As an athiest I love debating my beliefs in hopes of gaining even a bit of new knowledge. But one thing I've noticed about debating with theists, is it's a never ending debate... Simply because they do not incorperate logic in to the debate... And it seems that is the foundation debating is founded on... Just wondering if anyone has any thoughts or comments on this.:)

Unfortunately, Notme, you're a little late on that one. We just went through a couple of months of that very debate, and, unfortunately, atheism didn't fare much better.

In what way do you find logic absent from the debate?

At Sciforums, we saw the assertions that morality is what each person decides, that reality is what each person decides, that the purpose of all life is whatever each person decides, and that God is what an atheist says it is in order to debunk it.

It wasn't a pretty period for any of us, so please excuse us if we're not rushing to cover old ground. Any specific aspect of debate you could pull out would be helpful in finding a more effective answer to offer you.

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

PS--Here's a search of topics related to atheism and atheists (http://sciforums.com/search.php?action=showresults&searchid=53634&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending). These are, obviously, easier to pick out than those involving theism specifically. I mean, I suppose I could run a search for a wildcard attached to the term "God", but that would be a huge list. Since atheism pertains directly to theism, you'll find much about theism, atheism, and God in those debates, whereas searching for "God" would land you with a thousand posts containing the word "goddamn".

notme2000 wrote:

Just wondering if anyone has any thoughts or comments on this.

I've been an atheist for some 4 decades. I've had more than a few discussions with fools, and I've had formidable debates with some remarkably good people - good both intellectually and personally. My comment would be: The 'logic' inherent in such childish generalizations is faulty, and ad hominem is a pretty poor foundation for a thread.

Orginally posted by notme2000
As an athiest I love debating my beliefs in hopes of gaining even a bit of new knowledge. But one thing I've noticed about debating with theists, is it's a never ending debate... Simply because they do not incorperate logic in to the debate... And it seems that is the foundation debating is founded on... Just wondering if anyone has any thoughts or comments on this.

What you wanna debate? You shouldn't generalize.

This is notme2000, just on someone else's account. If you want to have an intelligent debate go to the religion/Religion is a pop-culture thread.

Hey there, Notme, Empty Dragon, whomever ... 2 simple points:

• Make your debate here or shut the hell up.
• You might want to list all the ID's you post under so we know who we're talking to.

I mean, why are atheists such cowards when it comes to backing up their rhetoric? Hiding behind second ID's, trying to move the debate away to another topic ... what is it about atheism that just saps a person's courage and intellect like that?

(See? Even I can generalize inappropriately. What is the problem with having an intelligent debate here in this topic, aside from the puerile topic post and the idiot trying to start a goose-chase by posting under multiple ID's?)

Question: Is it that our topic poster is unable to figure out how to sign out someone else's account and sign itself into Sciforums as itself? Or is it just that our topic poster is unwilling?

:rolleyes:,
Tiassa :cool:

kiss my ass, i do what i want.
the end

p.s. Empty Dragon is someone else, but I happened to be at his house so I used his account. So there.

• kiss my ass, i do what i want.
the end

• So there.Is that what you call "intelligent" debate, Notme or Empty Dragon or whoever you decide to be next?

A piece of advice for the future: If you're too scared to have the debate, perhaps you shouldn't start the topic.

:rolleyes:,
Tiassa :cool:

notme2000 wrote:[/i]
kiss my ass, i do what i want. the end
Why is it that these pathetic, peurile, peckerheads take so much pride in advertising the fact? :D :D

Look, I'm here to have intelligent conversations. You people want to rub your egos, be my guest, but I don't want to witness it. I did not mean to offend or generalize in this thread, but that's how it turned out, so I gave up on the thread. And, no, I was not willing to switch accounts, is that ok with everyone? Why do you people have to ruin such a good site? I don't see any need for insults on a site like this? My kiss my ass remark was me realizing this thread, or the people in it, are not worth my time... With some exceptions of course. Just leave me alone, ok? Geeze.

notme2000 wrote:[/i]

Look, I'm here to have intelligent conversations.
That is less than apparent.

notme2000 wrote:[/i]

I don't see any need for insults on a site like this? My kiss my ass remark was me realizing this thread, or the people in it, are not worth my time.
It's called cognitive disconnect ... :rolleyes:

Debating theists is kinda like trying to fight a drunk idiot using only orthodox boxing rules. You fight by the rules, but the other guy doesn't. And what's more, he's too stupid and drunk to know he's defeated if he is, so he keeps on going. Impossible, just conclude that theists are beyond repair and have pity and mercy on them.

Debating theists is kinda like trying to fight a drunk idiot using only orthodox boxing rulesDoes that mean that atheists have smoked enough crack to think there are rules to fighting?

Or does that mean that atheists can only fight if they fight according to rules?

Like those atheists who wanted to establish their own versions of God in order to fight against it (old man in the sky, beard, judgment, &c.) ... would they assert that boxing is the only way to fight?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

how cool
a debate about a debate
new heights of boredom have ............

"You people want to rub your egos, be my guest, but I don't want to witness it."

Woh, woh, woh. Everyone here is rubbing their egos eh? This from the guy who started a thread to say; 'ya know, theists are so dumb! they can't debate!'

Tyler: Touchee..... lol

Tiassa, I have to agree with Zero, however this only applies to about 99.9% of theists, occasionally there is a smart one such as you although I must say you sometimes do stretch things to make it sound like theism has won an arguement that hasn't even happened.

occasionally there is a smart one such as you Why thank you.you sometimes do stretch things to make it sound like theism has won an arguement that hasn't even happenedNope ... I'm waiting for the atheists to catch up so we can have that argument.

The thing is that atheists need to realize: if you challenge one of the many stupid people, you freeze the issue, and make it a focal point. Human nature being what it is, that's a horrible point for someone to make a stand on pride. But many religious people do.

Watch the various Christian wars get out of hand. Christians misrepresent Christians, the opposition lashes back, nailing all of Christianity, and suddenly Christians who weren't paying attention in the first place and may not actually support the issue at hand are in the fight because they feel some public manifestation has lashed out at them. Practical example? OCA goes after gays, community responds with frustration over Christian intrusion into people's lives (press, medicine, religious freedom itself) ... and suddenly thousands of Christians who wouldn't have given the OCA the time of day are onboard and arguing a very petty, very stupid issue that may become a fairly defining moment for them.

One of the saddest things I see in atheism is that atheists tend to miss a certain idea that religious people are in on. Now, whether those religious people are in on it correctly is its own issue. But ...

Is it possible for an atheist to deal with a religious person in any terms other than religion? It would seem so. For instance, I generally push people away from religions; I cannot recall actively pushing anyone toward one. Well, maybe a couple of reckless Satanic advocacies a few years back, and maybe a couple of excitable moments as a witch. But I'm not about to tell someone to pray about it and leave the situation at that. Such a resolution is irresponsible and without compassion toward legitimate human needs. Where God comes into it, I take it out of that context. When all is said and done, what I do with those ideas pertaining to God will have a permanent effect on how that individual views God.

If it came right down to it, I could destroy people's confidence in their religion faster than any atheist can. Why? Because in addition to whining about religion for a good portion of my life, I've learned how to observe religion as a functional principle in people's lives. That is, I know what works better than an atheist. I know how to manipulate religious ideas better than an atheist. And I can get better functional results in "converting" someone away from a religion than any atheist on the face of the planet.

Why? A few reasons, at least.

• I have no stake in disproving God. Therefore I can communicate on an equal term, not from an assumption of authority.

• I understand religious sentiment and psychology better. Simple rules of familiarity support such an assertion.

• I'm in on what atheists are not: the presumption of compassion.

This last point is the vital one. It's not a matter of supremacy to me; it's a matter of people's happiness and how they feel. If someone is legitimately happy and not harming others, I have no right to interfere in how they view the world. But if someone is harming others, I have an obligation to interfere. If someone is unhappy or harming themselves, it is a presumption of compassion that compels me to interfere. I do not accept unhappiness for myself, nor will I accept it in others. If that unhappiness is brought by the disease of ignorance, for instance, as is common among many religious believers, I should go forth to heal the disease with compassion. I should not work to reduce the sick, but to augment them.

Now admittedly many religious folk get the presumption of compassion all snarled up into something beyond recognition, but at least it's there. I'm not so sure about atheism, and the evidence for the legitimacy of that doubt comes from the seemingly eternal hostility atheists show religions.

Understand them, don't hate them. If you understand them they'll go away quicker. I don't get why nobody's figured that out. I mean, I know why the religious people haven't figured that out. But the atheists ... man, I don't know. It really seems that obvious.

In the meantime, if the atheist wallows in the superstitious shallows of the religion, what can he or she expect but the simplest, most superstitious, most ignorant and assumptive religion possible?

If 99.9% of theists are sick with it, then heal them. For God's sake, man ... er, I mean .... ;)

I mean, take a look at Notme2000 and Zero's characterizations. Take a look at the contempt that even other of our beloved Sciforums' atheists show religion. Great. We know you guys are atheists. Could you all try being useful with it, so to speak? It's getting a little hard when the broadminded theists trying to fix the situation have to shout to be heard over the voices of scorn and condemnation. Many of us know much about theistic idiocies, and probably even more than the atheists. But it's really quite hard to communicate with the narrowly religious when they spend their time worrying about the guy over there who's calling them stupid.

Understand: as an atheist, I found God to be too important; that is, for being an atheist, thinking about God took up an awful lot of my time.

Once I found a definition of God that my integrity required me to accept, everything got easier. God is considerably less important an issue.

Atheists simply need to get to know the religions they oppose better. They'll learn a tremendous lot about their declared enemy, and even more about human nature in general. I'm not saying anyone has to believe a word of what they're reading or hearing. But it would be helpful if atheists treated theistic ideas as something other than platforms upon which to be poseurs.

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

Wow, Tiassa, you are a truly warped and twisted individual...

Wow, Tiassa, you are a truly warped and twisted individual...Your perspicacity is admirable.

Now, I was saying something about hostility?

Chill.

Sit.

Roll over.

Play dead.

Good boy.

--Tiassa :cool:

twisted twisted twisted. Seek help.
Ok... Maybe I should explain my hostility... What gives you the right to choose what religion is good for someone and then to convert them? Manipulation is bad... Even if you are trying to help them. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. U act like you are God yourself... Which checks out with the fact that you seem to worship yourself.

Originally posted by notme2000
Wow, Tiassa, you are a truly warped and twisted individual...

My sentiments exactly.

However Tiassa can do SOME good things. But when it comes to talking about atheists and theists, she acts like the shemale that he is and starts spouting shit about how theists are obviously superior, that theists have already won all the intellectual wars, etc.

And then there's the fact that he changes religions every time she gets the chance to. Sometimes I ask myself what kind of a person Tiassa would have to be for her to say such things about atheists, theists, and himself, but alas, the sano-religious Tiassa is trapped somewhere deep inside of her. Too bad we can't talk to it... :(

And why is it that both our *smart* theists here are atheists that think they're theists? puh-leeze!

[edit to add:

thanx much,
Mark :cool: ]

What gives you the right to choose what religion is good for someone and then to convert them? Generally speaking, the person in question gives me that right. They ask advice, I give advice. If that advice changes their perspective, so be it. But I'm not about to give what I think is bad advice. Not even for the sake of their God. Even if you are trying to help them. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.Well, that explains the thing about atheists. No good intentions, no road to hell .... U act like you are God yourselfThis from someone to whom "Kiss my ass" equals a reasonable response? Cute.Which checks out with the fact that you seem to worship yourself.Can't do that until the legion of slaves finishes sculpting the four-hundred foot statue. :rolleyes:

--Tiassa :cool:

Can't do that until the legion of slaves finishes sculpting the four-hundred foot statue.

Following family tradition, I had them organize a union and now they're demanding a living wage.

However, filming on "WWF: RAW IS WAR, Tiassa vs. the athiests" has begun. :p

Generally speaking, the person in question gives me that right. They ask advice
Advice doesn't involve figuring out there religious weaknesses and using them against the person... Advice is your honest opinion, which they can choose to accept or discard.
Well, that explains the thing about atheists. No good intentions, no road to hell ....
Witty, I'll give you that. But you must really have a hatred for athiests to asume that. Before you go using the name of this thread against me, all it states is a debate between theists and athiests is impossible because both parties abide by different rules, I never said anything bad about theists themselves (as a whole, you seem to embody the horrible stereotype of a theist given by those who embody the horrible stereotype of an athiest). Plenty of athiests have good intentions, and are commendable for it concidering they have no heaven to reward them or hell to punish them.
This from someone to whom "Kiss my ass" equals a reasonable response? Cute.
Why thank you, I do my best.
Can't do that until the legion of slaves finishes sculpting the four-hundred foot statue
Good luck on that

But when it comes to talking about atheists and theists, she acts like the shemale that he is and starts spouting shit about how theists are obviously superior, that theists have already won all the intellectual wars, etc.Well, if you don't want me reflecting on such stupid statements as won an arguement that hasn't even happened, perhaps you shouldn't bring it up, eh?

I mean, why would you bring something like that up? Really? So I comment on it and you have some sort of problem with this?And then there's the fact that he changes religions every time she gets the chance to.What's that? I'm not narrow-minded? I can sympathize with perspectives not my own? Oh, how awful. How f@cking twisted .... :rolleyes: Sometimes I ask myself what kind of a person Tiassa would have to be for her to say such things about atheists, theists, and himself,Well, I like to think that I'm the authority to speak on the subject of myself. But of atheists, I wonder the same thing: what kind of people do these have to be?

I mean, think about it:

•_Simply because they do not incorperate logic in to the debate
• kiss my ass, i do what i want
• So there.
• Debating theists is kinda like trying to fight a drunk idiot using only orthodox boxing rules.
• And what's more, he's too stupid and drunk to know he's defeated if he is, so he keeps on going
• Impossible, just conclude that theists are beyond repair and have pity and mercy on them.

I mean, you tell me, GB-GIL, what kind of people do they have to be to think this kind of balbutive passes for debate?

If atheists don't want to hear how well I can trash-talk them, perhaps they should set out to attain a better standard of debate than calling people drunk, stupid, idiots, or beyond repair. I find it a little ironic that Notme is asking what gives me the right while Zero is having supremacist fantasies of pity and mercy. Sure, they're different people, but the irony is cute to say the least.

You know, when people are reduced to saying, "You're so warped!" I feel sorry for them. I didn't mean to confuse them. I didn't mean to make it too hard for them to understand. But I would no more dumb it down for someone and pretend they're understanding the actual concept than I would intentionally give bad advice.

I mean, what kind of person are you, GB-GIL? Is gender-bending the best you can do? It's such a brilliant expression of the atheist mind. We're all in awe of that stale-in-fourth-grade crap.And why is it that both our *smart* theists here are atheists that think they're theistsI'm curious why you think that. I mean, it's also likely that you just don't get it, GIL. It is entirely possible that you ask that question because you do not understand the nature of theism they deal with.

Think of it this way: as far as I can tell from Sciforums, atheists generally argue against Christianity at about the "trailer-trash" level; this is generally reflected in my experience outside Sciforums as well. I would hope y'all are better minds than that. If not, well, I can understand why "smart" theists would puzzle a person.

So I'm tempted to answer that the reason it seems that way to you is probably because its easier to assimilate them in your own mind than to figure out what they're attempting to communicate.

Look--people can either have debates or you can go on genderbending, calling people "twisted", or "stupid" or "idiot" and dancing through supremacist fantasies. What of atheism do you think has been represented in this topic?

(And no, I have not missed ReasonableDoubt's fine post. Nor is Tyler's sentiment on the topic in general unappreciated. But what and who are the persistent voices? I hate to point this out, but it's not a pretty picture on the atheist side of the aisle.)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

My spangly trunks are at the cleaners! :(

Sigh. Round ... what? I lost count. ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

What's that? I'm not narrow-minded? I can sympathize with perspectives not my own? Oh, how awful. How f@cking twisted ....
HA! Sympathize with perspectives not my own? BS. You mean pretend to symptathize with them, so you can talk like a moron and hope that makes all athiests look like morons...

Secondly, I've explained that the kiss my ass thing was cause I was gettin sick of people bad-mouthing me in a debate I had long given up on, but now I'm back, and my more-than-"kiss my ass" statements seem to be getting under your skin... If you don't want to hear how well I can trash-talk you, perhaps you should set out to attain a better standard of debate than calling people "cute"...
You know, when people are reduced to saying, "You're so warped!" I feel sorry for them.
And when people say they have the right to manipulate people's religious belief for their own good, I feel sorry for them.
Think of it this way: as far as I can tell from Sciforums, atheists generally argue against Christianity at about the "trailer-trash" level; this is generally reflected in my experience outside Sciforums as well
You know why I got so frustrated with this thread and told you to kiss my ass, i do what I want. Cause you were givin me nothing but the trailer trash level and it wasn't worth my time. Angry trailer trash is a step up though, so keep it up.
What of atheism do you think has been represented in this topic?
That you have no idea what it's really about, nor do you care to break your all-too-simple view point on it.
(And no, I have not missed ReasonableDoubt's fine post. Nor is Tyler's sentiment on the topic in general unappreciated. But what and who are the persistent voices? I hate to point this out, but it's not a pretty picture on the atheist side of the aisle.)
I agree, but the more you reply the more you keep it balanced...

Advice doesn't involve figuring out there religious weaknesses and using them against the person... Advice is your honest opinion, which they can choose to accept or discard.Observation, trial and error, and countless repetition have advised me that, when communicating, it is technically the obligation of the broadcasting party to ensure proper communication. To wit:

• How silly would I look yelling at a deaf man?
•_How effective should I expect to be if I choose to speak to a four-year-old using nothing less than three syllables per word?
•_If I speak Spanish to a Chinese man?

These are not allegorical in the sense that I wish to characterize anyone as deaf, childish, or Chinese. Rather, what I'm after is that they're all miscommunications.

A morbid historical footnote: When the Spaniards strode through the Americas, they would approach whatever tribe of indigenous people they came across and read a document called Requerimiento. The Requerimiento was a harsh document: submit your property. lives, minds to us the Holy Roman Empire of Spain, give yourselves to the Pope and to the King, and to God Almighty, ad nauseam or else we will destroy you, your homes, your lands, your wives, your children .... We can both imagine that this did not go over well. However, the Spaniards learned an important lesson somewhere along the line. They had an indigenous slave read the document as best he could to the newly-encountered tribe, essentially trying to have it said in their language. Prior, shorter versions of that had been read to individual persons upon encounter--often shouted--but in Latin. The Spaniards had to shoot a few for noncompliance before they figured out what they were doing wrong.

Unless the situation stands on legal pins and needles, I try to give advice according to my honest assessment of the factors. If those factors are, say, Biblical, I have kind of a choice.

• I could tell my friend how stupid or idiotic or drunk or pitiful or beyond help they were for being Biblical, or ...
• I could consider the Biblical factors as well as I know them in the most appropriate context I can determine and give my honest assessment as if I was of the faith.

That second one--it keeps me honest. Always advise sympathetically.

Inexorably, when my advice is religious, it tends away from the center of the religion. Namely, I can point to the fact that the narrower interpretation--that of the person seeking my advice who happens to have a faith conflict--has a conflict in the first place while the resolution lies in a different interpretation. That my interpretation is more liberal and is farther from the center is predictable. Over a long period of friendship, it is possible to help your friends learn to think for themselves. Their religions will still play certain roles in their lives, but campaigning to extinguish those roles can lead to a firming of the faith foundation. All in all, it's not worth the risk. People are better off when they are (A) healthier and (B) happier. I can't guarantee that order, though.

But it helps more than I can quantify if I can advise according to their terms. Introducing foreign paradigms tends to confuse people.

If my advice completely blows the situation out my ass, well ... it doesn't matter what language, vernacular, or paradigm I adjust to.But you must really have a hatred for athiests to asume thatNope. I'm just making a point about atheistic hostility. It's most poignant if one happens to be an atheist who sees religion as a mental illness. Then it becomes a direct question of healing the sick. Nonetheless, there are more compassionate ways for atheists to deal with religion. Some of them might even work. Come on, progress ... it's what atheists want, right? It's not just a rush from being oppositional, is it?Before you go using the name of this thread against me, all it states is a debate between theists and athiests is impossible because both parties abide by different rules, I never said anything bad about theists themselves . . . .The bit about logic bugs me. Some of the most logical people I know of are theistic.as a whole, you seem to embody the horrible stereotype of a theist given by those who embody the horrible stereotype of an athiestDon't inspire me to the role. Actually, I hadn't thought of it that way.

You had a legitimate question before you: In what way do you find logic absent from the debate?

And you chose to ignore it.

You even had a proposition before you in support of that question: Any specific aspect of debate you could pull out would be helpful in finding a more effective answer to offer you.

And you chose to ignore it.

What do we get? If you want to have an intelligent debate go to the religion/Religion is a pop-culture thread.

Are you unable or unwilling to answer the simple question, to consider the simple proposition?

Look at the things I've bulleted in other posts in this topic. Look at the things your atheist brethren say. Look at your own participation.

What? Which cheek would you prefer I kiss?

Or what else did you expect?Plenty of athiests have good intentions, and are commendable for it concidering they have no heaven to reward them or hell to punish them.Two points:

• Woo-hoo: they can join the club.
• I'm actually aware of this. However, I wish it was more evident in their behavior. I've known some pretty crappy attitudes that had good intentions. Oh, yeah, the road to hell ... and we're back where we started. :bugeye: Why thank you, I do my best.I'm sure you do.Good luck on thatYeah, but where the hell am I going to get slaves in this day and age?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

HA! Sympathize with perspectives not my own? BS. You mean pretend to symptathize with them, so you can talk like a moron and hope that makes all athiests look like morons...So much for your good intentions, eh? :rolleyes: If you don't want to hear how well I can trash-talk you, perhaps you should set out to attain a better standard of debate than calling people "cute"...Irony can be very cute!And when people say they have the right to manipulate people's religious belief for their own good, I feel sorry for them.So you never give anyone advice? Why do you bother posting your opinions? You're having an effect on people's religious perspectives. Do you feel sorry for yourself?Cause you were givin me nothing but the trailer trash level and it wasn't worth my time. Angry trailer trash is a step up though, so keep it up.I'm so happy I could raise your standards. Next time try setting standards that have no degree of trailer-trash in them. I would much prefer to debate you in that arena. Oh, well. It's progress. You see? By communicating in the terms you set, I have been able to effect progress in the terms of the debate. We've moved from the mere trailer-trash standard you set to a new standard of angry trailer-trash.:rolleyes: That you have no idea what it's really about, nor do you care to break your all-too-simple view point on it.Actually, my perspective on atheism is more complex than most atheists. Collectively, however, atheists are more complex than they know. Check out some of those old threads I referred you to. Atheists had a hard time agreeing on what atheism was.

But are you telling me that the whole contribution of atheists in this topic is aimed at the idea that I have no idea what atheism is about? Should I be honored? I'm not even wearing a tie ...I agree, but the more you reply the more you keep it balanced...That's it, raise those standards! :rolleyes:

Seriously, I don't get it. I enjoy getting down in the wallow from time to time, but I can't figure out why you enjoy existing here.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

A morbid historical footnote: When the Spaniards strode through the Americas, they would approach whatever tribe of indigenous people they came across and read a document called Requerimiento. The Requerimiento was a harsh document: submit your property. lives, minds to us the Holy Roman Empire of Spain, give yourselves to the Pope and to the King, and to God Almighty, ad nauseam or else we will destroy you, your homes, your lands, your wives, your children .... We can both imagine that this did not go over well. However, the Spaniards learned an important lesson somewhere along the line. They had an indigenous slave read the document as best he could to the newly-encountered tribe, essentially trying to have it said in their language. Prior, shorter versions of that had been read to individual persons upon encounter--often shouted--but in Latin. The Spaniards had to shoot a few for noncompliance before they figured out what they were doing wrong.
So much knowledge, so little wisdom. You don't need to impress me (I'll admit, I am impressed) with all you know about history, and what books you have read, etc... Just make your point. Adding all the rest makes me assume you aren't confident enough to make the point on it's own.
Over a long period of friendship, it is possible to help your friends learn to think for themselves.
You'd think that after a long period of time you'd realize they already do, and if not, would if you'd let them.
Nope. I'm just making a point about atheistic hostility. It's most poignant if one happens to be an atheist who sees religion as a mental illness.
True, I HATE to be assimilated with those athiests, which I made you do with my earlier kiss my ass coments, lol. But I stress again, the motive behind that had nothing to do with theists at all, I just wanted to end the debate, but now it's going somewhere. I don't see theism as a mental illness. I realize how strong you have to be to be a theist, and that is extremely commendable. You see, I can sympathize too. But realize how strong you have to be to be an athiest. The only difference to me, is that theists have to be strong because they are fighting to keep a lie alive. Athiests have to be strong to accept a truth they don't like.
The bit about logic bugs me. Some of the most logical people I know of are theistic
Guilty of generalization, as made clear by so many. By that, I meant in the debate of God, to me, I see no logic... Let me put it simply, and for this I know I will recieve a very LONG or very SHORT answer. Why believe in a God? Not why do YOU believe in a God, but just plain "Why believe in a God?"
You had a legitimate question before you: In what way do you find logic absent from the debate?
I am trying to prove my point with the previous question (hate to answer a question with a question, but I believe it will work).
Any specific aspect of debate you could pull out would be helpful in finding a more effective answer to offer you.
I was hoping for the debate to take on a life of it's own without guidance, which it finally has.
Are you unable or unwilling to answer the simple question, to consider the simple proposition?
I was at the time, but not for reasons you'd like.
What? Which cheek would you prefer I kiss?
Is this really all you got against me? I can sympathize someone else's situation as well, and I see many points I have left open to debate, yet you always return to my one "kiss my ass" statement.
I'm actually aware of this. However, I wish it was more evident in their behavior.
Many athiests are in the scientific fight against cancer. Just one exemple. I'm sure many athiests have murdered before as well. As with all groups, you get your good and bad.
Yeah, but where the hell am I going to get slaves in this day and age?
Good question.... Send some this way if you figure it out though, people in my general area are in need of a new God. (Just jokes:D )
P.S. About the :rolleyes: , that's just smug, look me in the eyes and lets debate as equals, otherwise we get nowhere without realizing we might actually learn something from one another...

So you never give anyone advice? Why do you bother posting your opinions? You're having an effect on people's religious perspectives. Do you feel sorry for yourself?
I do give people advice, but I think we've established our definition is differed.
I'm so happy I could raise your standards. Next time try setting standards that have no degree of trailer-trash in them.
But then you'd be all alone.
By communicating in the terms you set, I have been able to effect progress in the terms of the debate. We've moved from the mere trailer-trash standard you set to a new standard of angry trailer-trash
Don't flatter yourself.
Actually, my perspective on atheism is more complex than most atheists. Collectively, however, atheists are more complex than they know. Check out some of those old threads I referred you to. Atheists had a hard time agreeing on what atheism was.
As do christians, or any other religion.
But are you telling me that the whole contribution of atheists in this topic is aimed at the idea that I have no idea what atheism is about?
No, but if that's what you learn, maybe you will be encouraged to learn more... Though you don't seem up to taking suggestions.
Seriously, I don't get it. I enjoy getting down in the wallow from time to time, but I can't figure out why you enjoy existing here.
Ouch, that hurts. :confused:

Anyway, I gotta get to bed, I will continue this tomorrow. Even with all the mean mean things you've said to me, good luck on whatever you strive for. Just give the victims some warning.

Adding all the rest makes me assume you aren't confident enough to make the point on it's own.And when "the rest" is all you've got?You'd think that after a long period of time you'd realize they already do, and if not, would if you'd let them.That the thought impulse takes place within their body does not satisfy the requirement of "thinking for themselves". Some people don't. Some people never grow past the stage of slogans and formal rites, and some never stop seeing the bogey-man. If it is possible to increase their happiness through those things they ask of you, why should one bury their integrity and merely encourage them in their unhappiness?True, I HATE to be assimilated with those athiestsFair enough. But I don't think one need see theism as a mental illness before one acts kindly to another's advantage. Think of your assertion that theists are fighting to keep a lie alive. Many of them are. But at the same time you're justifying my position against your "manipulation" accusations. However, being such as it is, are you angry at the liars or sympathetic to those lied to? There are times when it is appropriate to be angry at the liars. Pick your specific issue--censorship, sexuality, health & medicine .... But when responding to the general malaise of theism, you might bear in mind that the liars often are liars because that is what they have learned as the truth. Would you rather ridicule the wrongly-steered or help them to be harmonious and happy in their lives not only to their own profit but that of their community?Why believe in a God? Not why do YOU believe in a God, but just plain "Why believe in a God?"I'll go with the short answer: Because it is the representation of all that is mysterious to the human experience. Because it is an expression of fundamental values of human life.

Or, more apropos that atheist attitude I find so disturbing, Because it is the representation of our ignorance.

At that point, humbling yourself before God is to be humbled by that which you do not know. This can be either a good thing or a bad thing. But if we care not for what we do not know, whence comes discovery?Is this really all you got against me? I can sympathize someone else's situation as well, and I see many points I have left open to debate, yet you always return to my one "kiss my ass" statement.Well, I'm perfectly willing to meet you at whatever level of debate you prefer. In the meantime, I would ask that you review your causes for anger in light of the fact that I'm only responding to the tone of the topic to begin with.

That is, when our atheists are ready to get over the "stupid", "drunk idiot" bullsh@t, I'm happy to play ball. But when this site was swarmed by rabble-rousing Christians, I didn't take this kind of crap from them either.

I would prefer that the lot of y'all grow up some. And I will even tell you approximately what I mean by that.

• Before Seinfeld the TV show there was Jerry Seinfeld the comedian. I never quite understood why people thought he was so funny. Admittedly, the laundry bit and the dog-walking routine are funny, but the portion of his style that carried him, that was satirized and parodied, that questioning of funny circumstances, that playing with words--it wasn't funny because there was often a logical, even scientific answer to it. I heard someone tell a joke in a similar vein about how you get some kind of solvent or cleaner or remover to stay in its container. It was a cute play on words but that was it. To me, the joke isn't funny because it relied on the audience being stupid.

A rhetorical question, then: Are atheists stupid? No, of course not. What I don't get, though, is why atheists worry about the stupidest, most ridiculous parts of a religion. If atheists wish to reduce the influence religious institutions have on society and therefore their lives, it is best to understand the religions a little better because often they can be best unraveled from the inside out. Take modern American Christians, for instance. Most have no clue what philosophical history lies behind various soundbites about love and redemption and goodness and the Devil and so-forth. I know a Christian who picked up a saying of Jesus about kindness from a "prophet" (one of those churches) ... it was about letting the coin sweat in your hand until you knew to whom you were giving it. It's just a saying from an extrabiblical source sometime around the third century; the Didache, I believe.

Here's something that seems like a non-sequiter: I don't say the phrase shit from Shinola.

Why? Because part of that history of the phrase is racist--Al Jolson. In the similar way, I found it odd that an anti-Catholic would be quoting a text that generally has no credibility whatsoever outside the Catholic Church. (This particular Christian's Church published pamphlets claiming the Pope is Satan ... really, I found it odd.)

The thing is that the more I learn about the history behind this bizarre church called Christianity, the more it's reduced to the appearance of a mass-psyche farce. I mean, it sounds easy enough to say that these people are deceived, deluded, or whatever, but that offers no real result.

Knowing a bit about a given religion helps you understand the general boundaries to how a person is thinking. That is, while the aspects of Christianity that leave a bitter taste in my mouth are no more palatable, they make more sense to me and I have a better idea of how to deal with them. Thus when the Christian hordes come riding in for some distasteful public spat, I have something better to offer my corner of the debate than the kind of crap we're going through here.

And that's essentially why I'm down here slinging it with you.

There is a certain degree of American Christianity which demands such a low intelligence that I'm left speechless. I think it would be helpful to just about everybody if this simian comedy was left behind.

We had a topic, once, called The Crucifixion Was a Fraud (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=6315). You might enjoy that topic. One of our atheists started with something one of our Christian advocates said and extended it toward its philosophic end. I was ecstatic that someone chose to try a topic at that level. It did confuse many of our Christians, though. And, as a bonus, you can see a Christian on the other end of my wrath--my attitude declines not quite as quickly as it did in this topic. Some Christians were quite astute, so it's worth mentioning that you can see my attitude reflecting that, as well. But the grander point is that this was a good topic and it's not as common as it should be that atheists choose to address religion on this level. You can really see minds working hard at that level, and since it's Christianity ... well (and I get included in this because it was a tough topic for me, too) ... we're not even to the tricky part of dealing with religions. Christianity is about as straight a debunking as one can ask for. It's very nice to see when the level of debate steps up to something with a little more meat on it.

I mean, if you go back into the search result I provided in my first response to the present topic, somewhere in there you can see atheists writing about God as a bearded dude in the sky, or that God should show up on radar or something.

Column A? Column B?

Is it really too much to ask that atheists get past the childish anti-identification, the grasping for an inward sense of superiority? Stupid? Idiotic? Drunk? Generalizations about logic (yes, I saw your note ... but I'm asking you to look at the collective, not the specific).Many athiests are in the scientific fight against cancer. Just one exemple. I'm sure many athiests have murdered before as well. As with all groups, you get your good and bad.Thank you.

Thank you so very much.

Without sarcasm.

Is this something that can be remembered during more scornful moments?About the :rolleyes:, that's just smug, look me in the eyes and lets debate as equals, otherwise we get nowhere without realizing we might actually learn something from one another...Of course it's smug. And don't forget condescending.

But that's the unfortunate thing. I thought I was looking you in the eye down there. I'll meet you on the topside, too. Honest.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

I do give people advice, but I think we've established our definition is differed.I must admit, I find your objection politicized and, technically, only an issue because you insisted on it. But that's just me.But then you'd be all alone.Specifically, I won't have to be so unlucky as to step in it. That's one of the big reasons I'd appreciate that elevation of your standards.Don't flatter yourself.Well, you said it was a step up.As do christians, or any other religionI'm not sure what this has to do with it. It seems to me that sort of thing is in religion's "minus" column.No, but if that's what you learn, maybe you will be encouraged to learn more... Though you don't seem up to taking suggestions.You know, you asked me if that was all I held against you. Why keep bringing it up? Give me reason to keep bludgeoning your position with it?Ouch, that hurts.Well? I mean it when I say I enjoy getting down in the wallow from time to time. Letting go and venting is healthy for anyone. But I just don't understand the persistent level of vitriol spewing from the atheistic corner. Why is it so hard for so many atheists to consider the religious issues they choose to consider without first finding something or someone to ridicule? I understand the presumption of conflict when religion spills into the political arena. But I don't understand what the point of all the atheistic bitching is. I mean, look at part of our conversation: what right do I have to tamper with people's paradigms in their best interest when entrusted with the authority to affect future actions?

Well what right do you have to tamper with people's paradigms by generalizing (remember ... collective overview not just the specific offense) a lack of logic skills? What right does anyone have to tamper with people's paradigms by ridiculing them, as seen on the part of multiple atheists in this topic? Is there a reason religion seems like a reason for a pep rally to many atheists? Is the identification really all there is? And how does that license the supremacist attitude that leads to pity on and mercy for the drunk stupid idiots who are devoid of logic?

It's a fairly persistent murmur of condemnation and horsepucky. This kind of crap is one of the primary reasons I ditched my own atheist standard several years ago, but I never experienced it as thick or simmering or dedicated as I see motivating the primary atheist advocacy at Sciforums.Even with all the mean mean things you've said to me, good luck on whatever you strive for.All the mean things?

Whatever. Thank you, I suppose.Just give the victims some warningAh, "victims" implies they're somehow innocent. I generally tell them what I find offensive. And warning people only seems to encourage them, so I'll think of you and toss a coin.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Tiassa, I find it strange that you don't know when one atheist stops and the next stars.

Theists are so hypocritical.

Why are theists named Tiassa? Why are theists all obsessed with the idea that atheists argue mostly over the more prevalent notion of god instead of the smaller ones that theists believe in?

Theists are so strange, theists are all imac users, theists are all asians with glasses.

:rolleyes:

Originally posted by notme2000
Wow, Tiassa, you are a truly warped and twisted individual...
I found Tiassa's comments to be interesting, articulate, and, as, as such, in sharp contrast to yours.

notme2000, that is NOT the way to debate Tiassa. It most certainly is not.

And perhaps I should have clarified. I don't care if theists choose to believe in their own religions, I don't take them as "my sworn enemy". They're just people, who think what they believe is right. Ok, so far so good. But then, theists do try to proselytize. Now that, I have a serious problem with. If they want to believe something stupid, fine, but don't spread it to me.

I see Tiassa making articulate and logical replies, and notme2000 yelling and spluttering. Go sit on the bench for a while and cool off.

Reasonable Doubt: Don't bother
Tiassa: It's nice we can get out of "the wallows".
And when "the rest" is all you've got?
Please elaborate
That the thought impulse takes place within their body does not satisfy the requirement of "thinking for themselves". Some people don't. Some people never grow past the stage of slogans and formal rites, and some never stop seeing the bogey-man. If it is possible to increase their happiness through those things they ask of you, why should one bury their integrity and merely encourage them in their unhappiness?
Ok, your very first coment on the whole thing did seem warped and twisted, I still stick by that, but you have since explained yourself, so let's let it go, I no longer think you are twisted.
Fair enough. But I don't think one need see theism as a mental illness before one acts kindly to another's advantage.
I don't look down on theists, though you can't tell from this debate. ALL my friends are theists, one a devout christian, and they are incredibly deep. We have the coolest conversations, and they are deep because we both realize we can teach, and LEARN.
However, being such as it is, are you angry at the liars or sympathetic to those lied to?
People can lie to themselves all they want, it's their right. But when they lie to someone else, ie: convince or convert, that is not cool... I think they should get to their answer on their own.
Because it is the representation of our ignorance.
As an athiest I have to go with this answer. But not in a condencending nature, I just look at human nature, and see religion is the logical answer to a near impossible question.
I'm only responding to the tone of the topic to begin with.
So we can be peacefull now, correct?
That is, when our atheists are ready to get over the "stupid", "drunk idiot" bullsh@t, I'm happy to play ball.
Couldn't agree more. If I were to subscribe to those arguments, those cool conversations with my theist friends wouldn't go too far.
What I don't get, though, is why atheists worry about the stupidest, most ridiculous parts of a religion.
Good point.
(This particular Christian's Church published pamphlets claiming the Pope is Satan ... really, I found it odd.)
I see that as a step up. They still comit to the "lie" but are willing to at least change it with time, and when someone thinks they actually have power of a whole religion, this church says f@ck that, good for them!
And that's essentially why I'm down here slinging it with you.
K, well we've both been able to sleep on it, so let's get up, dust ourselves off, and get the hell out of these depths.
We had a topic, once, called The Crucifixion Was a Fraud
You must realize that the crucifixion is of no interest to me. As an athiest I do NOT want to prove religion wrong, but there's no point in debating a small occasion that I don't care about and which, with either answer, wouldn't change anything. I'm sure it was a very interesting debate however.
Christianity is about as straight a debunking as one can ask for.
Maybe this is why as soon as I try to have a debate with one they automatically think I'm out to destroy their religion. I hope this is not how you got to that conclusion.
God as a bearded dude in the sky, or that God should show up on radar or something.
LOL!
Is it really too much to ask that atheists get past the childish anti-identification, the grasping for an inward sense of superiority
All I've done by being athiest is admitted I know nothing. How is that superiority?
Is this something that can be remembered during more scornful moments?
Let's hope so for both our sakes.
But that's the unfortunate thing. I thought I was looking you in the eye down there. I'll meet you on the topside, too. Honest.
Funny, I swear I was getting down in the wallows once and a while and thought YOU existed there. For the first half of this debate I didn't want to be a part of it, the wallows, but then I got sick of it and pulled off the gloves... Now it turns out we were both only visiting, lol. Well at least our debate can go one even after the fact.
I must admit, I find your objection politicized and, technically, only an issue because you insisted on it. But that's just me
You're right, so let's drop it.
You know, you asked me if that was all I held against you. Why keep bringing it up? Give me reason to keep bludgeoning your position with it?
Lol, I swear I was NOT referring to the kiss my ass thing. Should thought of that, lol. My bad,
But I just don't understand the persistent level of vitriol spewing from the atheistic corner.
Strange, I feel the same about the religious corner. But I realize that's only one corner of something huge and not to judge the entire group on that one corner.

Now, as a closing note before I go to work. Tiassa, nice to look you in the eyes. I feel we can do alot more this way. Don't take this in a wrong way, but get over yourself. You aren't all that. I've met plenty of deeper people than you. Most of which are theists as well. My deepest respect goes to those who live by this philosophy "He who knows he is a fool is smartest of all". I try to live by this, so that when a good piece of information comes along my ego doesn't get in the way. Learning is the supreme goal right? I hope I have not offended you in this last paragraph as it looks like we're so close to peace. I do not claim to be all that either, just to step off your soap-box. You're no better, no worse, than any other person I've talked to in sci-forums or anywhere else. Look forward to your reply, got I'm of to work!

There is way too much ass kissing in this thread. :D

Tiassa, I find it strange that you don't know when one atheist stops and the next stars.Well, think of it this way, GB-GIL: I know atheists are individuals. You know they are individuals. But damn, do they act like robots. One person makes an offensive generalization about a group of people and suddenly there are two more atheists there trying to rip open the wound. I tend to think atheists are like religious people in the sense that they are individuals when alone but prefer to think in a commonly-identified group when more than one is present. This whole thing probably wouldn't have gone so far without a couple of atheists stepping in and making what was a rather silly personal conflict between Notme2000 and myself into a nicely-generalized mess. I do know when one atheists stops and the next starts, but when the atheists put so little effort into it, what am I supposed to do?Why are theists all obsessed with the idea that atheists argue mostly over the more prevalent notion of god instead of the smaller ones that theists believe in?This is a wholly inaccurate statement, GIL, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself for it. Most atheists argue over the petty, tiny gods that they learn from the least educated, most superstitious theists. I would like to see a broader knowledge base among atheists. In other words, I find an almost tragic paradox here, that atheists are more directly affected by gods than the theists are. Shake it off, that's all.

Take a look at the topic, GIL ... don't be so obsessed.

Of course, if I don't know when one atheist stops, what should be said about atheists? I mean, if "thesists" are so hypocritical, perhaps you could explain to me the core hypocrisy of a Hindu compared to the core hypocrisy of a Jew compared to the core hypocrisy of a revivalist shamanist. I would love to see how those hypocrisies work together. But the best most atheists can do is to lump all religious groups together as one, even those they don't know about, and say "theists _____" (fill in the blank: are drunk, stupid, idiotic, obsessed, named Tiassa, ad nauseam.

I have no doubt that there is intelligence among atheists. Such a question really has no place on the table. However, I do wish that more atheists would show that intelligence. Remember when arguing against narrow theism such as we might find in vulgar Christianity and fundamentalist Islam that as long as you argue the point at the level of any given individual, you're arguing against a paradigm that is specifically constructed to hold together according to that individual's needs. Meeting such a religion head-on will only freeze and polarize the issues, and debate or argument do not change much.

Rather, one must bear in mind that humans are imperfect, and therefore no theology created by a human is perfect. With vulgar Christianity, as noted, the Bible is a straight debunking, so it seems very easy to go for the jugular. But because the Bible is so straightforward in its errors, an atheist can honestly inquire about those gaps that present themselves to his or her intelligence.

And at that point, it comes down to why people are arguing. For the rush? Sure, meet them head on. In that case, there's no progress to be had and what can be said of what atheism brings a person except that obsession? However, in learning about and understanding that vulgar Christianity, one can usually present conditions within the paradigm that lead to change. The paradigm should be exploited, not opposed. Telling a Christian they're stupid only reinforces their belief in their propriety. Asking, "Well, if the Bible says this, could it mean this?" And then you can go on to lay out the argument from the Bible, from Christian epistemology, and from modern faith among other factors.

Like Notme2000's generalization about logic (noted for example): The problem with Christian logic is best encapsulated with the Catholics. If you go to NewAdvent (http://www.newadvent.org) or other such repository of Catholic history, philosophy, and dogma, it becomes quickly apparent that the Catholics are among the most logical people on earth, save two a priori assumptions: that God exists and that the Bible is accurate and true in its descriptions of God.

Now, the second comes from the first, but the second reinforces the first.

What's funny is that the only reason I'm a theist is that buried in there is a definition of God that I can accept. I find it ironic that the concept didn't catch on with the Catholics, and that's one reason why I've never become a Catholic. That's all it is. Personal integrity does not allow me to deny that definition: God is that which is greater than our conception. At such a level, you approach a mystical notion that "God is". Being, form, persona ... these are all mere speculations. It's the reason why I have no religion. The concept of God is largely irrelevant to me except that it affects other people. Technically, they're entitled to it the same as we're entitled to voice our opinions. And when they voice their opinions in a forum like this, we have an opportunity to understand how that opinion forms and holds together.

And that seems a more pleasant, more effective, more respectable approach than the kind of condemnation I've been protesting throughout this topic.

Think of it this way:

• When I was about 7, I read a children's book called My Mother the Mayor Maybe, which was my first exposure to the politics of Democrats and Republicans (I liked Carter in the 1980 election not specifically because he was a Democrat, but, as a child, he seemed intensely more personable and kind than Ronald Reagan). My father tried to teach my brother and I about Democrats and Republicans, and did so with the intent of making Republicans sound better. Unfortunately, he put it in the wrong terms for my young conscience; his basic division helped turn me into a Democrat. On the flip-side, my brother decided he was a Republican. As such he felt justified when Reagan was elected and it wouldn't be until 12 years later, in adulthood, that he would see that he was just agreeing with a position. The more he learned from sources he trusted about the American history and politics, the more obvious it was that he was merely riding the Republican ticket in order to "ride a winner". By the end of the Republican revolution, it had set in on him that he had grasped one concept, gotten lucky (via Reagan's election) and held on to "being right" without ever looking closely at what he was supporting. In the end, he got 12 years of being "right" about something that it turns out he doesn't believe in, and much conflict entered his life toward the end of that when people realized he had just shut off those beliefs one day and didn't bother to tell us. I can still remember sitting at dinner and hearing him calmly explaining his position on something--utterly in contradiction of what he had said for years; I can still remember him saying, "No, I never thought that. Why do you think I did?" Well, dude, because you said it for twelve years. Because you condemned people for disagreeing with you. And the whole time you weren't paying attention to the what you were endorsing.

In the same vein: Atheists, generally, are correct. Except it seems that they don't know it.

What does that mean? Atheists, by picking the seemingly logical option in the face of narrow religion, are generally correct. However, atheists tend to merely hold their line, confident that their logic is enough. Even oppositional atheists tend to do this. However, just as when my brother should have known what he was advocating, so, too, do I feel about an atheist. It's well enough to know that 2+2=4, but if you know that by rote and have no arithmetic skills, what possible good can it do you? Learning the 2+2 of religion means learning a little more about religions. Is it enough that an atheist should be correct without knowing why?

When an atheist figures out why they are correct, their atheism usually takes a step down, their pride usually two steps. It's not that they come to believe in anything, but suddenly the processes of what they oppose become clear, and it really can become an issue of compassion.

Whether atheists see religion as a mental illness, as a social menace, or as a personal stumbling block, merely deriding people of faith is, in effect, the same as telling a cokehead how big a piece of shite he has become while piling more dust on the table for him.

