Atheism-o-Phobia

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
First issue that I have is your disrespect for what I believe in by calling Jesus a zombie proves a small instance of societal intolerance functionally displayed by many atheists out there. I don’t have a problem with what you believe, as everyone is free to do so, but don’t insult my religion.

With that said, themodynamics and Chaos theory are conjunctionary in the concept of matter evolving out of nothing into an exisistence in which itself is a solitary self multiplying organism. What you can argue, IF you can prove it, is that a dimension from contigent occurance created our universe in a foray of violent explosion which would be refered to as the 10th dimmension. Thusly, out of the 10th dimmension the theory of Chaos can be continued creating a new world.

THAT is an absolute headache. This is all why something from nothing makes no sense to me and why I’d be a little more inclined to believe in a higher power. Even if that orgin seems mystic to some.[/quote]

FrozenNinja, this is exactly what I was referring to my original post in this thread. Atheists see religion as an idea while you see it as part of yourself. This is why you’re offended. The zombie comments are in jest.

I applaud you for taking a scientific approach to this, but I find it ironic that you denounce some people here for their belief in how life started (through logic, science, and reason) while at the same time, are offended of posters insulting a man that has no historical evidence of existence (Jesus).[/quote]

Ok, I don’t have time to extract TONS of information to prove of Christ’s exsistence, but trust me, it’s out there. And as being offended, I’m trying really hard to make it a buisness of not putting down anyone for what they believe but rather throwing things in the mix to get people’s minds working. The way I see it, athiests should view their atheism as apart of themselves as well, because in the end it defines their own concept of how life starts and how life ends. (Which gives whole new meaning to the thought of where you go when you die)[/quote]

I’m sorry, but I won’t “trust you” over whether there is actually evidence. This is the point. Theists cannot produce this evidence from non-Biblical, contemporaneous sources.

Atheism DOES NOT DEFINE HOW LIFE STARTED!!! That’s ABIOGENSIS!!!

142

Atheism as a concept will matter to you as far as relation to the way YOUR life started and how YOUR life will end. Sorry should have explained that better.

143

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Unless you guys provide sources to what you are saying in regards to the definitions of Atheism (proper sources, not yahoo answers), then you will not be taken seriously.[/quote]

144

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…the question remains: did Stalin kill all those people because he was an atheist, or because he was a megalomaniac who used communist ideology to usurp his power?[/quote]No, but his atheism (functional anyway) gave him no reason not to.[/quote]

…if that is a valid condemnation of atheism, every atrocity committed in the name of religion is a condemnation of that religion. But then you’ll just make excuses…[/quote]I shoulda known better because this leads right back into the moral relativity debate. Any atrocity I might commit would be in crystal clear violation of the Christian principles I say I believe and therefore a condemnation of myself rather than the belief system I claim to hold. Please allow me yet again: If there is no supra human court beyond which there is no appeal then all of existence is meaningless and one man’s atrocity is another man’s progressive social policy.

Indeed, evil itself is reduced to whatever is deemed unpleasant by somebody for the moment with “atrocity” being extra unpleasant with maybe a bit of spectacle thrown in. Of course this is dependent upon who’s perspective we’re talking about because to the one committing it it isn’t atrocious at all, but simply a means to an end unfortunate though he may even think it is.
[/quote]

Let’s expand our discussion of religion beyond Christianity. According to the Koran, all followers of Islam must rid the world of the infidel, i.e., those who are not Muslim. To many people of the world, this would be an atrocity. To a Muslim, this would be good social policy. It works both ways. And there are several radical Christians here in the U.S. who think it would be “good social policy” if atheists/agnostics were denied basic civil rights and/or were deported. Never mind that I served in the military and probably have more right to be a citizen of the U.S. than most so-called Christians.

It works both ways, T.

145

Pay special attention to “Defines their OWN CONCEPT of how life starts and how life ends” that is in relation to the fact of how an Atheist views conception and demise of THEIR own life will differ from what a creationist thinks because to an Atheist once your born, your born to die and when you die, there is no heaven and no hell.

146

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
Atheism as a concept will matter to you as far as relation to the way YOUR life started and how YOUR life will end. Sorry should have explained that better.[/quote]

We’ll all know the answer one day…

147

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

Spartiates, you are not a expert on this subject. “Professor You Tube” or Matt Dillahunty (as his correct name is) has been hosting the Atheist Experience for many many years now and has corrected this definition many times.

Here is a definition from a very reliable ATHEIST SOURCE:

“An atheist is a person who does not believe in any gods. Atheism is the corresponding philosophical position. This commonly used definition does not assume any positive claim of the nonexistence of a god.”
Source: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist
[/quote]

So it appears we have a broad problem of lack of language comprehension that continues to try and reinforce itself.

Does being atheist sound cooler to these kids than being agnostic?

This is not a debate.

The first definition of atheist in the OED: One who denies or disbelieves in the existence of a God.

This is not someone who is open to the idea of God, or is waiting for proof. We already have a word for that, that’s an AGNOSTIC.

Atheism is a positive assertion of the belief that there is no God/god. End of story.

These must be the same people who wore their “Anarchy” shirts while demanding a single-payer health-care system.

148

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Unless you guys provide sources to what you are saying in regards to the definitions of Atheism (proper sources, not yahoo answers), then you will not be taken seriously.[/quote]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist[/quote]

Okay, nobody is actually reading what I’m posting. You guys are all so set in your ways you won’t even look into what I’m trying to explain (how most modern dictionaries have this definition incorrect). This is why I posted multiple sources from Atheist sites explaining this.

Thanks guys for not even giving me a second of your time. Continue on with your pointless discussions where people just spew out their ideas without evaluating anyone elses.

:frowning:

149

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

Spartiates, you are not a expert on this subject. “Professor You Tube” or Matt Dillahunty (as his correct name is) has been hosting the Atheist Experience for many many years now and has corrected this definition many times.

Here is a definition from a very reliable ATHEIST SOURCE:

“An atheist is a person who does not believe in any gods. Atheism is the corresponding philosophical position. This commonly used definition does not assume any positive claim of the nonexistence of a god.”
Source: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist
[/quote]

So it appears we have a broad problem of lack of language comprehension that continues to try and reinforce itself.

Does being atheist sound cooler to these kids than being agnostic?

This is not a debate.

The first definition of atheist in the OED: One who denies or disbelieves in the existence of a God.

This is not someone who is open to the idea of God, or is waiting for proof. We already have a word for that, that’s an AGNOSTIC.

Atheism is a positive assertion of the belief that there is no God/god. End of story.

These must be the same people who wore their “Anarchy” shirts while demanding a single-payer health-care system.[/quote]

READ MY DAMN POSTS!!!

150

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Unless you guys provide sources to what you are saying in regards to the definitions of Atheism (proper sources, not yahoo answers), then you will not be taken seriously.[/quote]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist[/quote]

Okay, nobody is actually reading what I’m posting. You guys are all so set in your ways you won’t even look into what I’m trying to explain (how most modern dictionaries have this definition incorrect). This is why I posted multiple sources from Atheist sites explaining this.

Thanks guys for not even giving me a second of your time. Continue on with your pointless discussions where people just spew out their ideas without evaluating anyone elses.

:([/quote]

It’s hard to take people seriously when they don’t have basic language comprehension skills.

If I ran a website about how I properly worship Vishnu, and the associated world view, but called it “Christian Corner” and called myself a Christian, and continually insisted I was a Christian, would that make me a Christian?

Or does the word Christian (like the word Atheist) actually have a meaning, independent of who’s using it?

Critical thinking time.

And the answer is: YES! Words do in fact have meaning, independent of who’s using them!

151

@MiketheBear.

This is also funny to me. Many people hear that you’re Christian and then think all of a sudden that you have no room for error because you are so. That is not the case, but commonly presummed. Just because I’m Christian doesn’t give me the right or the excuse to be perfect, cause in the end we all make mistakes and we all are human. BUT, there are more people in majority who follow the Christian faith who represent what’s good about Christianity and it’s teachings rather than whats bad. I can find more Christians tolerant of a wide variety of faiths than Atheists…and thats a fact. And I meand TOLERANT, not agrees with.

Second, religions and Gods are not seperate, they’re equal to each other in some form. Part of religion is belief and part is practice. How you choose to believe and practice are entirely up to you.

Third, conception of what is moral and what is socially acceptable is determined by our past and can be changed or altered in the future. It’s not saying that we wouldn’t have come to the 10 Commandment conclusion on our own, it’s saying life could’ve been a whole lot different today tomorrow and for a lengthier period of time.

Fourth, again, the fact that someone is Christian DOES NOT mean that they are perfect. Just because you were raised Christian does not mean that you cannot and will not succumb to the dregs of societal thinking and do something un-Christian like. (In reference to those people who claim Christianity in prison)

Lastly, saying you are Christian and behaving like one or at least giving a good effort to do so are two completly different things.

152

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Unless you guys provide sources to what you are saying in regards to the definitions of Atheism (proper sources, not yahoo answers), then you will not be taken seriously.[/quote]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist[/quote]

Okay, nobody is actually reading what I’m posting. You guys are all so set in your ways you won’t even look into what I’m trying to explain (how most modern dictionaries have this definition incorrect). This is why I posted multiple sources from Atheist sites explaining this.

Thanks guys for not even giving me a second of your time. Continue on with your pointless discussions where people just spew out their ideas without evaluating anyone elses.

:([/quote]

It’s hard to take people seriously when they don’t have basic language comprehension skills.

If I ran a website about how I properly worship Vishnu, and the associated world view, but called it “Christian Corner” and called myself a Christian, and continually insisted I was a Christian, would that make me a Christian?

Or does the word Christian (like the word Atheist) actually have a meaning, independent of who’s using it?

Critical thinking time.

And the answer is: YES! Words do in fact have meaning, independent of who’s using them![/quote]

Dude, if you’re not even going to read and reference the sources I present, don’t even bother responding. Seriously, that’s just fucking rude.

153

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

READ MY DAMN POSTS!!!
[/quote]

English is what is sometimes known as a “Low Context” language. As opposed to say, some of the languages spoken in Indonesia, or even Japanese, which are “high context” languages.

What this means is that in these high-context languages, the literal meaning of words, and entire conversations can vary, depending on the context with which they are said: who’s talking, where, about what.

English is not like this. In English our words retain their same meaning regardless of context (even in spite of all the influence non-English speakers are having on modern, American, English).

154

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…the question remains: did Stalin kill all those people because he was an atheist, or because he was a megalomaniac who used communist ideology to usurp his power?[/quote]No, but his atheism (functional anyway) gave him no reason not to.[/quote]

…if that is a valid condemnation of atheism, every atrocity committed in the name of religion is a condemnation of that religion. But then you’ll just make excuses…[/quote]I shoulda known better because this leads right back into the moral relativity debate. Any atrocity I might commit would be in crystal clear violation of the Christian principles I say I believe and therefore a condemnation of myself rather than the belief system I claim to hold. Please allow me yet again: If there is no supra human court beyond which there is no appeal then all of existence is meaningless and one man’s atrocity is another man’s progressive social policy.

Indeed, evil itself is reduced to whatever is deemed unpleasant by somebody for the moment with “atrocity” being extra unpleasant with maybe a bit of spectacle thrown in. Of course this is dependent upon who’s perspective we’re talking about because to the one committing it it isn’t atrocious at all, but simply a means to an end unfortunate though he may even think it is.[/quote]

…we can go there again, but it’ll lead to the same result. But you are making excuses T, the christian beliefsystem is ambiguous; one can act in any way one chooses and justify that behaviour with scripture. Your own behaviour is proof of that: you, sometimes, act like an asshole but justify that behaviour by pointing at your faith/scripture and still believe you’re righteous…

155

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Unless you guys provide sources to what you are saying in regards to the definitions of Atheism (proper sources, not yahoo answers), then you will not be taken seriously.[/quote]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist[/quote]

Okay, nobody is actually reading what I’m posting. You guys are all so set in your ways you won’t even look into what I’m trying to explain (how most modern dictionaries have this definition incorrect). This is why I posted multiple sources from Atheist sites explaining this.

Thanks guys for not even giving me a second of your time. Continue on with your pointless discussions where people just spew out their ideas without evaluating anyone elses.

:([/quote]

It’s hard to take people seriously when they don’t have basic language comprehension skills.

If I ran a website about how I properly worship Vishnu, and the associated world view, but called it “Christian Corner” and called myself a Christian, and continually insisted I was a Christian, would that make me a Christian?

Or does the word Christian (like the word Atheist) actually have a meaning, independent of who’s using it?

Critical thinking time.

And the answer is: YES! Words do in fact have meaning, independent of who’s using them![/quote]

The semantics argument is getting silly. I posted this link, which I don’t think anyone read:

http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/

The definition given in Pat’s link defines atheism as “one who believes there is no deity.” It does not say “one who is certain there is no deity.” But no matter. It’s clear that most people associate the term “atheist” with someone who is NOT open to the possibility that there exists a deity. I like the term “agnostic” and that is what I call myself. I am open to the possibility that there exists a deity, but realize that I’ll never know for sure.

156

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
@DoubleDeuce: To give you a rebutal to this, the above information you “seemed” to systematically refute is information I found interesting. So sufice to say this was information thrown in to stir the pot if you will. None of it was typed by me, but found online from various sources. Gets your mind thinking though.

And honestly, to prove or disprove the big bang, it doesnt change the fact that you have to re-examine thermodynamics, Polonium halos, theory of chaos along with many other scientific inconsistances that make the big bang just as laughable to me as Christianity is to someone else.[/quote]

No, there are not inconsistencies if you understood the theory and modern physics.

The fact that you dismiss something as laughable without actually knowing anything about it tells me everything I need to about you. You don’t even understand simple conservation of momentum, but feel you have the authority and knowledge to criticize quantum mechanics.

157

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…the question remains: did Stalin kill all those people because he was an atheist, or because he was a megalomaniac who used communist ideology to usurp his power?[/quote]

Both. He wasn’t just atheist, he fucking hated everything to do with religion. There were no shortage of people murdered because they were religious. I can look it up for you, but I prefer you do the leg work. I got a big squat day ahead of me. …Get it?![/quote]

…religion was a threat to his totalitarian regime, and any threat was crushed. He didn’t hate religion because he was an atheist; he hated religion because it was a threat. Ideology fuels zeal, and zeal inspires people to do [horrific] things. A simple lack of beliefs in a deity in- and of itself isn’t empowering you, it liberates you…
[/quote]

He hated religion because of his mother if I am not mistaken. She made him go to church and the seminary which he hated and resented.

Yes, it was personal for him…I wish I could find some links that aren’t a thousand pages of boring text. But do us all a favor and don’t try to soften his utter assholeness. He made hitler look like an alter boy.

The picture is on the Cathedral of Christ Savior which he lovingly detonated. Sadly, even some Christians agreed with this move of his though…[/quote]

…we’ll never know if he’d still detonate the church if he never became the dictator he was, but yet again i have to object to your assertion that it was his atheism that allowed him to be ruthless. The absence of something, in this case beliefs in god, do nothing: it’s anger, frustration, abuse, trauma, insecurities, mother/father issues, that compel people to act in strange and cruel ways…

158

@DoubleDeuce

Okay, let me try not to get to wordy and scientific here, just so I don’t confuse myself. College was 3 years ago.

There are multiple forms of energy. Kinetic, potentinal, thermal, gravitational, sound, elastic and electromagnetic. Energy in a form can disappear but the same amount of energy can appear in another form. Energy itself cannot be created or produced or destroyed, KEY PHRASE: by itself. It can only be transformed. That is the Law of conservation of energy, yet another hiccup of BigBang theorists. Just pointing it out.

Lastly, nuclear particles akin to protons and neutrons are not destroyed, which is also law of conservation of energy (baryon number). This relates to the Fission and Fusion process. They are bound togther.

And energy, if I must remind everyone, is consisted of chemicals, protons, neutrons, electrons, and nuclei which are all foundations of cells in human life and matter. NO ENERGY NO LIFE. So, that leads us all back to the something out of nothing debate.

159

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
@DoubleDeuce: To give you a rebutal to this, the above information you “seemed” to systematically refute is information I found interesting. So sufice to say this was information thrown in to stir the pot if you will. None of it was typed by me, but found online from various sources. Gets your mind thinking though.

And honestly, to prove or disprove the big bang, it doesnt change the fact that you have to re-examine thermodynamics, Polonium halos, theory of chaos along with many other scientific inconsistances that make the big bang just as laughable to me as Christianity is to someone else.[/quote]

No, there are not inconsistencies if you understood the theory and modern physics.

The fact that you dismiss something as laughable without actually knowing anything about it tells me everything I need to about you. You don’t even understand simple conservation of momentum, but feel you have the authority and knowledge to criticize quantum mechanics.[/quote]

Look, don’t take it personal. I’m not a scientist. But, from what I remember in various classes throughout highschool and college I think I can understand the BASICS of these concepts fairly well. Wether I choose to agree with the application of those concepts in relation to a theory to prove your point is MY OPINION. Scientific Inconsistancies are in referance to the incosistancies MANY scientists themselves have with the Big Bang and its theoretical explanation.

160

The phrase of “Just as laughable to me as Christianity is to someone else” was a statement concieved on even ground. Christianity is laughable to many as far as a theory of life, but in all fairness and respect, I can say the same about the Big Bang theory. That’s just even ground. Thats not me insulting you or what you believe, and its not them insulting me in what I believe in necessarily either when you present it as a means for solid ground for debate. Not a put me down or put you down session.