Irrational Atheists
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
No offense, but this isn't it and you know it. I'm Catholic, and Christian theology in public life is predominately Protestant. There is much in recent history to support bad blood between our sects, yet I don't get upset at the idea of some sliver of Protestant theology making its way into the lives of kids. Because I know that I can take them to Mass and they forget all about it. A ten-minute talk with your kids, one time, would head all of the attempted religious indoctrination off at the pass.
No offense, but what Christian theology in public life? Your kids aren't asked to pray in school (unless you're sending them to parochial school, of course). When someone in government tries to bring religion overtly into their job -- Ashcroft, for instance -- their behavior is seen as wrong. (Secular government of religious men, right?) Outside of government, who gives a rat's ass? Street corner preachers, atheist college professors with book deals -- it just doesn't matter. School, however -- public school, anyway -- is a government institution, and should not include Christian theology outside studies of comparative religion. That was my point.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
What you're upset about is the implication by religious people that you are lacking. That you are evil.
Again, I don't give a rat's ass what atheists, Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, or Scientologists think of my beliefs, my completeness as a human being, or my likely disposition in the hereafter. I'm comfortable in my philosophy (I'm not an atheist, by the way), and being damned by someone's God in which I do not believe -- by proxy, no less -- means nothing to me.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
News flash: you probably are lacking and you probably are evil. If you're not, then get over it. Life is too short to worry about whether or not some person you've never met thinks you're going to imaginary Hell.
I'm not the one getting upset. That would be Ilíon.
-
You made good points, but the matter goes even deeper and exposes (once again) the *irrationality* and illogic of the 'atheist' (generic) ... and also exposes the fact that he (generic) doesn't merely "lack belief that there is a God," that he is not indifferent to the issue; that, in fact, he (generic) is every bit the "theist" that you and I are, but that he hates God, whereas you and I are trying to love God. Consider: if our 'atheists' *actually* believed what they say they believe, it wouldn't bother them the least little bit even were it true that Christians were trying to forceably indoctrinate their children [ignoring the small matters: 1) that "atheism" tends to the state of childlessness, 2) it's *impossible* to force anyone to be a Christian]. For, after all, were 'atheism' the truth about the nature of reality, then it wouldn't *matter* in the least whether a person were an 'atheist' or a Christian: all die, and that's the end of the matter. From their *own* claimed point of view we see that it is an act of irrationality to oppose *any* religion (per se). Apparently, they don't believe what they believe.
Ilíon wrote:
Consider: if our 'atheists' *actually* believed what they say they believe, it wouldn't bother them the least little bit even were it true that Christians were trying to forceably indoctrinate their children
Consider: if our 'conservatives' actually believed what they say they believe, it wouldn't bother them the least little bit even if it were true that Marxists were trying to forcibly indoctrinate their children.
Ilíon wrote:
- that "atheism" tends to the state of childlessness
That's funny. You do know that "be fruitful and multiply" isn't just an edict from on high; it's also an expression of biological imperative.
Ilíon wrote:
- it's *impossible* to force anyone to be a Christian].
True, but it is possible to force someone to act like a Christian, which seems to be all the God-botherers really care about.
Ilíon wrote:
For, after all, were 'atheism' the truth about the nature of reality, then it wouldn't *matter* in the least whether a person were an 'atheist' or a Christian: all die, and that's the end of the matter.
Have you read Dawkins? He makes the argument that if you take away the afterlife, all you have is your short time here, and you are more inclined to treasure every moment. Religion is full of talk that the inevitable misery and suffering of this world doesn't matter (or, more cruelly, is a "test"), and all will be well after you die. Which of these beliefs sounds more likely to create a feeling that life doesn't matter? How many suicide bombers are atheists?
-
Ilíon wrote:
Consider: if our 'atheists' *actually* believed what they say they believe, it wouldn't bother them the least little bit even were it true that Christians were trying to forceably indoctrinate their children
Consider: if our 'conservatives' actually believed what they say they believe, it wouldn't bother them the least little bit even if it were true that Marxists were trying to forcibly indoctrinate their children.
Ilíon wrote:
- that "atheism" tends to the state of childlessness
That's funny. You do know that "be fruitful and multiply" isn't just an edict from on high; it's also an expression of biological imperative.
Ilíon wrote:
- it's *impossible* to force anyone to be a Christian].
True, but it is possible to force someone to act like a Christian, which seems to be all the God-botherers really care about.
Ilíon wrote:
For, after all, were 'atheism' the truth about the nature of reality, then it wouldn't *matter* in the least whether a person were an 'atheist' or a Christian: all die, and that's the end of the matter.
Have you read Dawkins? He makes the argument that if you take away the afterlife, all you have is your short time here, and you are more inclined to treasure every moment. Religion is full of talk that the inevitable misery and suffering of this world doesn't matter (or, more cruelly, is a "test"), and all will be well after you die. Which of these beliefs sounds more likely to create a feeling that life doesn't matter? How many suicide bombers are atheists?
