I could give a hundred reasons for my atheism, but they’d all boil down to basic curiosity. Asking enough of the right questions will, in my opinion, eventually lead you down to atheism’s (or at the very least, agnosticism’s) door. Why do the good die young? Why is there poverty? How does Fox News still continue to exist? 42?
I wish, from the bottom of my heart that this war, one of attrition, between rationality and irrationality (and not that good vs evil crap) would be over. My atheism is one part of me and it doesn’t entirely define who I am; my way of thinking brought me to atheism, not the other way around.
Thing is, I hate being angry because some loud-mouthed evangelical is riding a 60-feet-tall “high horse” and judging people as if they were God. I hate being angry at basic civil and human rights being discarded for groups that are object of God’s wrath in the years before electricity. I hate listening to religious folk forgive, in theory, those who cross them, but then turning around and siccing God upon their enemies as if He were their very own, private avenger. I hate being angry at the stupidity that surrounds me, but until it’s dealt with I don’t think I’ve got much of a choice.
And these people are sometimes funny to watch (in a Crocodile-Dundee-wild-animals-let-loose kind of way).
Elias Ahmed Serulle
Dominican Republic
Serulle makes the following points:
1. The right questions induce Atheism.
A. why do the good die young?2. There is a war between rationality and irrationality (both not defined)
B. why is there poverty?
3. Anti-ecclesiasticism:
A. Evangelicals judge him.
B. "Sicc's" God on him.
C. Deny civil rights (undefined).
D. Stupidity surrounds him.
Summary: Serrule doesn't tell if he was converted or the age of his decision. His basic premise is his own personal logic and rationality vs. the other, who are stupid. His actual complaints are mostly anti-ecclesiastic, not anti-Theism, and he only mentions God as a by-product of his disdain for Evangelicals, who he compares to animals.
27 comments:
This peice of atheist slime ignores the very real answers to questions.
Why poverty? The Answer is SIN.
Why Death?> SIN.
When he dies he find out how wrong he is. These are the people who did ban me from answering there own questions because they already know the answeres but they can't admit they are evil scum who deserve Hell so they BANN me instead.
Theres a reason he thinks people judge him because GOD will judge him and he knows it and he is trying too hide but it won't work. They hide my comments because they hate Truth.
Wow. OK, what exactly happened?
Haha, you're funny Storm. :)
Rational,
You actually consider that to be rational? Do you know what rational means? It's doubtful.
Stan,
I would say that is the only rational/reasonable response one can offer to someone making as bigoted and hateful a comment as Storm did.
Just how pious and high and mighty does he think he is to call an atheist slime? Atheists have to suffer the religious all the time. A study has even recently shown that atheists are trusted about as much as rapists. Why? I see no rational reason for that.
A lot of the religious like to think they are the persecuted ones. I would strongly beg to differ on that.
Yet atheists don't start wars or go on killing sprees because of their beliefs (or lack thereof). They engage in conversation and debate, and when confronted with nonsense similar to that which Storm has put forward, they laugh.
Quite a rational response from my perspective.
Rational,
I asked Storm what happened to him. Apparently s/he was banned from someplace. But no details.
I have been on both sides of the issue. As an Atheist I never received any bigotry or persecution, possibly because I didn't try to force my opinion on anyone. So I doubt that Atheists are persecuted, except by their own intolerance of religious people. The complete Atheist takeover of the US Government, the practice of psychology, the science of biology, and their assault on religious values (right or wrong) via their control of the media are examples of how little the Atheist is persecuted, imo. My observation is that Atheists can dish it out but cannot take it.
Atheism comes with absolutely no attached ethic. None. Any ethic which an Atheist chooses is merely a personal opinion which is grounded only in his own personal moral authority. Worse, it is subject to change at a moment's notice, depending on the situation. That is how Atheists claim to be so GOOD: they tailor their ethic du jour to their behavior du jour, and voila! there is no conflict between their behavior and their ethic. So they are tautologically good. Tomorrow their behavior might change, requiring a different ethic du jour - no problem.
There is no way to be aware of a person's Atheism and to automatically know what that person's ethic is, be it Consequentialism, utilitarianism, some variant of Virtue Ethics or cannibalism. And the expectation of a changing ethic based on personal opinion changes and behavior needs makes for an untrustworthy potential relationship. There is no reason to trust or believe a person with no ethic grounded outside of himself.
"Yet atheists don't start wars or go on killing sprees because of their beliefs (or lack thereof)."
This is a common absurdity that perpetuates itself amongst atheists. 20th century history belies this proposition to the max. The lack of Atheist-defined principles of integrity or anything else enables all sorts of bloodshed, and in the hundreds of millions of deaths.
"They engage in conversation and debate, and when confronted with nonsense similar to that which Storm has put forward, they laugh."
Mostly they engage in derision and ridicule in the manner of PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins, et al. When it comes to addressing the material evidence for their beliefs, they don't debate all that long.
Stan,
As an Atheist I never received any bigotry or persecution, possibly because I didn't try to force my opinion on anyone.
I'm glad that you were fortunate to be spared the intolerance of the religious. A lot of atheists would not be lucky enough to say the same. Up until recently the US government has almost been exclusively christian. I won't even bother going into the details of the last US president as I'm sure you already know. It was an unspoken necessity that the electorate demanded a christian president. I'm pretty certain that Obama has even had to feign believe to get where he is today.
My observation is that Atheists can dish it out but cannot take it.
Where have you observed an atheist dishing it out but unable to take it? I have seen the likes of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens take criticism with grace and a sense of humour. And I'm only talking about the most outspoken atheists here.
There is no reason to trust or believe a person with no ethic grounded outside of himself.
So what you're saying is that people can only be good because they either fear the wrath of a deity or want to be rewarded by said deity? I find that idea insulting and demeaning. Your condescension lets you down here, sir. Your claims about atheists in general being changeable seems rather ignorant. Please can you provide a known case where a secular collective has changed it's principles because it didn't suit them anymore? I'm not denying that certain individuals can be untrustworthy. Yet I could say exactly the same thing about the religious. AND they have a doctrine to follow! There are numerous occasions where the religious have cherry picked certain parts of their holy book to suit them. So by that token, the religious are just as trustworthy as the non-religious. I guess it's just a human thing.
The lack of Atheist-defined principles of integrity or anything else enables all sorts of bloodshed, and in the hundreds of millions of deaths.
I'm sorry, but the recent wars that have been occurring surely haven't been because of atheism have they? Well at least that's not how it was sold to the rest of the world. No, there was a lot of talk about good vs. evil and a lot of praying for victory going on. Oh yes, and don't forget the holy war that has been going on over Palestine/Israel for centuries. Please can you give me an example of where "The lack of Atheist-defined principles of integrity or anything else" has enabled "all sorts of bloodshed, and in the hundreds of millions of deaths.".
When it comes to addressing the material evidence for their beliefs, they don't debate all that long.
I'm not sure if I should take you seriously on this statement or not. Have you watched any debates between Dawkins and any of the several religious opponents he has debated? I haven't seen much ridicule coming from his side of the podium. He has often been quite serious in all that he says and provides a lot of evidence (backed by the scientific method et al) to substantiate his claims. I've seen Sam Harris respond coolly while his opponent got flustered and Hitchens make light of a situation that any less secure person would take major offense to. No sir, it is my view that the religious can dish, but can't take.
Coming back to what you said about atheists shoving their beliefs down people's throats: Was it not the evangelical christian movement that recently tried to get creationism taught as science in the classroom? I'm sorry, but as it can't be classified as science, I think it would be fair to say that it is they who are doing the pushing. Also, I don't see atheists going door to door asking people if they have been saved from religion.
I speculate that the reason there has recently been a sharp increase in atheism throughout the world is due to the fact that people are tired of the wars, judgement and demeaning servitude to a deity that doesn't even seem to care about it's creation. It's not even really about that though, I guess its about education. I am an amateur astronomer and I can tell you that of the little bit I've learn't about the universe we live in, when you look at earth from a Saturn, we are nothing but an insignificant speck of light in the distance. When looking at it from that perspective and thinking about all the different religions that exist on that speck, the mind boggles when you try to ask "which one is the correct one?".
To steal a bit from the great Carl Sagan:
From this distant vantage point, the Earth might not seem of any particular interest. But for us, it's different. Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there - on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam. The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors, so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand. It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.
I don't think I need to say anymore...
”Where have you observed an atheist dishing it out but unable to take it?”
I have been doing this blog for over four years, and I’ve observed it here, time and again.
”So what you're saying is that people can only be good because they either fear the wrath of a deity or want to be rewarded by said deity? I find that idea insulting and demeaning. Your condescension lets you down here, sir. Your claims about atheists in general being changeable seems rather ignorant.”
And your sensitivity to a factual assessment indicates a victimhood position. The facts are as stated: Atheism comes with no attached ethic. Any person observing an “Atheist” cannot know by virtue of that information what sort of ethic that individual has chosen for himself. Nor can the observer know if or when the Atheist’s ethics have changed. Those are facts. If you feel they are condescending, that is not a problem for the facts. Facts are what they are.
”Please can you provide a known case where a secular collective has changed it's principles because it didn't suit them anymore? I'm not denying that certain individuals can be untrustworthy. Yet I could say exactly the same thing about the religious. AND they have a doctrine to follow!’
The discussion is about why there is a perception of Atheists being untrustworthy individuals. Perception is not necessarily fact, but it does have a reason for being the way it is. What has been stated here is the reason for the perception.
The comment about the religious is merely a Tu Quoque, and is not relevant to the perception of Atheist untrustworthiness.
”Please can you give me an example of where "The lack of Atheist-defined principles of integrity or anything else" has enabled "all sorts of bloodshed, and in the hundreds of millions of deaths."”
Russia, 1917 to 1989. China, 1949 to present. Cambodia under Pol Pot.
”Have you watched any debates between Dawkins and any of the several religious opponents he has debated? I haven't seen much ridicule coming from his side of the podium.”
Dawkins of course refuses to debate serious theist intellectuals on the basis that to do so “wouldn’t improve his resume’”: a blatant insult by ridicule. And so it goes for the rest; Dennett can’t get through a debate without a string of invective. PZ Myers repeatedly comments, “ridicule works”; it is his stock in trade and he is proud of it.
(continued)
(continued from above)
”Coming back to what you said about atheists shoving their beliefs down people's throats: Was it not the evangelical christian movement that recently tried to get creationism taught as science in the classroom? I'm sorry, but as it can't be classified as science, I think it would be fair to say that it is they who are doing the pushing. Also, I don't see atheists going door to door asking people if they have been saved from religion.”
The evil Christians wanted equal time with the entirely inferential and non-empirical non-science of evolution – an hypothesis without hope of proof or refutation, and not falsifiable due to not being experimentally replicable. Evolutionists claim a mountain of evidence, which even Dawkins admits is purely inferential and not empirically replicable. But he has faith in the sheer volume of inferences and stories. The Atheist belief in evolution is faith based. It should be taught in a religions class alongside other religious tenets.
It is true that Atheists don’t go door to door. They sue anyone and everyone and threaten to financially destroy those who disagree with them. Atheist organizations threaten individuals and smaller organizations with destruction. No, Atheists don’t need to go door to door to get what they want.
”I speculate that the reason there has recently been a sharp increase in atheism throughout the world is due to the fact that people are tired of the wars, judgement and demeaning servitude to a deity that doesn't even seem to care about it's creation.”
I speculate that it is about personal freedom from responsible ethics, in favor of self-indulgence. The “Why I am an Atheist” papers at PZ’s blog seem to confirm that.
” It's not even really about that though, I guess its about education. I am an amateur astronomer and I can tell you that of the little bit I've learn't about the universe we live in, when you look at earth from a Saturn, we are nothing but an insignificant speck of light in the distance. When looking at it from that perspective and thinking about all the different religions that exist on that speck, the mind boggles when you try to ask "which one is the correct one?"
Basic theism isn’t corrupted by denominationalism nor multitudes of religions. It attempts to answer questions not addressable by material evidentiary techniques, questions deducible logically.
(continued)
(continued)
”To steal a bit from the great Carl Sagan”
Please, no more pale blue dot nonsense. Sagan was an unabashed Philosophical Materialist who never thought outside of that box, yet considered himself to be the ultimate philosopher. A person stuck inside a box as false as Philosophical Materialism is not only not a philosopher, he is obtusely ignorant of fallacies in general and specifically the blatant non-coherence of Materialism, which cannot prove its own validity using its own evidentiary rules.
”…a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam. The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena.”
So what? How does that explain how sentience and agency are produced by electron flow?
”Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light.”
…Therefore there is no first cause for the universe…??
”Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.”
…Therefore there is no first agent which created agents…??
”It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character building experience.”
Say what? On the one hand, Materialists think they are the smartest thing in the universe, on the other hand, we humans are meaningless specks in a huge meaningless universe, therefore that builds character…??
”To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.”
To deduce this responsibility from our meaningless existence on a meaningless speck of dust impaled on a beam of sunlight, is about as non-sequitur as it gets. It is an example of making up an ethic (already existing from other deductions, btw) from a personal opinion. Be nice to one another and to the earth, because it is a meaningless speck of dust, but it is home.
Sagan should have stuck to cosmology and stayed out of ideology.
”I don't think I need to say anymore...”
Well, if that’s all it takes to satisfy you, OK.
I have been doing this blog for over four years, and I’ve observed it here, time and again.
Wow, that's a pretty amazing accomplishment that you have managed to unnerve atheist users on the internet with your rhetoric. Congratulations. (sorry, I know sarcasm isn't really all that classy but couldn't resist here).
And your sensitivity to a factual assessment indicates a victimhood position.
I'm sorry but I must have missed the part where what you were saying was factual. I have yet to see you provide any facts that can be substantiated by objective evidence. Atheism does not come with an attached ethic. Atheism is merely everything religion is not. What I mean here is, atheists don't need to believe in some magical sky fairy to keep them well behaved. It is well understood that moral behavior is innate in primates. You don't even have to stop at humans to see this. Chimpanzees show a level of morality with each other, albeit a crude one. Hell, you can even take it further and look at the inherent family values of an elephant herd. They even mourn they're own dead. Ethical behavior is an internal process affected by the environment the individual is surrounded by.
The discussion is about why there is a perception of Atheists being untrustworthy individuals.
I agree. But do you honestly think that reasoning to distrust atheists is not prejudiced? I mean it's pretty much saying that all atheists are guilty, until proven innocent. Mandela didn't stand for it when whites were prejudiced against blacks during apartheid, why should atheists put up with that when the religious treat them like "slime" as your comrade so eloquently puts it.
This whole discussion stems from you asking me why I thought laughing at Storm's comment was a rational response. I gave you my answer and I believe that Storm's comment pretty much embodies the attitude atheists are faced with all the time from theists.
"Russia, 1917 to 1989. China, 1949 to present. Cambodia under Pol Pot."
It's funny how these always come up from theists. I'm impressed that you didn't mention Hitler. Yes, Stalin was a marxist but he didn't destroy churches and disband congregations because of atheism. He did it because he was trying to make his citizens see him as their ultimate ruler. You could almost call that religion again. China is not declaring war on theism from an atheist standpoint. They have their own religion and culture and I would speculate it's largely about keeping western cultural influences out of their sovereignty. Pol Pot was a narcissistic psychopath. Something one can be very easily whether religious or non-religious. Again, the horrible deeds he did wasn't in the name of atheism.
Dawkins of course refuses to debate serious theist intellectuals on the basis that to do so “wouldn’t improve his resume’”
You have misquoted Dawkins here. He said that he wouldn't give creationists the opportunity to improve THEIR resumes, not his. Here is an excerpt from one of his interview to make the point clearer:
"The objection to having debates with people like that is that it gives them a kind of respectability. If a real scientist goes onto a debating platform with a creationist, it gives them a respectability, which I do not think your people have earned."
Regarding your comments on Dennet, just because you perceive his talks as if not being able to get through "without a string of invective" doesn't change the factual position that evolution has. I would speculate that your biased position has made you closed to any possible evidence for the case of evolution and that's fine. It doesn't really matter to evolution whether you believe in it or not. It still happens regardless. I haven't heard much from PZ Myers so I can't comment.
While this has been fun, I would say that is enough intellectual masturbation on my part now. You clearly have your position and are not willing to change. I on the other hand will continue to explore and try to find real answers instead of accepting what some man in a priest's collar tells me.
Good luck on your journey.
Hi Stan!
Just going to pop in and add some facts and reminders!
"So I doubt that Atheists are persecuted, except by their own intolerance of religious people."
You can easily find examples of this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists#Contemporary_era
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
George Bush SR. Y'know, your president.
The complete Atheist takeover of the US Government,
http://media.photobucket.com/image/help%20we%2527re%20being%20oppressed%20pie%20chart/jkdway/oppressedkv6.gif
Something like 43/44 presidents have been christian. Maybe 44/44.
Atheism comes with absolutely no attached ethic.
As has been pointed out to you, atheism does not address moral claims. It is amoral, not immoral. Your criticism is equivalent to ridiculing evolutionary theory for not explaining the tectonic movement of the earths crust.
That is how Atheists claim to be so GOOD: they tailor their ethic du jour to their behavior du jour, and voila!
Again, more propaganda. As has also been pointed out to you, atheist are disproportionally lacking representation in prisons. Largely atheistic countries such as the Netherlands have the highest standards of living, lowest crime rates, etc, etc.
There is no way to be aware of a person's Atheism and to automatically know what that person's ethic is
*Gasp* You mean you might have to actually .. ask them?!?
Besides, the same can be said for a religious person. Are they a literalist? A moderate? An evangelical? An extremist? How can you know?
Cont.
There is no reason to trust or believe a person with no ethic grounded outside of himself.
Yep. You'll have to actually judge them on their actions rather than on if you think they subscribe to some version of your religiosity.
The discussion is about why there is a perception of Atheists being untrustworthy individuals.
Because theists are taught that faith in god is a virtue of the highest ideal. So upon encountering one who rejects this as a virtue, why, they just come off like the devil incarnate don't they?
Russia, 1917 to 1989. China, 1949 to present. Cambodia under Pol Pot.
This claim has been debunked hundreds of times. People don't commit these acts because they reject god claims. They commit them to fulfill other purposes. Power, wealth, hatred and intolerance. Being religious provides no immunity from such acts. If atheists did shit like that, and the religious did not, you might have a case. But they do, so you don't.
Furthermore, as previously pointed out, modern societies which are largely atheistic have the lowest crime rates.
"Specifically, it looks at crime rates v. religiosity and finds that, at best, the relationship is random and, at worst, religion has the effect of increasing crime rates."
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
The evil Christians wanted equal time with the entirely inferential and non-empirical non-science of evolution – an hypothesis without hope of proof or refutation, and not falsifiable due to not being experimentally replicable.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_NE_hq9gXDUU/TJRx9OaincI/AAAAAAAAAh0/qq5IhINrL1Q/s1600/Fossils_WeWin.jpg
Evolution has been observed. It is empirical, testable and repeatable. You want equal time in science class? Then give science equal time in church.
Cont.
They sue anyone and everyone and threaten to financially destroy those who disagree with them.
I'm gonna call bullshit on this one. Every instance I can recall of a secular organization suing someone it is for a violation of civil rights or a violation of the US Constitution. You should be thanking them.
I speculate that it is about personal freedom from responsible ethics, in favor of self-indulgence.
You are free to speculate of course, however considering the prison populations are overflowing with the religious, if you want some responsible ethics, perhaps you should consider abandoning your bronze age morality and joining us in the 21st century.
"Basic theism isn’t corrupted by denominationalism nor multitudes of religions. It attempts to answer questions not addressable by material evidentiary techniques, questions deducible logically."
Oh? And what answers has theism provided? That there might be a First Cause, even if the logic seems rather shaky? Good contribution theism.
Your entire rant of Carl Sagan is a non-sequitur. The Earth is very small, herp derp electron flow. Our planet's location brings into question our imagined self importance. Herp derp, no first cause.
On the one hand, Materialists think they are the smartest thing in the universe, on the other hand, we humans are meaningless specks in a huge meaningless universe, therefore that builds character
No materialist says this. Straw man. Not having an invisible means of support is character building, yes.
Be nice to one another and to the earth, because it is a meaningless speck of dust, but it is home.
Be nice to one another and to the earth, because it is all we have. It is so hard to wrap my head around how someone can be so blinded by ideology that they cannot appreciate A Pale Blue Dot.
Rational said,
”Where have you observed an atheist dishing it out but unable to take it?”
I have been doing this blog for over four years, and I’ve observed it here, time and again.
”Wow, that's a pretty amazing accomplishment that you have managed to unnerve atheist users on the internet with your rhetoric. Congratulations. (sorry, I know sarcasm isn't really all that classy but couldn't resist here).”
It’s OK, its an indication of the Atheist thought process, which I observe here daily.
”And your sensitivity to a factual assessment indicates a victimhood position.
I'm sorry but I must have missed the part where what you were saying was factual. I have yet to see you provide any facts that can be substantiated by objective evidence. Atheism does not come with an attached ethic. Atheism is merely everything religion is not. What I mean here is, atheists don't need to believe in some magical sky fairy to keep them well behaved.”
You guys who tune in late and don’t read any prior comments sure cause a lot of repetition. And I love this comment: Atheism is merely everything religion is not.
(1) Atheism does not come with an attached ethic. This is fact. You may deny it but you cannot refute it.
(2) If “Atheism is merely everything religion is not” then it believes in everything which theists do not believe. That statement is an unconsidered proposition which you probably don’t even believe.
(3) “well behaved”. This has two parts: First, Atheists have only one standard of behavior: the law. So they change laws to allow all sorts of behaviors. Next on the legal docket is pedophilia. After that, who knows? But in terms of ethical theories, no Atheist ethic exists. So Atheists can make up their own, and can change them from moment to moment. Atheists wonder why no one trusts them. It’s because no one can know what a particular Atheist’s ethic is now, or ten minutes from now.
” It is well understood that moral behavior is innate in primates. You don't even have to stop at humans to see this. Chimpanzees show a level of morality with each other, albeit a crude one. Hell, you can even take it further and look at the inherent family values of an elephant herd. They even mourn they're own dead. Ethical behavior is an internal process affected by the environment the individual is surrounded by.”
Mourning loss is an ethic? They do it because they should do it? Or is it that ethics is innate, so we don’t need to learn it, we just have it, so anything we do is a priori ethical? If ethics are an inescapable product of evolution, then why do Atheist philosophers argue over ethical theories?
(continued)
” The discussion is about why there is a perception of Atheists being untrustworthy individuals.
I agree. But do you honestly think that reasoning to distrust atheists is not prejudiced? I mean it's pretty much saying that all atheists are guilty, until proven innocent. Mandela didn't stand for it when whites were prejudiced against blacks during apartheid, why should atheists put up with that when the religious treat them like "slime" as your comrade so eloquently puts it.”
There is prejudice and discrimination. The Prejudice (pre-judgment) is based on the inability to know the ethics of a given Atheist. This judgment is based on fact: no one, not even another Atheist, can know the ethic of another Atheist, even by demonstrable acts – because Atheist ethics are personally derived and subject to change as convenient.
Discrimination exists because given the inability to the ethics of a person, that person cannot be allowed the degree of trust that a different person of known ethics would be given. There is no reason to think this unreasonable.
So Atheists have no basis for objection because the mistrust is a rational reaction to Atheist relativism.
” This whole discussion stems from you asking me why I thought laughing at Storm's comment was a rational response. I gave you my answer and I believe that Storm's comment pretty much embodies the attitude atheists are faced with all the time from theists.”
I don’t speak for Storm and Storm does not speak for me. The use of Ad Hominem is objectionable, uncalled for and irrational. I should have called Storm on that. But the subject now is why Atheists are not thought to be trustworthy.
” "Russia, 1917 to 1989. China, 1949 to present. Cambodia under Pol Pot."
It's funny how these always come up from theists. I'm impressed that you didn't mention Hitler. Yes, Stalin was a marxist but he didn't destroy churches and disband congregations because of atheism. He did it because he was trying to make his citizens see him as their ultimate ruler. You could almost call that religion again.”
The counter argument that Stalin’s Atheist rule was actually religious transparently leads to the conclusion that Atheism as practiced by the big boys is a religion of violence. Surely you don’t want to continue to argue in this vein…
””China is not declaring war on theism from an atheist standpoint. They have their own religion and culture and I would speculate it's largely about keeping western cultural influences out of their sovereignty.”
Do you really mean to assert that the Chinese Communists are religious based? What religion are the Chinese Communists asserting?
”Pol Pot was a narcissistic psychopath. Something one can be very easily whether religious or non-religious. Again, the horrible deeds he did wasn't in the name of atheism.
Atheism is an ethical void, an enabler; lack of ethics is a dangerous thing, and Atheism is a lack of ethics.
” Dawkins of course refuses to debate serious theist intellectuals on the basis that to do so “wouldn’t improve his resume’”
You have misquoted Dawkins here. He said that he wouldn't give creationists the opportunity to improve THEIR resumes, not his. Here is an excerpt from one of his interview to make the point clearer:
"The objection to having debates with people like that is that it gives them a kind of respectability. If a real scientist goes onto a debating platform with a creationist, it gives them a respectability, which I do not think your people have earned."
Yes I read that, and I read the statement that PZ quoted that included the reference to his resume’. Perhaps PZ quoted it wrong. But he made the same assertion for himself.
” Regarding your comments on Dennet, just because you perceive his talks as if not being able to get through "without a string of invective" doesn't change the factual position that evolution has. I would speculate that your biased position has made you closed to any possible evidence for the case of evolution and that's fine. It doesn't really matter to evolution whether you believe in it or not. It still happens regardless. I haven't heard much from PZ Myers so I can't comment.”
Evolution is not factually based, it is based on single, monolithic factoids which are extrapolated into inferences of connectivity. There is a mountain of this. But it is not empirical, experimental, replicable, falsifiable, scientific data. It is inference, only, and it is ideologically inextricable from Philosophical Materialism which fails at the point of abiogenesis, which is why evolutionists refuse to discuss it.
Shall we discuss Dawkins’ squirming around the issue of empirical verity and his assertion of something magical happening to non-empirical “replicators”?
That is not in the line of argument here, which still is why Atheism generates distrust.
” With what evidence? If none of the "evidence" for creationism can stand up against the scientific method then why should it be taught as a science? The evidence for evolution has.”
I’m not a creationist. But I see the point of matching one ideology with another. Or even many others. And its not like evolution stands up to the scientific method itself: it has no experimental evidence.
(continued)
” It is widely accepted by peers in the academic community. Creationists are trying to force their bull into the science class because they feel their system of mind control over children is being threatened. Evolution raises all sorts of nasty questions about the nature of religion which are uncomfortable for creationist parents to answer. That is the only reason I can posit for why creationists want their "science" taught in the science classroom. Not a good enough reason for me.”
The ideology of evolution truly is an enforced education in the ideology of Atheist Philosophical Materialism which is demonstrably false. Science is not capable of producing more than contingent factoid, never truth. Evolution is the “truth” of Atheism, the ideology of relativist, ethic-free, grounding-free untrustworthiness. So let’s teach that in school?
” I would suggest you spend a little more time reading about evolution from sources that aren't biased toward creationism because everything you said in this paragraph is pretty much nonsense. Evolution doesn't require faith. It is an explanation of the natural order, not a dogma. It is the best scientific explanation we have for the natural order as there is plenty of evidence to support it. Wanna see some? Go to a museum. And not the farce that is the creationism museum. A real museum.’
Your presumption of my ignorance is an arrogance of ideology. What one sees in a museum of natural history is individual creatures, juxtaposed purposefully to indicate descent, for which there is no actual evidence. The descent is presupposed; it is ideological. Nothing including and since Darwin has proven experimentally that evolution is valid, including the vaunted experiences of the Grants at Galapagos, where they admit to not seeing evolution (Evolutionary Dynamics of a Natural Population, pg 282, 283).
There is nothing predictive about evolution that makes it of any value to the legitimate science of biology. A “fact” from which nothing can be deduced is not actually a fact.
” They sue anyone and everyone and threaten to financially destroy those who disagree with them.
I think you may be confusing atheism with scientology here. If there have been any cases brought up by atheists it would be due to discrimination on religious grounds. I haven't heard of any cases that would suggest atheists try to sue theists every time a theist was nasty to them. I think if that were the case, you wouldn't find so many greedy churches hungry to get their congregations cash around. A rather inaccurate and immature assessment on your part.:”
The Boy Scouts are an example. Rather than start a similar group for Atheists, they endeavored to destroy the Boy Scouts with expensive law suits. This happens constantly. They disagreed with the Boy Scouts. They could have made their own group, but chose the destructive path instead. BTW, the Boy Scouts were not passing legislation establishing religion.
And consider the constant legal attacks by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Their entire purpose for being is destruction through the financial ruin of lawsuits.
I don’t understand your “greedy church” statement. But it’s not germane to the issue of why Atheists are not considered trustworthy.
(continued)
” I speculate that it is about personal freedom from responsible ethics, in favor of self-indulgence. The “Why I am an Atheist” papers at PZ’s blog seem to confirm that.
That's right, PZ Myers is the atheist Jesus. He speaks for all of us and we blindly follow like zombies... give me a break dude. Atheists don't have a manifesto and I can say confidently that there are probably a lot more atheists who are more likely to be ethical than your theist brethren., relatively speaking. A simple look at the general religious inclination in prisons should give you a hint on that one. Not saying all theists are criminals, just saying there are far more people of faith than faithless in prison. And yes, atheism is about personal freedom. Freedom from the oppressive nonsensical doctrine of a creed that forces all sorts of wonderful things like making women subservient to men, bigotry and racism, homophobia and intolerance and general superstition in an idea that this religion is somehow better than that one.”
Your personal misrepresentations are becoming more severe and egregious. I did not say PZ is the Atheist Jesus. But PZ is a magnet for Atheists. And many of them are posting their “reasons” for being Atheist. Your denigration of their contribution is of no consequence. Nor is your position that the freedom of Atheism is merely freedom from oppression (the victimhood stance again). Atheism is the positive freedom to create one’s own rules, ethics and even logic, because all these things are no longer grounded in any attached external absolute, being merely personal proclivities.
And there are several Atheist Manifestos, starting with Michel Onfrey’s book by that name, and the three Humanist Manifestos, which we can discuss separately if you wish.
” It attempts to answer questions not addressable by material evidentiary techniques, questions deducible logically.
How about instead of making up answers for stuff we don't know, just say "I don't know"? The next step from "I don't know" logically is "Let's try to find out". To me, that is a far more reasonable approach to the unknown than saying "god did it". Saying that just stops people looking for the real answers and slows down our intellectual progress as an intelligent species. Religion has done many things but I think it's biggest "sin" was to perpetuate the dark ages, literally causing enlightenment to slow to virtually a halt until the renaissance.”
The Dark Ages has been shown to have been a myth. I can find sources if you need them. And enlightenment historically started just before the French Revolution and stopped at the re-establishment of the dictatorship under Napoleon.
I think that the denial of the limits of science is what slows down intellectual progress. The institution of Materialism as the national culture stunts all concepts that are not accessible to material examination. But it doesn’t stop materialist story telling in favor of its untestable propositions. This is ideology mongering at its worst and lowest. It shuts off all inquiry which is not ideologically acceptable. It asserts things like "I don't know"… "Let's try to find out", which means “materially” of course, because that is the ideological limit.
The entire culture has been subjected to this ideological bullying, and has capitulated to it. Those who grew up with it have no alternative to it, because alternative thinking, no matter how valid, is not ideologically acceptable. And that, while the actual fallacy of Philosophical Materialism is ignored.
