    Terry

    Atheism isn't so much an argument as it is a fart in an elevator. "Here, smell my opinion."

    The corollary is that theism is a pile of excrement on the elevator floor which everyone must by convention honour and respect, if not smell and eat. Atheism doesn't fly jet planes into buildings, doesn't seek to incarcerate people for what they do when they are naked or who commit any other victimless "crime" in the privacy of their own homes.

    The corollary is that Atheism as practiced by Chairman Mao, Joseph Stalin and their ilk are every bit as deadly because of the Absolute nature of the authority they assert over others. There is no "practical" difference between consequences. Atheists cannot claim any moral superiority. Morality can only be moral when it is practiced as a positive rather than a negative.

  • Terry
    Terry

    Regardless, as an atheist I am very happy to leave you and believers like you with the beliefs that you hold dear. All I ask in return is that you do not try to impose them on my life, knowing full well that that is something you cannot do.

    Madalyn Murray O'Hair started the modern Atheist movement which has become a political force IMPOSING upon others their views. The American Atheist website is available for viewing if you doubt it.

  • Terry
    Terry

    Atheism is just a facet of a rational mind, Sab. I identify myself as "An Atheist" only in a context like this one, because in here it comes down to a pinpoint focus on this very small aspect of who I am.

    I don't see Athesim as rational at all in this way: when you close the door to disconfirmation you stifle the ability to learn from being proved wrong.

    Science cannot be "atheist" it must remain agnostic.

    All "KNOWLEDGE" is conditional upon the proviso of disconfirmation!

  • sabastious
    sabastious
    Citation needed, please!

    We evolved from lower primates. I believe that less evolved primates is where language came to be in our evolutionary timelines. Check out the Gelada Baboon's social structures. They have a language that cannot be translated because it's not like our language, but it is communication through vocal chords. My point was that our ancient primate ancestors did fine without a complex language system. When I said "no spoken language" I meant no defined words like we use today.

    -Sab

  • Nickolas
    Nickolas

    I suppose I might ask you, Terry, if you believe there is a reason the universe exists. If you believe it was created by God, then it follows that you believe He did so for a purpose. What is religion if not seeking to understand the meaning of life within the context of the universe?

    No, Sab, it is the other way around. I am identifying myself as an atheist because of my intellectual honesty. I held onto faith and belief in God only by suspending disbelief. I perceive that people of faith, those who accept things which are by definition unobservable and for which there is and can be no evidence are not being honest with themselves. From my persepective, if you are truly honest with yourself you will be unable to not let go of the notion of a personal god.

  • bohm
    bohm

    Terry:

    And I see that you wish to engage on a more "personal" level with pejoratives.

    I call it as I see it, your original post was more bullshit than bollocks.

    Conveniently, you've chosen a most tepid example! Atheism has a history and a provenance. All sorts of atheists have made statements.

    No no no. Conveniently, i choose a statement which most accurately describe my own beliefs about God. Incidently, i ALSO believe that statement quite accurately describe MANY (if not MOST) atheists sentiment on this site. If i am wrong i do hope they will correct me in that error. If you want to talk about anything convenient about my definition, it is that dawkins himself (if i recall correctly) toured around in a bus with pretty much the exact same statement --there probably is no god-- written on the side. I will suggest he did so because he actually believe the statement.

    What is convenient is that you parade a definition of atheism around which make atheism a a-priori (thus not evidence based!) position, and make bold sweeping statements based on that definition. Very convenient, and not at all without irony given you spend so much energy about how important it is to acccurately use the language.

    A couple of quick quotes from professional writers first.

    And we all know that if a professional writer said it...! A funny observation is that none of your prefessional writer describe atheism as an a-priori belief, but since i doubt you would be swayed by me quoting other professional authors let us leave it with that.

    (3) if you for some reason believe my statement is entirely inaccurate to describe the average elevator-farting superiority-complex-suffering insensitive atheist with tendency towards closely-held absolutes, do give us some more insight in what we /really/ believe. It is rare you get this kind of analysis for free!

    Terry: While I sense the emotional tone level of your response I think it is rather self-indulgent and irrelevent.

    You are just dodging the question and being a bit passive-agressive about it. First i mainly quoted your many statements about atheists from your first post. If it seem highly emotional to you now lets just say i too found them emotional when you made them originally.

    But the question is very valid. since you are of the belief the statement i made to represent atheists is "convenient" and thus does not generally apply, I do hope you will back up your many statements about how important it is to carefully define ones words and explain what atheists (in general and in your oppinion) really believe. What christopher hitchens believe about mother theresa (in particular) clearly does not answer that question. And we can agree he is rude, but I do think he make a couple of valid points along the way, such as many of her statements about powertry being nonsence and her resistance about birth-control probably did little to help the people in her area.

    I'm guessing that you've taken a public Discussion personally. Since you weren't singled out--I can only wonder "why"? Is your ego connected in some way to impersonal topics? I can't fathom it. You imply I consider myself "superior" in some way.

    Really? Why? Am I not allowed to voice an opinion in a Discussion Group without you getting your knickers in a wad?

    I can help. I describe myself as an atheist. You say "atheists believe so and so" and compare atheists oppinion in general to farting in elevators. Even if you do not intend it, and even if you have a perculiar definition of atheist which is wrong, it is very hard for me to see how your statements about atheists (in general) do not apply to me (in particular) because they do so logically.

    It is equivalent to saying: "A socialist, ie. that all companies should be owned by the government". You may phrase it as a general statement, but it would (logically) also be a statement about any particular socialists beliefs.

    Am I not allowed to voice an opinion in a Discussion Group without you getting your knickers in a wad?

    There is that irony again!

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit