Atheists/Agnostics
Options
Comments
-
soul rattler wrote: »soul rattler wrote: »What it always comes down to with atheist is that they want ? the sovereign master of reality to do what they want him to do.
But it doesn't work like that people want pain to go away but ? doesn't necessarily want the pain and suffering to go away how and when we want it to.
Wrong. What most atheists understand is that pain and suffering exist as a result of avoidable and unavoidable circumstances. Once you introduce a sovereign master of reality, everything become subject into that being's every whim.
In a world where you have supreme authority over all things, to subject someone to pain for the mere purpose of thanking you for taking the pain away is not empathetic or compassionate. It is morbid and horrifyingly apathy.
And if there's anyone who basis there religious beliefs on what a ? would I would not do, it's the people who believe in a deity. Those are the people who appropriate the concepts of omnipresence, omnipotence, and eternal rewards and consequences to their advantage to get everyone else to live the way that they want them to live.
An atheist says, "? this, I'll live my life based on what I know to be real and what I know to be right. Not what desert dwellers from a couple thousand years ago, or corrupt and perverted Church goers made up."
that's not what the bible teaches it's what you atheist imagine it teaches the atheist war on religion ( which is really a war of the ? of abraham) is run on the of gross ignorance of the actually doctrines of the christian religion.
you atheist are free to live your life as you choose believe whatever you want but when you mischaracterize the tenets and beliefs of a persons religion you need to under stand that the result will often be some kind of conflict.
If I say I don't like the smell of ? matter because it smells bad, you don't get to say "you're just saying that because you don't know what ? matter REALLY smells like".
No ? , ? stank cause ? stank.
my ? don't stink
Ladies and gentlemen, religion. -
soul rattler wrote: »soul rattler wrote: »soul rattler wrote: »What it always comes down to with atheist is that they want ? the sovereign master of reality to do what they want him to do.
But it doesn't work like that people want pain to go away but ? doesn't necessarily want the pain and suffering to go away how and when we want it to.
Wrong. What most atheists understand is that pain and suffering exist as a result of avoidable and unavoidable circumstances. Once you introduce a sovereign master of reality, everything become subject into that being's every whim.
In a world where you have supreme authority over all things, to subject someone to pain for the mere purpose of thanking you for taking the pain away is not empathetic or compassionate. It is morbid and horrifyingly apathy.
And if there's anyone who basis there religious beliefs on what a ? would I would not do, it's the people who believe in a deity. Those are the people who appropriate the concepts of omnipresence, omnipotence, and eternal rewards and consequences to their advantage to get everyone else to live the way that they want them to live.
An atheist says, "? this, I'll live my life based on what I know to be real and what I know to be right. Not what desert dwellers from a couple thousand years ago, or corrupt and perverted Church goers made up."
that's not what the bible teaches it's what you atheist imagine it teaches the atheist war on religion ( which is really a war of the ? of abraham) is run on the of gross ignorance of the actually doctrines of the christian religion.
you atheist are free to live your life as you choose believe whatever you want but when you mischaracterize the tenets and beliefs of a persons religion you need to under stand that the result will often be some kind of conflict.
If I say I don't like the smell of ? matter because it smells bad, you don't get to say "you're just saying that because you don't know what ? matter REALLY smells like".
No ? , ? stank cause ? stank.
my ? don't stink
Ladies and gentlemen, religion.
ladies and gentlemen ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ SWINE -
-
Ajackson17 wrote: »
when i am much older and have accumulated all the money i want -
Ajackson17 wrote: »
when i am much older and have accumulated all the money i want
I feel you bro, I'm trying to head there when I gained the money I need to set up what I need to set up down there. -
what happened to imgoingtoheavenru? lol
-
i dont really believe in ? but its much easier to just play along isnt it
-
what happened to imgoingtoheavenru? lol
I'm right here my friend.
Can I ask you a question @A Ghost ? -
go ahead
-
-
www.scientificamerican.com/article/in-atheists-we-distrust/
usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-12-10/religion-atheism/51777612/1
People don't like atheist.
IT IS totally absurd to believe that the earliest human did not believe in gods because all our earliest records indicate that they did. I am not conversatating with you to try and prove my ? to you i have no interest in doing that all i am doing it confronting your slander that is it
you are bringing up irrevelent ? i never mentioned anything about moral superority but atheist really don't have any moral in the sense that you don't have any code of conduct each individual atheist is a law giver unto himself.
"Death is the solution to all problems. No man - no problem." stalin
I'm actually familiar with these studies which is why I emphasized the word "planet" they only survey Americans. As mentioned earlier, if this was done in a secular European country, the stats would have been much different. Considering the majority of Americans are Christians, I find it bothersome and idiotic they lump non-believers in with ? .
It's really not but I've already conceded the point that there's no definitive proof either way since human history is much older than it's written past.
That's absurd, we have something called the Golden Rule which is found in every culture, religious or non-religious because it's indicative of our nature as human beings. We don't need a celestial dictator who can punish us of thought crime to tell us not to ? one another or even to derive morals from.
Atheism isn't a belief system, it's actually the lack of a belief. By definition, it isn't so. Most atheists, modern day at least ascribe to secular humanism/naturalism as our belief system. To your point of Josef, -
And_So_It_Burns wrote: »
www.scientificamerican.com/article/in-atheists-we-distrust/
usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-12-10/religion-atheism/51777612/1
People don't like atheist.
IT IS totally absurd to believe that the earliest human did not believe in gods because all our earliest records indicate that they did. I am not conversatating with you to try and prove my ? to you i have no interest in doing that all i am doing it confronting your slander that is it
you are bringing up irrevelent ? i never mentioned anything about moral superority but atheist really don't have any moral in the sense that you don't have any code of conduct each individual atheist is a law giver unto himself.
"Death is the solution to all problems. No man - no problem." stalin
I'm actually familiar with these studies which is why I emphasized the word "planet" they only survey Americans. As mentioned earlier, if this was done in a secular European country, the stats would have been much different. Considering the majority of Americans are Christians, I find it bothersome and idiotic they lump non-believers in with ? .
It's really not but I've already conceded the point that there's no definitive proof either way since human history is much older than it's written past.
That's absurd, we have something called the Golden Rule which is found in every culture, religious or non-religious because it's indicative of our nature as human beings. We don't need a celestial dictator who can punish us of thought crime to tell us not to ? one another or even to derive morals from.
Atheism isn't a belief system, it's actually the lack of a belief. By definition, it isn't so. Most atheists, modern day at least ascribe to secular humanism/naturalism as our belief system. To your point of Josef,
stalin was the worst human being in history and it does not surprise me that an atheist would defend him
since the vast majority of the human species is not atheist ( thank ? ) it is perfectly logical to believe that most people reject atheism and atheist. The only bastion of atheism is western europe AND i think some communist nations like cuba and china but even those two nations are not really atheist and the populations of native europeans are in decline so like i said most people on earth don't like atheist or atheism.
any way the golden rule by itself is a horrible yardstick of morality because it presupposes that how you want to be treated is how all people want to be treated and that you should treat them accordingly, that you should see the humanity in the other.
morality is about thinking and perception not just action, if you have to see someone as yourself to treat them well then your actions toward this person while it may or may not produce a positive end for that person that end in of itself is not necessarily a good and i cannot concisely say that your action was moral at all -
Stalin was the worst human being in history and it does not surprise me that an atheist would defend him
since the vast majority of the human species is not atheist ( thank ? ) it is perfectly logical to believe that most people reject atheism and atheist. The only bastion of atheism is western europe AND i think some communist nations like cuba and china but even those two nations are not really atheist and the populations of native europeans are in decline so like i said most people on earth don't like atheist or atheism.
any way the golden rule by itself is a horrible yardstick of morality because it presupposes that how you want to be treated is how all people want to be treated and that you should treat them accordingly, that you should see the humanity in the other.
morality is about thinking and perception not just action, if you have to see someone as yourself to treat them well then your actions toward this person while it may or may not produce a positive end for that person that end in of itself is not necessarily a good and i cannot concisely say that your action was moral at all
Not sure how you could possibly read my last post and conclude I was defending him. You presented Stalin as an atheist, I was giving a contrary view of how he was portrayed in the Soviet Union. Stalin was an admitted atheist yet took advantage of the lingering credulity left by the orthodox church and was viewed as deity in some respects
"The sacralization of the party opened the way to the sacralization of Stalin when he became the supreme leader. After 1929, the political religion of Russia mainly concentrated on the deification of Stalin, who until his death in 1953 dominated the party and Soviet system like a tyrannical and merciless deity. [29]"
Not sure if I can put this more plainly than I did in my other posts but I'll try. It's inane to reject a non-belief on a particular claim. "Atheism" isn't a belief system. The suffix "ism" is unnecessary and misleading. I believe the terms you're looking for are anti-theist or secular humanism. What do you mean by "not really atheist" it's not an ambiguous term.
I think empathy is a better term for the golden rule and it's implications are the same. Hard to believe if someone never heard of religion or ? they wouldn't know how to empathetic to another person. -
And_So_It_Burns wrote: »Stalin was the worst human being in history and it does not surprise me that an atheist would defend him
since the vast majority of the human species is not atheist ( thank ? ) it is perfectly logical to believe that most people reject atheism and atheist. The only bastion of atheism is western europe AND i think some communist nations like cuba and china but even those two nations are not really atheist and the populations of native europeans are in decline so like i said most people on earth don't like atheist or atheism.
any way the golden rule by itself is a horrible yardstick of morality because it presupposes that how you want to be treated is how all people want to be treated and that you should treat them accordingly, that you should see the humanity in the other.
morality is about thinking and perception not just action, if you have to see someone as yourself to treat them well then your actions toward this person while it may or may not produce a positive end for that person that end in of itself is not necessarily a good and i cannot concisely say that your action was moral at all
Not sure how you could possibly read my last post and conclude I was defending him. You presented Stalin as an atheist, I was giving a contrary view of how he was portrayed in the Soviet Union. Stalin was an admitted atheist yet took advantage of the lingering credulity left by the orthodox church and was viewed as deity in some respects
"The sacralization of the party opened the way to the sacralization of Stalin when he became the supreme leader. After 1929, the political religion of Russia mainly concentrated on the deification of Stalin, who until his death in 1953 dominated the party and Soviet system like a tyrannical and merciless deity. [29]"
Not sure if I can put this more plainly than I did in my other posts but I'll try. It's inane to reject a non-belief on a particular claim. "Atheism" isn't a belief system. The suffix "ism" is unnecessary and misleading. I believe the terms you're looking for are anti-theist or secular humanism. What do you mean by "not really atheist" it's not an ambiguous term.
I think empathy is a better term for the golden rule and it's implications are the same. Hard to believe if someone never heard of religion or ? they wouldn't know how to empathetic to another person.
You are straying the conversation and going off on tangents stalin was a horrible man and an atheist him abusing his power and building a personality cult around him only further supports my view that people who follow atheism have no moral code and he forced the people to build this cult around him did they really look at him as being a ? ??? highly unlikely.
not really atheist = Only being atheist on paper but the people still believe
YOU CAN consider the rejection of atheism inane if you wish the fact remains that people do not like atheism or atheist. -
You are straying the conversation and going off on tangents stalin was a horrible man and an atheist him abusing his power and building a personality cult around him only further supports my view that people who follow atheism have no moral code and he forced the people to build this cult around him did they really look at him as being a ? ??? highly unlikely.
not really atheist = Only being atheist on paper but the people still believe
Could you please articulate how not being convinced of a particular claim = no moral code? How does one follow "atheism" Like I said it's not an ideology. It's not even a "rejection" of a claim as it would be impossible to prove a negative. It says nothing about how one should live their life. Either I have been ambiguous or you're simply not getting it.
To your second point, how do you know people lie about that? In most cases the opposite is true, atheists populations are usually under counted. -
And_So_It_Burns wrote: »
You are straying the conversation and going off on tangents stalin was a horrible man and an atheist him abusing his power and building a personality cult around him only further supports my view that people who follow atheism have no moral code and he forced the people to build this cult around him did they really look at him as being a ? ??? highly unlikely.
not really atheist = Only being atheist on paper but the people still believe
Could you please articulate how not being convinced of a particular claim = no moral code? How does one follow "atheism" Like I said it's not an ideology. It's not even a "rejection" of a claim as it would be impossible to prove a negative. It says nothing about how one should live their life. Either I have been ambiguous or you're simply not getting it.
To your second point, how do you know people lie about that? In most cases the opposite is true, atheists populations are usually under counted.
Not being convinced ? exists doesn't mean you have no morals. there are religious people that aren't convinced there ? exists. But they still have morals because they adhere to the lessons of that ? .
The whole point I made a few posts ago was that atheist invent their own moral code as they go along and once you do that you really have no morals at all.
Follow atheism was bad wording on my part but basically it just means you stick to the unbelief in ? And you support all the theories that try to prove that a ? cannot exist for any given reason. How do I know Russians didn't really worship Stalin??? It's safe to assume they didn't because coincidently right after he died his "cult" died. Also now you say atheist don't have a belief system but earlier you said they adhere to naturalism.
Atheist populations are tiny as ? on a world wide scale from africa to India stretching over into asia. Tiny as ? . China which is one of the "not really atheist " nations I was talking about has a rapidly growing Christian population and many other believers in other religions. While on paper the nation is atheist do you get what I am saying now??? -
There are ton loads of books that has been written about atheism, atheist have websites devoted to atheism, there are college classes that center around atheism.
There are many organizations that support and push atheism. Yet somehow some atheist don't believe modern day atheism is an ideology.
-
And_So_It_Burns wrote: »
www.scientificamerican.com/article/in-atheists-we-distrust/
usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-12-10/religion-atheism/51777612/1
People don't like atheist.
IT IS totally absurd to believe that the earliest human did not believe in gods because all our earliest records indicate that they did. I am not conversatating with you to try and prove my ? to you i have no interest in doing that all i am doing it confronting your slander that is it
you are bringing up irrevelent ? i never mentioned anything about moral superority but atheist really don't have any moral in the sense that you don't have any code of conduct each individual atheist is a law giver unto himself.
"Death is the solution to all problems. No man - no problem." stalin
I'm actually familiar with these studies which is why I emphasized the word "planet" they only survey Americans. As mentioned earlier, if this was done in a secular European country, the stats would have been much different. Considering the majority of Americans are Christians, I find it bothersome and idiotic they lump non-believers in with ? .
It's really not but I've already conceded the point that there's no definitive proof either way since human history is much older than it's written past.
That's absurd, we have something called the Golden Rule which is found in every culture, religious or non-religious because it's indicative of our nature as human beings. We don't need a celestial dictator who can punish us of thought crime to tell us not to ? one another or even to derive morals from.
Atheism isn't a belief system, it's actually the lack of a belief. By definition, it isn't so. Most atheists, modern day at least ascribe to secular humanism/naturalism as our belief system. To your point of Josef,
stalin was the worst human being in history and it does not surprise me that an atheist would defend him
since the vast majority of the human species is not atheist ( thank ? ) it is perfectly logical to believe that most people reject atheism and atheist. The only bastion of atheism is western europe AND i think some communist nations like cuba and china but even those two nations are not really atheist and the populations of native europeans are in decline so like i said most people on earth don't like atheist or atheism.
any way the golden rule by itself is a horrible yardstick of morality because it presupposes that how you want to be treated is how all people want to be treated and that you should treat them accordingly, that you should see the humanity in the other.
morality is about thinking and perception not just action, if you have to see someone as yourself to treat them well then your actions toward this person while it may or may not produce a positive end for that person that end in of itself is not necessarily a good and i cannot concisely say that your action was moral at all
? Stalin though. The ones I ? with are Dr. Ben Jochannan, Dr. Clarke, George GM James, George Jackson and etc prolific black men and then there are those who are theists I ? with. I don't ? with european atheists not at all. -
atheists/agnostics if you found out that praying to jesus/or bowing to mecca would make your life alot easier
but in your heart you still wouldnt believe.
would you do it, pray? -
And_So_It_Burns wrote: »
You are straying the conversation and going off on tangents stalin was a horrible man and an atheist him abusing his power and building a personality cult around him only further supports my view that people who follow atheism have no moral code and he forced the people to build this cult around him did they really look at him as being a ? ??? highly unlikely.
not really atheist = Only being atheist on paper but the people still believe
Could you please articulate how not being convinced of a particular claim = no moral code? How does one follow "atheism" Like I said it's not an ideology. It's not even a "rejection" of a claim as it would be impossible to prove a negative. It says nothing about how one should live their life. Either I have been ambiguous or you're simply not getting it.