(continued)
Under a system of ungrounded logic, indeterminate ethics, science as story telling, the culture has gone irrational. For example, the logical fallacies contained in the Pale Blue Dot religious statement are considered evidence:
” Please, no more pale blue dot nonsense.
This sentence pretty much sums up your entire attitude to open mindedness and wanting to understand our place in the cosmos. No problem, I won't force anymore reason on you. You are welcome to stay in your limited worldview.”
This is another amazing statement. The Pale Blue Dot merely asserts a personal ethic of Carl Sagan, based on ignorance of other civilizations and the arrogant ignoring of the actual questions of agency and determinancy and other questions of interest. No, those questions don’t matter in the Pale Blue Dot ethic. And in fact they are illegitimate questions, because they don’t fit the ideology.
Rational? What’s in a name? What sort of rationality in the form of logical syllogicstic construction have you presented? How have you refuted the claims against your worldview? Your idea of a logical refutation seems to be just the assertion of Materialism and the Materialistic approach, with no justification for the ideology of Materialism itself. Why not address some of the actual issues? Including the demonstration that Philosophical Materialism is internally non-coherent?
” While this has been fun, I would say that is enough intellectual masturbation on my part now. You clearly have your position and are not willing to change. I on the other hand will continue to explore and try to find real answers instead of accepting what some man in a priest's collar tells me.
Good luck on your journey.”
I have demonstrated my complete radical change and the basis in logical reasons for it. But good luck to you too, and on your journey I hope you consider some logic texts, and fallacy training, and grounding for thought processes. Rationality is a process, a discipline, not an ideology.
Rationality is a process, a discipline, not an ideology.
If that's true, there's hope for both of us yet, Stan.
Wow, I had not read this comment thread before right now... I did not know you hated Atheists so much Stan!
Now, the rational person that you are is going to say that you don't hate them, right? You are just exposing their irrationality and, blah blah blah...
Really, it's shock, I did not know you were so emotional about it.
Oh wait, again, you will say you are not emotional, that you are merely exposing the lack of logic behind Atheism, and blah blah blah...
;-)
You have made an unsubstantiated accusation; what about the above constitutes hate? Quote the passages which concern you.
Stan, you say:
There is nothing predictive about evolution that makes it of any value to the legitimate science of biology.
That's a bold statement. But there are any number of counterexamples. Here's one, about eusocial behavior in naked mole rats. Another is the discovery of Tiktaalik. There's lots more where they came from.
Of course, you might counter that these examples "have no value" to the "legitimate" science of biology, because to you, the "legitimate" science of biology doesn't include evolution. But with such reasoning, you can deny anything by merely saying that it doesn't fit your parochial definition of a field of study. Luckily for science, you are in no position to define what's legitimate or not in biology.
cheers from chilly Vienna, zilch
Well saying 'hate' was mostly a joke; it was an attempt to poke you since you seemed to be getting very emotional about it the way you were replying to this commenter. I knew you were going to reply in a very formal way and that's exactly what you did...
So, no, it was surely not an 'unsubstantiated accusation'. It was simply an observation that you clearly don't like atheists and I did not know that you had such dislike for them.
By slightly changing the words, in order to put them in the form of a list, we get that according to you Atheists are...
- Intolerant of religious people
- Taking over the US Government
- Assault religious values (right or wrong)
- Control the media
- Do not have a good sense of ethics
- Pretend to be tautologically good
- Untrustworthy for a potential relationship; not trusted by anyone
- Lack principles of integrity
- Engaging in derision and ridicule instead of debates
- Sue anyone and everyone and threaten to financially destroy those who disagree with them
- Part of organizations that threaten individuals and smaller organizations with destruction
- Favor self-indulgence over responsible ethics
- Obtusely ignorant of fallacies in general
- Think they are the smartest thing in the universe
- Have only one standard of behavior: the law.
- Change laws to allow all sorts of behaviors.
- Condone pedophilia.
- Dangerous enablers of a lack of ethics
- Submit the entire culture to ideological bullying
- See alternative thinking as inacceptable
- Caused culture to be irrational
Hum... I did not expect this list to be so long. I guess it explains why my reaction was to say that you 'hate' Atheists. I guess you just really really dislike them then? Or perhaps I misrepresented your opinion by not quoting you directly for some of these points?
More importantly, since you seem to listen to logical arguments only. May I remind you that this is not valid...
- Some 'A' are 'X'
- Thus, all 'A' are 'X'
p.s. no worries concerning the delay on the other thread, I was just wondering if perhaps you had missed it since there were so many messages while you were on the road... take your time, I already spend too much time online with these things anyway ;-)
Post a Comment