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
... means nothing to me.
And yet, here you are ... *acting* as though this all matters in some way to you.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I'm not the one getting upset. That would be Ilíon.
Are you blind? Or is it that you can't read?
Ilíon wrote:
And yet, here you are ... *acting* as though this all matters in some way to you.
Insomuch as it's an interesting mental exercise, I suppose it "matters" as much as the daily crossword puzzle.
Ilíon wrote:
Are you blind? Or is it that you can't read?
I am not blind (although I don't see how that fact is relevant to this argument). I can obviously read. But even if I were sightless and illiterate, it would not change the fact that logic always fails you, your arguments inevitably degenerate, and you are left spouting nothing but dismissive condescension. That's where you stop being even mildly entertaining.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
School, however -- public school, anyway -- is a government institution
No it isn't, at least not in a Jeffersonian society. The government has simply declared them to be its own so that it can control what is taught. Thats known as 'political indoctrination' in most parts of the world.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
No it isn't, at least not in a Jeffersonian society. The government has simply declared them to be its own so that it can control what is taught. Thats known as 'political indoctrination' in most parts of the world.
In the ideal Jeffersonian society, perhaps not. In this society, however, schools are indeed funded by government. And, while I disagree that any indoctrination is being done, if it is done I'd much rather it be political, leaving the religious indoctrination to home and church where it belongs.
-
Ilíon wrote:
Simple logical reasoning seems out of your grasp.
Wow. Guess you got me real good with that one. Ouch. Well said. There I was, feeling all smug about my actual logical refutation of your comments, expecting you to slide into your usual dismissive condescending jackassery, and then you go and skewer me with your unassailable reason. "Simple logical reasoning seems out of your grasp." Oh, snap! Excellent! Well done! Kudos, sir, kudos.
-
In the first few paragraphs he imposes his own, incorrect, definition of Christianity, entirely fails to define the God he's talking about, obviously becuase he can't but that's another matter and then uses an argument domain transition to invalidate an argument which imposes an implicit limit on the definition he has failed to give. Sucha limit being in direct contradiction with the sense of the argument he's trying to invalidate. (i.e he's using an unstated false definition of God to undermine an argument about God based on an entirely different definition) No further reading is necessary to determine that the man is a self deluded fool quite happy to redefine and requilify the entire universe in relation to his own ideas and then make utterly meaningless declarations about his belief or otherwise in an idea that he made up in the first place. :doh: Why would anyone care further what he thinks. :rolleyes:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
In the first few paragraphs he imposes his own, incorrect, definition of Christianity, entirely fails to define the God he's talking about, obviously becuase he can't but that's another matter and then uses an argument domain transition to invalidate an argument which imposes an implicit limit on the definition he has failed to give. Sucha limit being in direct contradiction with the sense of the argument he's trying to invalidate. (i.e he's using an unstated false definition of God to undermine an argument about God based on an entirely different definition) No further reading is necessary to determine that the man is a self deluded fool quite happy to redefine and requilify the entire universe in relation to his own ideas and then make utterly meaningless declarations about his belief or otherwise in an idea that he made up in the first place. Why would anyone care further what he thinks.
Loose Translation: "I can't read anything that contradicts my beliefs because my beliefs are beyond contradiction." I'll leave you with his last paragraph, which I believe is a must-read: What We Must Do We want to stand upon our own feet and look fair and square at the world -- its good facts, its bad facts, its beauties, and its ugliness; see the world as it is and be not afraid of it. Conquer the world by intelligence and not merely by being slavishly subdued by the terror that comes from it. The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings. We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. It needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence. It needs hope for the future, not looking back all the time toward a past that is dead, which we trust will be far surpassed by the future that our intelligence can create.
- Is God willing to pre
-
Ilíon wrote:
Simple logical reasoning seems out of your grasp.
Wow. Guess you got me real good with that one. Ouch. Well said. There I was, feeling all smug about my actual logical refutation of your comments, expecting you to slide into your usual dismissive condescending jackassery, and then you go and skewer me with your unassailable reason. "Simple logical reasoning seems out of your grasp." Oh, snap! Excellent! Well done! Kudos, sir, kudos.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
"Simple logical reasoning seems out of your grasp."
It only takes one or two of those to realize that replying to Iliot is a total waste.
- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. - Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. - Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? - Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Epicurus
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
If you don't believe in peanuts, who cares if your kids spend 5 minutes a year thinking about imaginary peanuts? Yeah, absolutely you shouldn't care, which is why it's so puzzling that you do.
What an irrelevant and useless analogy.
-
You made good points, but the matter goes even deeper and exposes (once again) the *irrationality* and illogic of the 'atheist' (generic) ... and also exposes the fact that he (generic) doesn't merely "lack belief that there is a God," that he is not indifferent to the issue; that, in fact, he (generic) is every bit the "theist" that you and I are, but that he hates God, whereas you and I are trying to love God. Consider: if our 'atheists' *actually* believed what they say they believe, it wouldn't bother them the least little bit even were it true that Christians were trying to forceably indoctrinate their children [ignoring the small matters: 1) that "atheism" tends to the state of childlessness, 2) it's *impossible* to force anyone to be a Christian]. For, after all, were 'atheism' the truth about the nature of reality, then it wouldn't *matter* in the least whether a person were an 'atheist' or a Christian: all die, and that's the end of the matter. From their *own* claimed point of view we see that it is an act of irrationality to oppose *any* religion (per se). Apparently, they don't believe what they believe.
Ilíon wrote:
that "atheism" tends to the state of childlessness
Which is why, of course, why the Catholic church encourages its priests and nuns to have as many children as possible. The Pope is a great grandfather 16 times over, isn't he?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
No it isn't, at least not in a Jeffersonian society. The government has simply declared them to be its own so that it can control what is taught. Thats known as 'political indoctrination' in most parts of the world.
In the ideal Jeffersonian society, perhaps not. In this society, however, schools are indeed funded by government. And, while I disagree that any indoctrination is being done, if it is done I'd much rather it be political, leaving the religious indoctrination to home and church where it belongs.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
indeed funded by government.
So the government confiscates our wealth, uses it to control the 'education' of our children, and you are ok with that. Fucking amazing. Sounds like the waste of a perfectly good revolution to me. There is no important difference between what we are now thanks to people such as yourself and what we would have been had the British defeated Washington.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
In the first few paragraphs he imposes his own, incorrect, definition of Christianity, entirely fails to define the God he's talking about, obviously becuase he can't but that's another matter and then uses an argument domain transition to invalidate an argument which imposes an implicit limit on the definition he has failed to give. Sucha limit being in direct contradiction with the sense of the argument he's trying to invalidate. (i.e he's using an unstated false definition of God to undermine an argument about God based on an entirely different definition) No further reading is necessary to determine that the man is a self deluded fool quite happy to redefine and requilify the entire universe in relation to his own ideas and then make utterly meaningless declarations about his belief or otherwise in an idea that he made up in the first place. Why would anyone care further what he thinks.
Loose Translation: "I can't read anything that contradicts my beliefs because my beliefs are beyond contradiction." I'll leave you with his last paragraph, which I believe is a must-read: What We Must Do We want to stand upon our own feet and look fair and square at the world -- its good facts, its bad facts, its beauties, and its ugliness; see the world as it is and be not afraid of it. Conquer the world by intelligence and not merely by being slavishly subdued by the terror that comes from it. The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings. We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. It needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence. It needs hope for the future, not looking back all the time toward a past that is dead, which we trust will be far surpassed by the future that our intelligence can create.
- Is God willing to pre
Yep, a nice conclusion saying essentially, my mind is the ultimate definition and judge of everything good and bad, better and worse, right and wrong and there is no higher definition. This gives me the right to define God as a small and inadequate concept that I can easily dismiss. Except that by now B. Russell has met God and knows better. Russel's mind is part of the created order, the highest point of it maybe but never the less part of it. Neither he nor I has anymore the capability to judge or to second guess, let alone to redefine, God than the CP membership database search algorithm has a right to hold marriage counselling seminars. It's, simply put, a domain error. Like the man who wanted to find someone clever so he went around asking people, "Which colour is older, red or blue?" As no one could answer him he concluded that they were all more stupid than himself, declared blue to be older than red because he said so and decided he was rightfully king of the world as the most intelligent person in it. I don't have to tell you what happened to him and yet what supposed intellectuals like Russell do is no different. It's only their ability to totally ignore the logical conclusions of their own theories (i.e. to be selectively irrational) that allow them to behave 'normally' and avoid being locked up or medicated for their own safety.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Edmundisme wrote:
This is part 1, I can't seem to find a link to part 2...
Perhaps here: RZMI (downloads)[^]
You are right! :( I didn't realize it was the entire thing. I can't find part II either... Sorry! :-O
-
You are right! :( I didn't realize it was the entire thing. I can't find part II either... Sorry! :-O
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
indeed funded by government.
So the government confiscates our wealth, uses it to control the 'education' of our children, and you are ok with that. Fucking amazing. Sounds like the waste of a perfectly good revolution to me. There is no important difference between what we are now thanks to people such as yourself and what we would have been had the British defeated Washington.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
So the government confiscates our wealth, uses it to control the 'education' of our children, and you are ok with that. f***ing amazing.
I think the point would be that the public cares about what the government does with its tax revenue, and doesn't want the government using it for religious purposes. Of course, that may not be true. Maybe the courts are indeed out of step with the public. But there are certainly a lot of people who don't want government revenues used for religious purposes. Nothing wrong with that.
John Carson
-
You made good points, but the matter goes even deeper and exposes (once again) the *irrationality* and illogic of the 'atheist' (generic) ... and also exposes the fact that he (generic) doesn't merely "lack belief that there is a God," that he is not indifferent to the issue; that, in fact, he (generic) is every bit the "theist" that you and I are, but that he hates God, whereas you and I are trying to love God. Consider: if our 'atheists' *actually* believed what they say they believe, it wouldn't bother them the least little bit even were it true that Christians were trying to forceably indoctrinate their children [ignoring the small matters: 1) that "atheism" tends to the state of childlessness, 2) it's *impossible* to force anyone to be a Christian]. For, after all, were 'atheism' the truth about the nature of reality, then it wouldn't *matter* in the least whether a person were an 'atheist' or a Christian: all die, and that's the end of the matter. From their *own* claimed point of view we see that it is an act of irrationality to oppose *any* religion (per se). Apparently, they don't believe what they believe.
Ilíon wrote:
Consider: if our 'atheists' *actually* believed what they say they believe, it wouldn't bother them the least little bit even were it true that Christians were trying to forceably indoctrinate their children... For, after all, were 'atheism' the truth about the nature of reality, then it wouldn't *matter* in the least whether a person were an 'atheist' or a Christian: all die, and that's the end of the matter.
This is a non sequitur and the fact that you make it after having spent some time on these issues is proof that you have little interest in the truth. You are apparently claiming that only things that last forever matter. I don't think you are sincere. If I were to shove a hot poker up your arse, then I am prepared to bet that you would think that mattered, notwithstanding its temporary nature. Your God apparently disagrees with you as well, since short-lived acts committed here on earth apparently matter so much that they determine our eternal destiny (the existence of an eternal destiny doesn't automatically mean that short-lived acts here on earth have consequences for it --- but God has apparently decided that they do). But, even if I were to concede the sincerity of your own position, it does not follow that others cannot have a logically defensible different position. For my own part, I care about the effect of religions for much the same reason I would care about having a hot poker shoved up my arse. These things have emotional consequences (direct and indirect), so I care about them. Indeed, for me, feelings are the ultimate measure of things. The fate of a rock is unimportant, even if it were to exist forever.
John Carson
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
indeed funded by government.
So the government confiscates our wealth, uses it to control the 'education' of our children, and you are ok with that. Fucking amazing. Sounds like the waste of a perfectly good revolution to me. There is no important difference between what we are now thanks to people such as yourself and what we would have been had the British defeated Washington.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
So the government confiscates our wealth, uses it to control the 'education' of our children, and you are ok with that. f***ing amazing. Sounds like the waste of a perfectly good revolution to me. There is no important difference between what we are now thanks to people such as yourself and what we would have been had the British defeated Washington.
No, Stan, they don't use our wealth to control the "education" of our children. A portion of our tax dollars is used to provide our children with an education. Do you see the difference?
-
DemonPossessed wrote:
So since atheists do not believe in God, they should not care that children are forcibly indoctrinated to believe in God? Excellent argument!
If you don't believe in peanuts, who cares if your kids spend 5 minutes a year thinking about imaginary peanuts? Yeah, absolutely you shouldn't care, which is why it's so puzzling that you do.
I would care if my kids didn't have any food, but they thought they were OK, because the peanuts were coming.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
So the government confiscates our wealth, uses it to control the 'education' of our children, and you are ok with that. f***ing amazing.
I think the point would be that the public cares about what the government does with its tax revenue, and doesn't want the government using it for religious purposes. Of course, that may not be true. Maybe the courts are indeed out of step with the public. But there are certainly a lot of people who don't want government revenues used for religious purposes. Nothing wrong with that.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
I think the point would be that the public cares about what the government does with its tax revenue, and doesn't want the government using it for religious purposes.
If that were true we would hardly need the federal government involved in the process. The mere fact that the federal government has so forceably inserted itself into the system of local schools is unequivocal proof that they are purposefully managing education in order to exert a centrally controlled belief system regardless of what the majority public sentiments might be.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
So the government confiscates our wealth, uses it to control the 'education' of our children, and you are ok with that. f***ing amazing. Sounds like the waste of a perfectly good revolution to me. There is no important difference between what we are now thanks to people such as yourself and what we would have been had the British defeated Washington.
No, Stan, they don't use our wealth to control the "education" of our children. A portion of our tax dollars is used to provide our children with an education. Do you see the difference?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
A portion of our tax dollars is used to provide our children with an education.
As long as the public schools teach exactly what they are told to teach by those providing the funding. Sorry, I don't see any difference at all.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization