Author Topic: Wasn't it nice when Atheists would just aplogize for existing  (Read 871 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Wasn't it nice when Atheists would just aplogize for existing
« on: January 23, 2012, 01:15:19 PM »
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christian-piatt/atheism-a-null-hypothesis_b_1208844.html


How difficult is it to get "I don't believe in Santa. I don't believe in God. I don't see a difference"
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Samuelxcs

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 669
  • Darwins +6/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • The oldest and strongest emotion of humans is fear
    • Fallen Angels
Re: Wasn't it nice when Atheists would just aplogize for existing
« Reply #1 on: January 23, 2012, 01:21:40 PM »
Apologize for existing?! If the theists want the atheists to apologize they must be insane and deluded....
"The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naïve forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget."
-Thomas Szasz

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10784
  • Darwins +275/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Wasn't it nice when Atheists would just aplogize for existing
« Reply #2 on: January 23, 2012, 01:23:20 PM »
Theists? Deluded? Nah...
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Wasn't it nice when Atheists would just aplogize for existing
« Reply #3 on: January 23, 2012, 01:38:53 PM »
Quote
For some, God is an anthropomorphic "other." For others, as philosopher John D. Caputo suggests, it's not that God exists as some independent metaphysical entity, but rather God "insists, so that the rest of creation might exist."
Put another way, God is the impetus, the spark, the divine breath, the "inspiration," if you will from which all the rest of creation finds meaning. But God is not to be found "elsewhere." It's more like light in that way, conspiring with the physical world to create something that makes sense. Yet to borrow a scientific concept, when you're seeing an object, what you're actually seeing is the light, or more specifically, the result of the interaction between the light and the observed object.
But you don't see the thing itself; you see the light. But the light is the means by which we find meaning in all that we see.
Pretty amazing understanding of God if you ask me. But how do you measure it? How do you prove it? Or disprove it?
Ah, the usual attempts to redefine “god” since any definition of god so far has been easily shown not to exist.  I do love how theists run to science to make themselves sound “smart”.  In this analogy, there is light reflecting of an existing object.  We know the object exists since there is light reflecting off of it, its mass, etc.  Light is also measurable and we know what it is too.  But then we have this “god” thing, which now is being define as something subjective and nebulous: “impetus, the spark, the divine breath, the "inspiration," if you will from which all the rest of creation finds meaning”.  I find meaning without appealing to any vague notions of divine breathing.  Objects and actions are given meaning by my interactions with them, no woo needed. 

This theist wants to claim that there is some magical interaction between this “god” and reality.  Funny how he can’t show this to be true as indeed gravity, light, atoms, have already been show to have.  This: “But all of those things -- and I'd argue, much more we've yet to discover -- have been a part of creation, despite our inability to observe or even conceive of them. Making room for those possibilities, seem, to me, to be at the heart of science as much as the rigorous processes defined by the scientific method.”  Is a pathetic rewriting of the god of the gaps argument.  Ooooh, I’m so impressed :P
Quote
However, to leap from that to certitude of God's non-existence is to violate the principles of the scientific method, isn't it? Even Aristotle conceded that the boundaries of science prohibited it from testing certain metaphysical phenomena such as the existence of God.
And clear back to Aristotle.  Again, the theist redefines “god” and ignores that if this god does in fact interact with the physical world, then by definition we should be able to test its existence. 

Finally we simply see the attempt to claim that golly atheists are being fundamentalists because they demand evidence.  That’s like saying that I must be a fundamentalist because I demand evidence that a medicine will work and not trust baseless claims.  Poor theists, how dare I ask for the same evidence from you as I ask for everything in my life.  How dare I don’t trust you blindly and how dare I notice how much your claims fail? 
 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2733
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wasn't it nice when Atheists would just aplogize for existing
« Reply #4 on: January 23, 2012, 02:04:35 PM »
Even if what this guy says is true, it should only lead to a deist concept of god.  This guy is jumping to the bible's version of god[1].  He still needs to show that the evidences leads to the god of the bible, rather than some vague, undefinded god that (probably) has little involvment with us human beings.  He bashes atheists for jumping to conclusions, then becomes guilty of the exact same thing.   &)
 1. Or rather; what he thinks is the bible's version of god
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline Nick

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10294
  • Darwins +177/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wasn't it nice when Atheists would just aplogize for existing
« Reply #5 on: January 23, 2012, 02:06:27 PM »
OK, Christians, I am so sorry for not believing in an imaginary sky daddy who will grant your wishes (prayers) if you feel guilty all the time and deny yourself basic human wants.  Now can I look down on others?
Yo, put that in your pipe and smoke it.  Quit ragging on my Lord.

