Conquer Club

PLAYER57832 wrote:So, too, with Atheism and Agnosticism. There are the basic definitions. Atheists believe in no God. Agnostics are not sure.
Atheism is a belief held just as firmly, that lays just as much a basis for behavior as any religion.

please list behaviours coming from atheism.

Snorri1234 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:So, too, with Atheism and Agnosticism. There are the basic definitions. Atheists believe in no God. Agnostics are not sure.
Atheism is a belief held just as firmly, that lays just as much a basis for behavior as any religion.

please list behaviours coming from atheism.

The behaviors need not differ at all. It is the beliefs that differ. When beliefs differ, however, it eventually shows in behavior, though sometimes only subtly.
Well, you trot out a few yourself in some other threads.
It does not eliminate morality, but definitely changes one's perception of morality. This is less evident in folks like you who were more or less raised within a "Western", "Christian" society, but the difference is there.

You look more to reason, to science to dictate things. You also worry more about the "immediate", rather than being willing to endure for "some aloof future" post-death, etc.

The real differences may be subtle, but they are quite real.

PLAYER57832 wrote: Evolution did not begin with Darwin, no. However, the theory has not been around for centuries. Atheism, however and the idea that reason (but not stricly evolution) HAS been around centuries. Do not confuse infusion of reason into religion with the specific theory of evolution PLEASE.

It has been around for centuries. It may not be articulated the way Darwin did, but it has been around for centuries. I know you're going to come back and nitpick on what "the specific theory of evolution" is, but that's not what I said. So I'm saying it now before you pull out one of your rhetorical tricks or go start another thread like you usually do.

The basic concept of all events having natural causes originated with Thales of Miletus according to wikipedia. Others came after him, but didn't articulate it as he did through the mechanism of natural selection. The idea of evolution has been around for centuries.

silvanricky wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:Does she have to know them all personally?

No, but if she provided some names of atheists who publicly denounce evolution or disagree with it then it would help. If she's got some names I would use them in my term papers.

I have to say I have not found any famous ones, sorry. I have heard that they exist. It could be that they existed historically. I would have a hard time believing there are not a few atheists somewhere who reject evolution. (I mean, there is a whole "Flat earth society", after all). Normally, I don't parlay heresay, but on something like this... I will see if I can at least find references to them.

Juan_Bottom said

An interesting turn here that pimpdave has kinda touched upon. There is a religious group out there called, the Raliens (sp?). They believe everything that Christians believe about God. Only,... they think God was an alien. Kinda funny I think that you can't disprove one without disproving the other or allow one without allowing the other.
No where in the Bible does it say that God was not an alien, or that Jesus wasn't a Raptor.

It did say he shaped man in the image of himself


I am pretty sure i do not look like an alien

Snorri1234 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:So, too, with Atheism and Agnosticism. There are the basic definitions. Atheists believe in no God. Agnostics are not sure.
Atheism is a belief held just as firmly, that lays just as much a basis for behavior as any religion.

please list behaviours coming from atheism.

1. A firm and much vocalized belief that being an atheist means your're really smart.
2. A marked hostility toward religious beliefs.
3. Hypocritical observation of Christmas and Easter in spite of not believing in such.
4. Lots of gays.
5. Over exuberance about Dan Brown novels.


Honibaz

b.k. barunt wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:So, too, with Atheism and Agnosticism. There are the basic definitions. Atheists believe in no God. Agnostics are not sure.
Atheism is a belief held just as firmly, that lays just as much a basis for behavior as any religion.

please list behaviours coming from atheism.

1. A firm and much vocalized belief that being an atheist means your're really smart.
2. A marked hostility toward religious beliefs.
3. Hypocritical observation of Christmas and Easter in spite of not believing in such.
4. Lots of gays.
5. Over exuberance about Dan Brown novels.


Honibaz

lol true true!

I dispute no 5.

jonesthecurl wrote:I dispute no 5.

Then you must be a pseudoatheist. If you were a real atheist Dan Brown would make your nipples hard.


Honibaz

I'm forming my own schism.

Dan Brown will not be happy.


Honibaz

silvanricky wrote:Except the points I laid out are not in disagreement with Christianity exclusively. They are tenets which disagree with many deistic religions. That's why your other point isn't rational. You're setting up a strawman in doing a parody of the points I laid out.

Rubbish, my argument was a strawman and irrational precisely because it was a parody of yours. If I saw Christianity in your post, it was because you used Christian concepts, such as sin, angels, God, etc. I don't think my assumption was quite as massively unreasonable as you seem to think.

silvanricky wrote:
Do you really think evolutionary thought began with Darwin? Evolution as a way to justify atheism has been around for centuries. It may not have been articulated like Darwin did, but it was still out there being mulled over.

Look, you're obviously trying to argue over every little definition and point to reach the conclusion that you want. You don't want to believe that atheism is religious or a religion. I still can't find an atheist to disagree with those 5 points, but perhaps the 5th one could be arguable if Player showed me proof. I think the people on the yes side of this question though have made excellent points, and it's shown in the results of your poll. I understand that atheists in general don't want to view themselves as religious and will verbally fight that to their dying breath. Perhaps it's because they want to view themselves as scientific intellectuals or smarter than everyone else, I don't know. What I do know is that every so often it is atheists and not others that bring up these subjects and want to argue them.

Atheism does not require belief in evolution. I'm a little baffled by your claim not to have found an atheist who disagrees with your five tenets of atheism. I disagreed, as have several others, including at least one Christian. They simply can't be taken as tenets of atheism. I guess the first four are broadly accurate, but only as far as saying that not believing in Thor is a tenet of Sikhism. It's just irrelevant.

I agree that people on the yes side have made excellent posts, and I've had much fruitful debate, and more than a few uncomfortable questions to deal with. I don't think the poll counts for all that much though, very few of the yes voters seem to actually want to engage with the arguments. Still, it makes me appreciate those who do a little bit more.

Out of interest, given that you clearly feel that atheism is a religion, does anything about the tone and nature of your arguments strike you as being religiously bigoted?

b.k. barunt wrote:Dan Brown will not be happy.


Honibaz

Dan Brown is a cunt.
I don't like cunts.
Therefore, Dan Brown is a cunt.

silvanricky wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote: Evolution did not begin with Darwin, no. However, the theory has not been around for centuries. Atheism, however and the idea that reason (but not stricly evolution) HAS been around centuries. Do not confuse infusion of reason into religion with the specific theory of evolution PLEASE.

It has been around for centuries. It may not be articulated the way Darwin did, but it has been around for centuries. I know you're going to come back and nitpick on what "the specific theory of evolution" is, but that's not what I said. So I'm saying it now before you pull out one of your rhetorical tricks or go start another thread like you usually do.

The basic concept of all events having natural causes originated with Thales of Miletus according to wikipedia. Others came after him, but didn't articulate it as he did through the mechanism of natural selection. The idea of evolution has been around for centuries.

This is hilarious. You've effectively declared that all atheists believe in evolution, and decided that if atheists existed before the theory was formulated, then that means that theory is older than we thought.

Heads up, evolution is not the opposite of creationism. You don't have to believe one or the other. This may be a shocking revelation to you, but there we go.

What you really don't get is the basic principle of atheism. No supreme supernatural higher power. That kind of puts the kibosh on non-natural explanations of the formation of the earth and life. Interestingly, your link actually shows that there have been many theories and ideas prior to evolution. So yeah- people can come up with natural explanations without God, and without evolution.

Off the top of my head, I'd suggest Lucretius, and Percy Shelley as examples of atheists pre-Darwin who did not believe in evolution.

Of course, if you believe that all non-"God did it" explanations equal evolution, then my arguments will have zero traction. Ditto if you truly feel that evolution equals "God didn't do it".

Yes.
Next question.

Serbia wrote:Yes.
Next question.

Why?
Next answer.

Symmetry wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

LikeYestrdaysJam wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:sure. I'm as unsure about there being no gods as I'm unsure about evolution.

What logical reason is there to believe that there are no gods?

what logical reason is there to believe there are gods?>

That's exactly my point. Atheists are as silly as religious people. In many cases even more silly, because at least some religious people are intelligent enough to recognize the logical ludicrousness of the view and admit it's just a faith-based view, whereas most atheists are too arrogant to recognize the hypocrisy in their attacks on religious people.

Interesting argument- so the more irrational beliefs you hold, the smarter you are, as long as you recongnise them as having no grounding in reality?

And you're suggesting that atheism is just arrogance and hypocrisy?

There's nothing inherently intelligent about rationality. Choosing to be rational is a choice, just as choosing to believe in irrational systems. Thus there is no ground to criticize someone, from an objective stance, who believes in something irrational, because ultimately it's a matter of choice. You could of course attempt to rationally prove that it is desirable to be rational, but that proof would fail because of course there is no rational proof that the axioms of rationality are better than irrationality. My point is that it is intelligent to recognize that your stance is irrational; it is not intelligent for a religious person to attempt to defend the rationality of their claims.

john got what I meant correct - atheists do the same thing that they typically criticize religious people for. If you think what I'm saying doesn't describe you, then you're not an atheist (I say this recognizing that "AD1" as described earlier in the thread is not a philosophically meaningful definition of atheism - you could pick that one, but then the debates would be trivial).

Serbia wrote:Yes.
Next question.

Since you asked -

Why can't atheists just be comfortable with their beliefs and stop creating threads giving themselves an excuse to argue?

beezer wrote:

Serbia wrote:Yes.
Next question.

Since you asked -

Why can't atheists just be comfortable with their beliefs and stop creating threads giving themselves an excuse to argue?

Because both groups think the other is wrong, but one of them does it because they believe they're smarter.

Metsfanmax wrote:There's nothing inherently intelligent about rationality. Choosing to be rational is a choice, just as choosing to believe in irrational systems. Thus there is no ground to criticize someone, from an objective stance, who believes in something irrational, because ultimately it's a matter of choice. You could of course attempt to rationally prove that it is desirable to be rational, but that proof would fail because of course there is no rational proof that the axioms of rationality are better than irrationality. My point is that it is intelligent to recognize that your stance is irrational; it is not intelligent for a religious person to attempt to defend the rationality of their claims.

john got what I meant correct - atheists do the same thing that they typically criticize religious people for. If you think what I'm saying doesn't describe you, then you're not an atheist (I say this recognizing that "AD1" as described earlier in the thread is not a philosophically meaningful definition of atheism - you could pick that one, but then the debates would be trivial).

This is a little bizarre as arguments go. Rationality is a sign of intelligence. You seem to think that religious thought can't be rational. Much of it can. I disagreed with your premise that simply recognizing an idea as irrational makes you better. That was an arrogant argument. It suggests that you can leave the idea unexamined by rational means. I don't know any major theologian who adopts such a lazy method- "God did it, enough said".

Let's not go down the "it's all a matter of choice" street though. Not all choices are equally valid.

Symmetry wrote:Rationality is a sign of intelligence.

I disagreed with your premise that simply recognizing an idea as irrational makes you better.

If being rational is a sign of intelligence, and we assume that being more intelligent is better, then you are contradicting yourself, because recognizing irrationality is the trait of a rational individual. Thus atheists are less rational than religious folk (because they hold an irrational belief and fail to recognize it), and thus (by your argument) are less intelligent.

As it happens, I disagree with the statement that rationality is a sign of intelligence (this is an arbitrary assertion on your part), but the contradictory nature of your stance is there either way.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Rationality is a sign of intelligence.

I disagreed with your premise that simply recognizing an idea as irrational makes you better.

If being rational is a sign of intelligence, and we assume that being more intelligent is better, then you are contradicting yourself, because recognizing irrationality is the trait of a rational individual. Thus atheists are less rational than religious folk (because they hold an irrational belief and fail to recognize it), and thus (by your argument) are less intelligent.

As it happens, I disagree with the statement that rationality is a sign of intelligence (this is an arbitrary assertion on your part), but the contradictory nature of your stance is there either way.

Uhh no. You may hold the belief that atheists hold an irrational belief but that doesn't make it a fact. But please try and explain why atheism is irrational.

Iliad's sig reminds me of something. That quote about "one fewer god" is ridiculous because a MONOTHEISTIC religion recognizes that there is one and only one god. It's logically impossible to follow more than one monotheistic religion so the point is moot. We're just picking our favorite explanation of the universe. It's as if I had no favorite color, and criticized you for having only one favorite, saying "when you understand why you don't like the other colors, you'll understand why I don't like yours". Basically, if one religion didn't exist, the adherents would find another religion.

Anyway, carry on. I'm just sick of seeing that ridiculous quote everywhere.

john9blue wrote:Iliad's sig reminds me of something. That quote about "one fewer god" is ridiculous because a MONOTHEISTIC religion recognizes that there is one and only one god. It's logically impossible to follow more than one monotheistic religion so the point is moot. We're just picking our favorite explanation of the universe. It's as if I had no favorite color, and criticized you for having only one favorite, saying "when you understand why you don't like the other colors, you'll understand why I don't like yours". Basically, if one religion didn't exist, the adherents would find another religion.

Anyway, carry on. I'm just sick of seeing that ridiculous quote everywhere.

Uh no it's not. You seem to think that the quote is asking you to believe in several religions at once. That quote is asking you why you don't believe in all the other religions. And not just because another religion, which you do follow, tells you not to.

Symmetry wrote:This is a little bizarre as arguments go. Rationality is a sign of intelligence.

Rationality is only one type of intelligence. Creativity, the ability to understand people at a "gut" level (emotional intelligence), etc are all recognized forms of intelligence that actually supercede pure rationality. Ironically enough, rationality is probably among the least important of skills leading to success. That is, you have to have a certain level of rationality, absolutely, but once past that base point, it is other factors that actually matter far more.

To see how this is true, think of your classic "extreme anal retentive". (often with low-level Asperger's) They may be extremely brilliant in a rational way, but piss everyone off with whom they deal, because they just don't "get" how other people think and feel. Contrast that with your classic politician. They might not be the absolute smartest guy, but they have the ability to bring people together.

OR, take the case of many artists.

Now, I am not saying that these exclude rationality, but even in science, the greatest advances come not from pure rationality, but the creative ability to approach problems from different perspectives and to think well "outside the box". I mean, was it truly "rational" to think that bacteria cause ulcers, from the outset? If it truly were, the discovery would have been made much earlier. Instead, it took some Nobel winners to find the answer.

This is the biggest problem with this whole "I am atheist, therefore smarter". In truth, that comes more from arrogance and a poor understanding of how other people think. (not saying this is true of all atheist, just those that insist atheism makes them smarter, particularly those who think this because they are "more rational"). That kind of thinking is a sign of a very closed mind, not high intelligence. These atheist may well be intelligent, but they would be even more intelligent if they were able to understand other people's thinking a bit better.