To your second point, how do you know people lie about that? In most cases the opposite is true, atheists populations are usually under counted.
Not being convinced ? exists doesn't mean you have no morals. there are religious people that aren't convinced there ? exists. But they still have morals because they adhere to the lessons of that ? .
The whole point I made a few posts ago was that atheist invent their own moral code as they go along and once you do that you really have no morals at all.
Follow atheism was bad wording on my part but basically it just means you stick to the unbelief in ? And you support all the theories that try to prove that a ? cannot exist for any given reason. How do I know Russians didn't really worship Stalin??? It's safe to assume they didn't because coincidently right after he died his "cult" died. Also now you say atheist don't have a belief system but earlier you said they adhere to naturalism.
Atheist populations are tiny as ? on a world wide scale from africa to India stretching over into asia. Tiny as ? . China which is one of the "not really atheist " nations I was talking about has a rapidly growing Christian population and many other believers in other religions. While on paper the nation is atheist do you get what I am saying now???
No again you're wrong about a very basic definition. Religion and atheism are not mutually exclusive. Many Buddhist, Hindus, Taoists, Jains, Shintoists and even Jews consider themselves atheists. Would you be willing to say these people invent their own moral code?
If I said that, which I doubt I did, I misspoke. Some atheists, particularly in Western countries adhere to secular humanism/naturalism but naturalism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. I'm going to try again to explain this. There's no uniting positive proclamation that's mutually exclusive among atheists. Atheists can be religious, believe in the supernatural, be anti-scientific, be liberal or conservative be immoral or moral. I hope this is finally clear to you because I'm tired of explaining it.
If you'd like to debate on naturalism etc....we can make another thread.
No I really don't "get what your saying now" like I asked before, how do you know these people "are not really atheist" what proof do you have? As I said earlier, most times it's usually the reverse. Atheists usually under report themselves due to the wording of polling questions. -
atheists/agnostics if you found out that praying to jesus/or bowing to mecca would make your life alot easier
but in your heart you still wouldnt believe.
would you do it, pray?
We'll do you mean the act of prayer made my life easier? I would still say no. I think as rational adults we have an obligation to ourselves to believe what's evident not what's convenient. I consider myself a skeptic to all supernatural claims too so I'd like the idea of an afterlife to be true but I can't bring myself to believe.
-
atheists/agnostics if you found out that praying to jesus/or bowing to mecca would make your life alot easier
but in your heart you still wouldnt believe.
would you do it, pray?
The easy route can be the ? route. -
And_So_It_Burns wrote: »And_So_It_Burns wrote: »
You are straying the conversation and going off on tangents stalin was a horrible man and an atheist him abusing his power and building a personality cult around him only further supports my view that people who follow atheism have no moral code and he forced the people to build this cult around him did they really look at him as being a ? ??? highly unlikely.
not really atheist = Only being atheist on paper but the people still believe
Could you please articulate how not being convinced of a particular claim = no moral code? How does one follow "atheism" Like I said it's not an ideology. It's not even a "rejection" of a claim as it would be impossible to prove a negative. It says nothing about how one should live their life. Either I have been ambiguous or you're simply not getting it.
To your second point, how do you know people lie about that? In most cases the opposite is true, atheists populations are usually under counted.
Not being convinced ? exists doesn't mean you have no morals. there are religious people that aren't convinced there ? exists. But they still have morals because they adhere to the lessons of that ? .
The whole point I made a few posts ago was that atheist invent their own moral code as they go along and once you do that you really have no morals at all.
Follow atheism was bad wording on my part but basically it just means you stick to the unbelief in ? And you support all the theories that try to prove that a ? cannot exist for any given reason. How do I know Russians didn't really worship Stalin??? It's safe to assume they didn't because coincidently right after he died his "cult" died. Also now you say atheist don't have a belief system but earlier you said they adhere to naturalism.
Atheist populations are tiny as ? on a world wide scale from africa to India stretching over into asia. Tiny as ? . China which is one of the "not really atheist " nations I was talking about has a rapidly growing Christian population and many other believers in other religions. While on paper the nation is atheist do you get what I am saying now???
No again you're wrong about a very basic definition. Religion and atheism are not mutually exclusive. Many Buddhist, Hindus, Taoists, Jains, Shintoists and even Jews consider themselves atheists. Would you be willing to say these people invent their own moral code?
If I said that, which I doubt I did, I misspoke. Some atheists, particularly in Western countries adhere to secular humanism/naturalism but naturalism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. I'm going to try again to explain this. There's no uniting positive proclamation that's mutually exclusive among atheists. Atheists can be religious, believe in the supernatural, be anti-scientific, be liberal or conservative be immoral or moral. I hope this is finally clear to you because I'm tired of explaining it.
If you'd like to debate on naturalism etc....we can make another thread.
No I really don't "get what your saying now" like I asked before, how do you know these people "are not really atheist" what proof do you have? As I said earlier, most times it's usually the reverse. Atheists usually under report themselves due to the wording of polling questions.
I don't consider any of those groups of people atheist i was under the assumption that your knew i was talking about western modern day styled atheist not people who follow a religious doctrine that lacks a ? but still affirms the existence of the supernatural . ANOTHER thing that irks me about some atheist you like to claim people as being atheist when they really are not.
Pay attention i was talking about nations not individuals when i said they were not really atheist and only atheist on paper, with the actual population being religious why do you think i talked about china??? come on man pay attention what i am saying is not rocket science. -
I don't consider any of those groups of people atheist i was under the assumption that your knew i was talking about western modern day styled atheist not people who follow a religious doctrine that lacks a ? but still affirms the existence of the supernatural . ANOTHER thing that irks me about some atheist you like to claim people as being atheist when they really are not.
Pay attention i was talking about nations not individuals when i said they were not really atheist and only atheist on paper, with the actual population being religious why do you think i talked about china??? come on man pay attention what i am saying is not rocket science.
.......this isn't a gray issue and I can't believe I have to explain this again to someone I considered to be one of the smarter posters. It's not ambiguous. The people I described earlier are atheists by definition. There aren't varying degrees. Either you are or you are not. If you don't consider these people to be atheist, then you obviously don't know the meaning of the word. If it lacks ? it is atheist....for GODSFUCKINGSAKE!!!!!!!!!
Let me help you articulate your own damn argument since you're not getting. You have a problem or fundamental disagreement with materialist/naturalist/secular humanist who ascribe to empirical rationalism and skepticism. Unless you don't know the definition of atheist, you're going to have to concede your earlier point about moral system and atheism.
Again, religion and atheism are compatible
....I'm not sure why I have to repeat myself so much, I usually enjoy our back and forth.. -
And_So_It_Burns wrote: »
I don't consider any of those groups of people atheist i was under the assumption that your knew i was talking about western modern day styled atheist not people who follow a religious doctrine that lacks a ? but still affirms the existence of the supernatural . ANOTHER thing that irks me about some atheist you like to claim people as being atheist when they really are not.
Pay attention i was talking about nations not individuals when i said they were not really atheist and only atheist on paper, with the actual population being religious why do you think i talked about china??? come on man pay attention what i am saying is not rocket science.
.......this isn't a gray issue and I can't believe I have to explain this again to someone I considered to be one of the smarter posters. It's not ambiguous. The people I described earlier are atheists by definition. There aren't varying degrees. Either you are or you are not. If you don't consider these people to be atheist, then you obviously don't know the meaning of the word. If it lacks ? it is atheist....for GODSFUCKINGSAKE!!!!!!!!!
Let me help you articulate your own damn argument since you're not getting. You have a problem or fundamental disagreement with materialist/naturalist/secular humanist who ascribe to empirical rationalism and skepticism. Unless you don't know the definition of atheist, you're going to have to concede your earlier point about moral system and atheism.
Again, religion and atheism are compatible
....I'm not sure why I have to repeat myself so much, I usually enjoy our back and forth..
some of the groups you mentioned are cannot be simply labeled atheist and according to atheist there are varying degrees of atheism i.e hard vs strong.
and in any case if your were paying attention i have always been talking about modern western styled atheism adherents of that form of atheism have no morals. Bringing up all those eastern religions proves nothing because none of them are really atheistic they are actually either theistic or agnostic in the true sense.