Tide goes in, tide goes out !!!

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7275
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Wasn't it nice when Atheists would just aplogize for existing
« Reply #6 on: January 23, 2012, 02:17:39 PM »
That article was a complete piece of garbage.  Not even worth skimming.  The author is an idiot, and gets to tell us all about it.  Big whoop.

Offline Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2733
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wasn't it nice when Atheists would just aplogize for existing
« Reply #7 on: January 23, 2012, 02:27:25 PM »
I wonder if this guy feels the same way about the tooth fairy.

Quote
In my graduate studies, I learned that every time you formed a hypothesis (Tooth Fairy is), you were also required to develop a null hypothesis that says the opposite of your hypothesis (Tooth Fairy isn't). Keep in mind that there are no "facts" in science, but rather hypotheses (educated guesses) and theories (hypotheses that have been supported by science, but that may ultimately be disproved). Now, I'm not a scientist, but it makes perfect sense within this model to have the "null hypothesis" that Tooth Fairy doesn't exist.

However, to leap from that to certitude of Tooth Fairy's non-existence is to violate the principles of the scientific method, isn't it? Even Aristotle conceded that the boundaries of science prohibited it from testing certain metaphysical phenomena such as the existence of Tooth Fairy.

It seems to me, to paraphrase Paul (like Huxley), that we risk becoming that which we hate in staking claims of certainty on either side of this issue. In pushing back primarily against religious fundamentalism, atheism risks embracing the very fundamentalism it resists. And in doing so, it abandons the very principles of science it claims as the basis for non-belief.

I can work with a null hypothesis on the existence of Tooth Fairy. There's room for dialogue. It creates space for creative imagination on both sides, whereas fundamentalism of any stripe seeks to draw lines of distinction (ie, division) and to stem conversation for the purpose of "being right."

I don't know if Tooth Fairy exists. You don't know if Tooth Fairy doesn't exist. But if scientists can not only coexist on both sides of a hypothesis, but even use that difference to promote progress, it seems we can and should apply similar principles to the public forum.

Hmm... makes as much sense to me.
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4734
  • Darwins +538/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Wasn't it nice when Atheists would just aplogize for existing
« Reply #8 on: January 23, 2012, 02:32:30 PM »
Seems to me that all he's saying is that there's no way to be certain.  Which is not unreasonable.  While I agree that there's a total lack of impartial evidence, that goes both ways.

Also, what harm does it do to leave Christians and other theists a "hole in the corner"?  I'm serious here.  If they want to believe in the deity of their choice, as long as they understand that there's no proof and that they thus have no basis for demanding special treatment or anything else because of that belief, it seems to me that it'll solve the real problems inherent with religion.  Is it more important to eradicate religious belief, or to get religion out of the central position it holds in American society?

Offline Frank

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2363
  • Darwins +38/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • You're doin' my head in!!
Re: Wasn't it nice when Atheists would just aplogize for existing
« Reply #9 on: January 23, 2012, 02:44:28 PM »
Quote
I respect the process and constraints of the scientific method. It has been critical to so much of the advancement we've made as a species. but to say that even science is entirely constrained by the scientific method is to ignore the creative imagination required to stretch the boundaries, to imagine what might be, beyond what is now understood to be. It's this kind of imagination that pushes humanity to create new tools that have allowed us to observe things we never knew existed before.

I can imagine a lot of thngs. Do they all exist because nobody can prove they don't? The whole concept is absurd.
"Atheism is not a mission to convert the world. It only seems that way because when other religions fall away, atheism is what is left behind".

Offline Frank

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2363
  • Darwins +38/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • You're doin' my head in!!
Re: Wasn't it nice when Atheists would just aplogize for existing
« Reply #10 on: January 23, 2012, 02:46:15 PM »
If they want to believe in the deity of their choice, as long as they understand that there's no proof and that they thus have no basis for demanding special treatment or anything else because of that belief,

If only it was that easy eh?
"Atheism is not a mission to convert the world. It only seems that way because when other religions fall away, atheism is what is left behind".

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Wasn't it nice when Atheists would just aplogize for existing
« Reply #11 on: January 23, 2012, 02:55:20 PM »
Seems to me that all he's saying is that there's no way to be certain.  Which is not unreasonable.  While I agree that there's a total lack of impartial evidence, that goes both ways.
  I have plenty of evidence that the claims of the bible are wrong and that the god from it is imaginary.     Only by making a god this vague feeling:" impetus, the spark, the divine breath, the "inspiration," if you will from which all the rest of creation finds meaning"  can one have any hope of hiding god under a cloud of woo.   

Do we have to look under ever rock and redefine god as many times as necessary to cling to such a stupid beleif?  If I catch a ant in my "god" trap, does that make it a "god"? 
Quote
Also, what harm does it do to leave Christians and other theists a "hole in the corner"?  I'm serious here.  If they want to believe in the deity of their choice, as long as they understand that there's no proof and that they thus have no basis for demanding special treatment or anything else because of that belief, it seems to me that it'll solve the real problems inherent with religion.  Is it more important to eradicate religious belief, or to get religion out of the central position it holds in American society?

where are these theists that do exactly as you want them to do, Jaime?   Which ones happily agree that there is no proof for their claims and who agree that they do not deserve any special treatment?  If we had theists like your imaginary ones, they'd cause a lot less consternations than the real ones.

and one gets religion out of the central position as part of the process of eradicating it.

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline caveat_imperator

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 197
  • Darwins +6/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wasn't it nice when Atheists would just aplogize for existing
« Reply #12 on: January 23, 2012, 03:25:56 PM »
So, is the author going to turn the other cheek when he doesn't get the apology he's not entitled to?
You can't prove a negative of an existence postulate.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7275
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Wasn't it nice when Atheists would just aplogize for existing
« Reply #13 on: January 23, 2012, 05:13:34 PM »
Seems to me that all he's saying is that there's no way to be certain.  Which is not unreasonable.  While I agree that there's a total lack of impartial evidence, that goes both ways.

Also, what harm does it do to leave Christians and other theists a "hole in the corner"?  I'm serious here.  If they want to believe in the deity of their choice, as long as they understand that there's no proof and that they thus have no basis for demanding special treatment or anything else because of that belief, it seems to me that it'll solve the real problems inherent with religion.  Is it more important to eradicate religious belief, or to get religion out of the central position it holds in American society?

They can stay in their hole, and believe what they want as far as I'm concerned.  But this writer is pretending that he doesn't know what an atheist is, and further lying about it for no other reason than to prop up a belief system that doesn't need any propping up.  Millions and millions apparently believe this shit.  It's the far smaller group, the atheists, that are being called out for the absolute dumbest reason ever. 

I'll tell anyone that asks me directly, that all gods are imaginary, and that none of them are anything but man-made ideas and mythology.  And I have zero burden of proof for that, because I am an atheist.  I stand solid in my complete disbelief in gods because there is simply no evidence of there ever having been one.  And don't get me started on the pathetic ones invented by humans!

Hell, the atheists on this forum alone could come up with a god that make all of the gods so far look pathetic.  That's what imagination is capable of.  But these people are trying to act like the imaginations of ancient goat herders have credibility - credibility?  For what?  What reason do we have right now to posit a god?

This might sound childish, but if I'm not allowed to reject the absurd claim that a god is hanging out, creating universes, and holding human beings accountable for their earthly sins, then they are not allowed to make such stupid claims in the first place - much less parrot the claims of people much more ignorant about the world an universe as we are today.  They started it, now they are on the hook to put up, or shut up.

From the internets, to all believers: Tits, or GTFO.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4734
  • Darwins +538/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Wasn't it nice when Atheists would just aplogize for existing
« Reply #14 on: January 24, 2012, 09:23:36 AM »
and one gets religion out of the central position as part of the process of eradicating it.
Good luck with that.  Don't let the fact that nobody has ever once succeeded in eradicating a religion (absorbing it or suppressing it, sure, but not eradicating it) stop you from trying anyway.

Atheism can't absorb religion, and suppressing it would only lead to worse problems sooner or later.  So, since all you have left is to try to eradicate it, what's your plan to do so?

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4734
  • Darwins +538/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Wasn't it nice when Atheists would just aplogize for existing
« Reply #15 on: January 24, 2012, 09:37:41 AM »
They can stay in their hole, and believe what they want as far as I'm concerned.  But this writer is pretending that he doesn't know what an atheist is, and further lying about it for no other reason than to prop up a belief system that doesn't need any propping up.  Millions and millions apparently believe this shit.  It's the far smaller group, the atheists, that are being called out for the absolute dumbest reason ever.
Why do you say he's lying?  I don't mean the reason that you cited here, I mean the actual words that he used that caused you to think he was lying.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7275
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Wasn't it nice when Atheists would just aplogize for existing
« Reply #16 on: January 24, 2012, 09:44:11 AM »
and one gets religion out of the central position as part of the process of eradicating it.
Good luck with that.  Don't let the fact that nobody has ever once succeeded in eradicating a religion (absorbing it or suppressing it, sure, but not eradicating it) stop you from trying anyway.

Atheism can't absorb religion, and suppressing it would only lead to worse problems sooner or later.  So, since all you have left is to try to eradicate it, what's your plan to do so?

I would say marginalize, as opposed to eradicate.  We still have flat-earthers, but they have been marginalized to the point of being irrelevant.  They are considered completely delusional, and no one takes them seriously.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7275
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Wasn't it nice when Atheists would just aplogize for existing
« Reply #17 on: January 24, 2012, 09:52:16 AM »
They can stay in their hole, and believe what they want as far as I'm concerned.  But this writer is pretending that he doesn't know what an atheist is, and further lying about it for no other reason than to prop up a belief system that doesn't need any propping up.  Millions and millions apparently believe this s**t.  It's the far smaller group, the atheists, that are being called out for the absolute dumbest reason ever.
Why do you say he's lying?  I don't mean the reason that you cited here, I mean the actual words that he used that caused you to think he was lying.

I should correct myself and say that I think he is lying.  He opens the piece by saying that he has "tried in vain to understand atheists" over the years.  Bullshit.  There is nothing to atheism but the lack of belief in gods, and without researching, I can practically guarantee that this has been pointed out multiple times over the "years".  So it is my belief that he wrote that part to get more comments, the other thing he just had to write about.  How atheists just love to comment on his opinion pieces. 

He knows exactly what he is doing, he is not ignorant or naive.  This is a calculated piece, intended to prove the points made that had little to do with atheism being a null hypothesis.  He continues to claim that "try as [he] might to get atheism", he still doesn't.  Well, cry me a river...what is he, six years old?  I'm not buying it.

But then again, I could be wrong.  Maybe you can point out where you believe he is sincerely confused about atheism?

Admittedly jaimehlers - it could be that my atheist "sixth sense" is on high when I read this kind of stuff!   ;D


Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4734
  • Darwins +538/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Wasn't it nice when Atheists would just aplogize for existing
« Reply #18 on: January 24, 2012, 10:14:37 AM »
Jetson:  Think of it as if he's expecting a word, and gets a number as an answer instead.  Religion is essentially a form of mental programming, and it conditions people to expect a certain "answer".  With other religions, the answer is slightly different (for example, getting the wrong "word"), but it's still recognizable as an answer even if it's considered the wrong one.  With atheism, though, the answer is not understandable because it doesn't fit the format expected at all.

In other words, the idea of atheism bounces off of his worldview.  To paraphrase a saying, never attribute to malice what you can attribute to ignorance instead.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7275
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Wasn't it nice when Atheists would just aplogize for existing
« Reply #19 on: January 24, 2012, 10:24:41 AM »

In other words, the idea of atheism bounces off of his worldview.  To paraphrase a saying, never attribute to malice what you can attribute to ignorance instead.

Ya know, I do understand that, and I have seen it play out over the years.  I suppose it might be getting more difficult to acknowledge as I age?  I have seen theists say over and over that they have given us all of the evidence for God, and we just choose to ignore it.  To which we almost always respond that it is either no evidence, or it is completely invisible to us.  And so we pass in the night, never to understand each other.  Both thinking that the other is either too stupid, or too close-minded to accept or understand.

This writer could be ignorant, but I don't get that impression from his writing.  There is too much smugness and sarcasm in my opinion, to accept it as genuine ignorance.  But then again, I have been surprised in the past.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4734
  • Darwins +538/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Wasn't it nice when Atheists would just aplogize for existing
« Reply #20 on: January 24, 2012, 10:41:58 AM »
I don't think he's ignorant in general.  In fact, I think that could be part of the problem; intelligent people tend to be able to "fill in the holes" better, so the fact that he's not ignorant is working against him.  And please remember that smugness and sarcasm can be in the eye of the beholder, especially on the internet.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Wasn't it nice when Atheists would just aplogize for existing
« Reply #21 on: January 24, 2012, 11:31:16 AM »
and one gets religion out of the central position as part of the process of eradicating it.
Good luck with that.  Don't let the fact that nobody has ever once succeeded in eradicating a religion (absorbing it or suppressing it, sure, but not eradicating it) stop you from trying anyway.
Atheism can't absorb religion, and suppressing it would only lead to worse problems sooner or later.  So, since all you have left is to try to eradicate it, what's your plan to do so?
You have a real defeatist attitude, don't you, Jaime?  Don't let the fact that religious belief has constantly trended downward get in the way. You claim that no one has been able to eradicate a religion.  So, Jaime, how many worshipers of Enlil do we still have around?  Religions replace each other and they die out.  And those religions are shown to be wrong and more and more people become agnostics and atheists.

I will keep trying because nothing demonstrates that it can’t be done.  You are as bad as the theists who come on here with their “goddidit” claims.  You want the argument to end by saying “It can’t be done”.  Sad. 

And how to eradicate religion?  Just like has been done so far to increase the number of atheists and agnostics.  Education and a constant countering of theist lies.  Yep, it might take awhile, likely much longer than my lifetime. So?  I think it is a worthy endeavor.

oh and I think the author of the article is wilfully ignorant. I don't see one bit of effort to actually communicate with an atheist.  He redefines what this "god" should "really" mean, and still has no evidence that it exists at all.  He claims that he don't know if a god exists, but claims that it does.  How hilarious.  His "hypothesis" is just an opinion based on nothing. He also makes god of the gaps arguments, one of the most pathetic fallacies ever.  Anyone who supposedly so interested in understanding atheists would, I would hope, know better than to try such tyro antics.

and at the beginning, the reason he sounds like a post civil rights white talkign about blacks, is because he's making the same bogus claims as they did.  Oh gawllly, my best friends are them negroes but I jes' don't understands them. &)
« Last Edit: January 24, 2012, 11:39:13 AM by velkyn »
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7275
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Wasn't it nice when Atheists would just aplogize for existing
« Reply #22 on: January 24, 2012, 12:08:51 PM »
I don't think he's ignorant in general.  In fact, I think that could be part of the problem; intelligent people tend to be able to "fill in the holes" better, so the fact that he's not ignorant is working against him.  And please remember that smugness and sarcasm can be in the eye of the beholder, especially on the internet.

Do you want to give him the benefit of the doubt?  I don't.  I'm frankly tired of doing that for theists.  They don't deserve it.  The ones that deserve anything more than that are the ones who accept that their religion could be wrong, and the ones who don't spend their time claiming that atheism is something that it clearly is not.

This guy is pretending to not understand atheism.  I believe he is lying.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4734
  • Darwins +538/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Wasn't it nice when Atheists would just aplogize for existing
« Reply #23 on: January 24, 2012, 01:00:32 PM »
You have a real defeatist attitude, don't you, Jaime?
You might want to think about comments like this before you make them.  Did I say that you should give up without doing anything?  No.  Did I say that it was impossible to do anything about religion?  No.  The fact that I don't consider it possible to eradicate religion does not mean anything other than the fact that it won't work to try to get rid of it entirely.

Quote from: velkyn
Don't let the fact that religious belief has constantly trended downward get in the way. You claim that no one has been able to eradicate a religion.  So, Jaime, how many worshipers of Enlil do we still have around?  Religions replace each other and they die out.  And those religions are shown to be wrong and more and more people become agnostics and atheists.
So you can prove that Enlil's worship was purposefully eradicated?  I know religions can be absorbed into other religions, effectively making the old religion die out.  That does not mean that efforts to eradicate it will work, especially since atheism can't exactly absorb religious beliefs to make it easier to accept the way religions can.

Quote from: velkyn
I will keep trying because nothing demonstrates that it can’t be done.  You are as bad as the theists who come on here with their “goddidit” claims.  You want the argument to end by saying “It can’t be done”.  Sad.
No, what's sad is that you're reacting to your caricature of what you think I'm saying, rather than what I'm actually saying.  Quit making assumptions and pay attention to what I actually put down.  Because I don't want to end the argument.

Quote from: velkyn
And how to eradicate religion?  Just like has been done so far to increase the number of atheists and agnostics.  Education and a constant countering of theist lies.  Yep, it might take awhile, likely much longer than my lifetime. So?  I think it is a worthy endeavor.
I have no problems with those methods at all.  I just don't think they can result in eradicating religion.  I want to see religion become irrelevant to society, but that isn't the same as wanting to eradicate it, or thinking that's beneficial, let alone possible.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Wasn't it nice when Atheists would just aplogize for existing
« Reply #24 on: January 24, 2012, 01:09:58 PM »
I don't think he's ignorant in general.  In fact, I think that could be part of the problem; intelligent people tend to be able to "fill in the holes" better, so the fact that he's not ignorant is working against him.  And please remember that smugness and sarcasm can be in the eye of the beholder, especially on the internet.

Do you want to give him the benefit of the doubt?  I don't.  I'm frankly tired of doing that for theists.  They don't deserve it.  The ones that deserve anything more than that are the ones who accept that their religion could be wrong, and the ones who don't spend their time claiming that atheism is something that it clearly is not.

This guy is pretending to not understand atheism.  I believe he is lying.

At least we can agree he's either lying or dense....neither of which are positive qualities.

Then we have this guy:

Quote
Excellent article Christian Piatt. I don't care anything about the art of "needle point". So, I don't spend any time on forums which discuss it. I have no basic need to discount it to those who care greatly about it. I don't even go to their websites to get the slightest insight concerning it.

However, the atheists come here by the bandwagon to dole out their tired old rhetoric. Why??? Because, they are searching for one shred of evidence to prove themselves wrong. They are in a battle with their "rational" thinking and their gut feeling that something is missing. So, they find consolatio­n in brow-beati­ng anyone who believes in the existence of God.

They will tell you they are happy, content, and all that other stuff. But, if they truly were all those things then they wouldn't waste their short existence here posting. They create for themselves a "martyr complex" whereby they are suffering at the hands of those who want to force them to believe. "Grow UP!" Nobody is really all that concerned about atheists. It's their step towards being "special".­..and, the desire for recognitio­n of being "different­".

All they, atheists, are is people who resent others having a soul.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4734
  • Darwins +538/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Wasn't it nice when Atheists would just aplogize for existing
« Reply #25 on: January 24, 2012, 01:13:03 PM »
Good point, Hatter.

And I would definitely characterize that commenter as arrogant and smug.  Because atheists argue with Christians, atheists are really trying to become Christians?  Gimme a break.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Wasn't it nice when Atheists would just aplogize for existing
« Reply #26 on: January 24, 2012, 03:50:41 PM »
You might want to think about comments like this before you make them.  Did I say that you should give up without doing anything?  No.  Did I say that it was impossible to do anything about religion?  No.  The fact that I don't consider it possible to eradicate religion does not mean anything other than the fact that it won't work to try to get rid of it entirely.
  oh back to accusations that I don’t think again.
Let’s see what have you said.  Hmm, oh yes. 
quote author=jaimehlers link=topic=21265.msg473178#msg473178 date=1327415016]
and one gets religion out of the central position as part of the process of eradicating it.
Quote
Good luck with that.  Don't let the fact that nobody has ever once succeeded in eradicating a religion (absorbing it or suppressing it, sure, but not eradicating it) stop you from trying anyway.
Atheism can't absorb religion, and suppressing it would only lead to worse problems sooner or later.  So, since all you have left is to try to eradicate it, what's your plan to do so?

Quote
So you can prove that Enlil's worship was purposefully eradicated?  I know religions can be absorbed into other religions, effectively making the old religion die out.  That does not mean that efforts to eradicate it will work, especially since atheism can't exactly absorb religious beliefs to make it easier to accept the way religions can.
I can’t show that it was purposefully eradicated, can you show it was absorbed? :D How about Aztec religion? That sure was and no one is cutting out hearts that I know about on top of temples.  Oh I know, you’ll just say it was “absorbed” by Catholicism, rather than eradicated and replaced.   Either way, it doesn’t mean that efforts to eradicate it won’t work.  Sigh.  Atheism doesn’t have to absorb anything, it only has to teach and counter.  Though, some acccomdationists are trying to make atheism more like a religion to be less “scary”, google “atheiem 2.0” if you are interested. As I said, atheism is growing, no reason it can’t continue to grow and eventually religion could be eradicated.   
 
Quote
No, what's sad is that you're reacting to your caricature of what you think I'm saying, rather than what I'm actually saying.  Quit making assumptions and pay attention to what I actually put down.  Because I don't want to end the argument.
  Nope, I’m reacting to what you’ve written.  See that quote I did above, the one in bold, there’s where you said it can’t be done.  Now, there is the slim chance that you meant this honestly, that you were honestly wishing me luck and saying that I shouldn’t let it bother me that no one else has “ever succeeded”.  However, I don’t think that is the way to bet.  It would be like me assuming that someone who said “goodbye, good luck and don’t let the door slam your backside on the way out” really was concerned for my posterior.     
Quote
I have no problems with those methods at all.  I just don't think they can result in eradicating religion.  I want to see religion become irrelevant to society, but that isn't the same as wanting to eradicate it, or thinking that's beneficial, let alone possible.

You have no problems with these methods? Then why say this:
Quote
Also, what harm does it do to leave Christians and other theists a "hole in the corner"?
Educating people, constantly countering religion does not leave theists a “hole in the corner”, it constantly makes that hole smaller, always intending on making that hole disappear, correct?  If it is not making that hole smaller, then it is not addressing the problems religion has, and is not my method.     
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4734
  • Darwins +538/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Wasn't it nice when Atheists would just aplogize for existing
« Reply #27 on: January 24, 2012, 05:31:46 PM »
velkyn:  You said that I had a really defeatist attitude, and I said that you needed to think about such comments before you made them.  Not that you didn't think before you wrote comments.

Because, to put it bluntly, I do not have a defeatist attitude at all.  I would think that some of the other arguments I've gotten into here would make that clear, and if you knew me as a person, I think it would be far more obvious that I am anything but defeatist.  It seemed that you were reacting to my posts in this thread and the other one here, and only them, when you made that comment.  Whereas if you'd thought about it more and considered my behavior elsewhere, you might have come to a different conclusion.

I'll say again, I don't think you can eradicate religion.  I do think it can be made irrelevant, but I don't think it can be gotten rid of.  And yes, I was actually serious there (I was a bit sarcastic, but I was being honest, and that's why I asked what your plan was).  The fact that I don't think it possible to eliminate entirely is certainly no reason to not do anything, and regardless of whether it eventually might, it will shift the playing field in the direction it needs to be shifted.

And velkyn, what do you think I meant by a "hole in the corner"?  The First Amendment is an example of a "hole in a corner", it ensures that no religion will be made illegal, so no matter what else happens, people will not face systematic persecution for their religious beliefs. 

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Wasn't it nice when Atheists would just aplogize for existing
« Reply #28 on: January 25, 2012, 10:28:14 AM »
velkyn:  You said that I had a really defeatist attitude, and I said that you needed to think about such comments before you made them.  Not that you didn't think before you wrote comments.
  Jaime, I'm not that stupid.  You have assumed that I have not thought about my posts.   Your comment that I need to think about comments before I post makes no sense if you have not made the initial assumption. 
Quote
Because, to put it bluntly, I do not have a defeatist attitude at all.  I would think that some of the other arguments I've gotten into here would make that clear, and if you knew me as a person, I think it would be far more obvious that I am anything but defeatist.  It seemed that you were reacting to my posts in this thread and the other one here, and only them, when you made that comment.  Whereas if you'd thought about it more and considered my behavior elsewhere, you might have come to a different conclusion.
  uh-huh.  Telling me I'll fail because no one has succeeded isn't a defeatist attitude.  Sure.
Quote
I'll say again, I don't think you can eradicate religion.  I do think it can be made irrelevant, but I don't think it can be gotten rid of.  And yes, I was actually serious there (I was a bit sarcastic, but I was being honest, and that's why I asked what your plan was).  The fact that I don't think it possible to eliminate entirely is certainly no reason to not do anything, and regardless of whether it eventually might, it will shift the playing field in the direction it needs to be shifted.
so you don't think religion can be eradicated.  You might also join those who think that man can never fly, considering the evidence you've ignored to the contrary.  Sarcasm in the sentences where you started with "good luck" sure seems to indicate that you didn't mean good luck at all or that you were being serious.  That's what sarcasm is, Jaime,
Quote
Sarcasm is “a sharp, bitter, or cutting expression or remark; a bitter jibe or taunt.”[1] Though irony and understatement is usually the immediate context,[2] most authorities distinguish sarcasm from irony;[3] however, others argue that sarcasm may or often does involve irony[4] or employs ambivalence.[5]
  From Wikipedia.  Do you see now why I responded why I did, especially now that you admit that you were being sarcastic?
Quote
And velkyn, what do you think I meant by a "hole in the corner"?  The First Amendment is an example of a "hole in a corner", it ensures that no religion will be made illegal, so no matter what else happens, people will not face systematic persecution for their religious beliefs.
  Well, let’s see what you wrote again:
Quote
Also, what harm does it do to leave Christians and other theists a "hole in the corner"?  I'm serious here.  If they want to believe in the deity of their choice, as long as they understand that there's no proof and that they thus have no basis for demanding special treatment or anything else because of that belief, it seems to me that it'll solve the real problems inherent with religion.  Is it more important to eradicate religious belief, or to get religion out of the central position it holds in American society?
 
Now look at my response to this: Educating people, constantly countering religion does not leave theists a “hole in the corner”, it constantly makes that hole smaller, always intending on making that hole disappear, correct?  If it is not making that hole smaller, then it is not addressing the problems religion has, and is not my method. 
As I see it, you have advocated for leaving theists completely alone as long as they somehow “understand that there is no proof and they thus have no basis for demanding special treatment or anything else because of that belief”.  Am I correct in this view? That seems to be a different hole than the First Amendment.   

I do not see any theists who would agree with this willingly, Jaime.  I have asked you: where are they? and I have had no response.    In the thread about how one brings up atheism to a theist, you seemed to indicate that the conversation should be left up to the theist to bring up.  Am I correct in that?    I would also ask, how would you create theists like this, if that holds true?  If you look at Riley’s last posts, you can see yet another Christian who immediately jumps claiming that he is “hated” when he is questioned about his faith and when atheists give him evidence he is wrong.  As I have said before, this is a common occurrence, that they claim persecution even when it’s only education.  Can the First Amendment be invoked if I dare question a theist?  From what I have seen, it seems that many Christians would claim so and that you might also. I could be wrong, but I’m asking you directly, would you consider my methods persecution? 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/