It might be time for another topic in which atheists declare what religion is. One of the things I hope to discuss soon with Notme2000 is why this topic exists at all. It doesn't seem that he wants to erase religion. It doesn't seem he wants to undermine faith. It doesn't seem he wants to spread some social salvation through the elimination of religion. So I'm left wondering why the topic exists at all. It seems we're moving that direction, though, so it's best to take it as it comes.

Just one piece of advice, though, GIL: When generalizing to make a point (iMac users, named TIassa, &c.) it is best if you maintain a certain degree of consistency. My observations of atheists, while not uniformly applicable to atheists, find far better statistical correlation than your generalisms in response. I don't mind the tit-for-tat, but I do wish you would employ one of the many real and legitimate aspects available than simply reducing it further to a blast against me.

Is it theists or is it the Tiassa? Seriously.

You could have asked why theists tend to become so aggressive when challenged. Of course, that one is easily answered, so I understand why you didn't. You could have asked why most theists lack much of the same human sympathy I find absent in atheists. That would have been a tougher answer, but it would have been a more responsible and, by proxy of what I interpret your point to be, more effective approach from the atheistic corner.

Somewhere in Foucault's Pendulum (by Umberto Eco), Pow and Belbo have a conversation about the difference between idiots and morons. I forget the exact distinctions to each one, but the point being that most, if not all humans are one or the other. The difference had to do with doing or believing the right things for the wrong reasons versus doing or believing the wrong things for the right reasons.

Reaching the "correct" conclusion is a mere accident if one does not understand the factors of that conclusion. My brother chose to be a Republican out of opposition. For 12 years he did not pay attention to what he meant. One day he woke up and found that much of his world had betrayed him, so to speak. I doubt the same sense of betrayal will come from atheism, but I do hope for better evidence that atheists understand the slightest portion of the subjects they undertake.

Does atheism in any way lead to knowledge? Or is it just a bandwagon?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:.

I sincerely hope I'm not missing the point on this, but I figure that <b>tiassa</b> is trying to let everyone know that simply arguing from an antheist viewpoint (because one believes it's inherently correct) is the same as arguing from a Christian viewpoint. Blast, I probably still don't have it right.

When I first started posting on here (and admittedly I don't have that many posts as it is), I was full of venom and bitterness particularly towards Christianity. I considered myself the ultimate atheist, though I really had no clue what to classify myself as.

If anyone doubts that Christians can be astute and intelligent and very debatable, perhaps you can reread some of <b>tony1</b>'s posts. Yeah, there was a fair share of rhetoric and circular logic, but the kid could reason his way out of nirvana.

Theists and non-theists bring different 'weapons' to the table when it comes to debates. It's incredibly difficult to dislodge someone from a very personal belief system. Especially if most of their affirmations have come through feelings. God, you got your visual people (like me) and your auditory learners and your feelers. You can no more persuade a feeler that their feelings are false than make an athiest pray to God each morning. And, really, this is not to say that their feelings are false, because, frankly, they're not. Athiests always say they have logic on their sides, but also tend to argue from feelings. Sure, facts are presented, but when the facts are seemingly 'ignored', then the feelings come out in full force.

My brother is a firm believer in Christianity, is very intelligent, and is very respectful of others. I can't consider him some imbecilic troglodyte just because he happens to be Christian. Doesn't it ultimately come down to how you treat others? Who cares if that's a Christian concept! Does that mean that anything that Christ said athiests have to automatically dismiss? Hell no. Guy said a lot of good things. Sure, it's okay to argue over any of the points, but it's difficult to say that he spoke pure evil or that he should be dismissed.

Just lately--maybe it's due to some Anne Rice books I've been reading--I've been developing a sympathy for the devil. Does this make me a non-athiest? Who cares!

Some people like to read things in black and white. Athiests think Christians see the world in binary color: good and bad; Christians think Athiests see it in two colors as well: God and No-God.

It's like people want a leg-up on others. Oh, you're Christian/Athiest, eh? Well, at least I'm further evolved/progressed than you. What a wasted thought. Doesn't matter if they're Christian/Athiest/amoebic or whatever, just as long as they treat you good, right?

All right, all right, I can hear the soapbox I'm standing on creaking, too. Just wanted to add into this jumble and acknowledge that <b>tiassa</b> (unless I'm reading him wrong) has managed to bring about a pretty good point: Just because we may happen to be on the same mountain doesn't make my looking North the only way to see.

Thanks!

prag

It's nice we can get out of "the wallows".That seems to be what we're hoping for.Please elaborateWell, you made a distinction 'twixt the substantive part and "the rest" and advised that "the rest" makes you assume a lack of confidence.

What am I supposed to think when what you call "the rest" composes so much of your posts? At this point, though, we hope to be past that. Very simply: If the mere presence of "the rest" in my posts indicates a lack of confidence in me, what does the predominating presence of "the rest" in your posts indicate about you? It's mostly a food-for-thought jab.Ok, your very first coment on the whole thing did seem warped and twisted, I still stick by that, but you have since explained yourself, so let's let it go, I no longer think you are twisted.If I could put words to my theory about those things, I would. Suffice to say, thank you. I'm glad we could communicate on that one.I don't look down on theists, though you can't tell from this debate.It was mostly a comparative point: many do, and I point out that they are ridiculing the mentally ill. However, as relates the current topic which seems to be absent of that particular sentiment, I don't think it should have to go that far before the theists should be awarded human compassion.

Mercy? Okay, okay ... I'll give Zero histrionic points for the line and leave it be. But come on: do they really have to be insane before they deserve less open hostility and more thoughtful engagement? Must they be insane before they deserve dignity?

In that sense, I would ask why it's important to you, as an atheist, to actively be one. It seems well enough that an atheist is "without God" as the definition goes. But I don't understand why so many atheists chooses to identify themselves and take their swings. Is it mere release of internal stress? Is there a theistic question one needs answered? Is there a political stake that motivates the atheist to a protectionist position?

If it is those that wish to get rid of religions, well, they'll never succeed. (People will invent new gods.) But in terms of getting rid of the older, detrimental religions--and I agree with many atheists about those religions--or in terms of alleviating the stress those religions place unduly on communities, a more compassionate, more understanding, more subtle approach will be called for. Whatever it is in one's atheism that motivates them to openly address religion: understanding, education, compassion, subtlety--these will be more effective than balbutive opposition for oppositional sake.

If one merely seeks to protect themselves from the religious--again, a point I agree with many atheists on--understanding &c. will help. The sense of threat diminishes.

There will be plenty of opportunities to directly address the foibles of this or that theist. Holding all theists responsible for that is a bad, bad move. It would be like me concluding, based on observation of a narrow range of atheists, that atheists are all post-christian egomaniacs.ALL my friends are theists, one a devout christian, and they are incredibly deep. We have the coolest conversations, and they are deep because we both realize we can teach, and LEARN.I will officially stop harping on the logical generalization, though I will reserve the right to use it as an example. But thank you. Truly.People can lie to themselves all they want, it's their right. But when they lie to someone else, ie: convince or convert, that is not cool... I think they should get to their answer on their own.Get the answer on their own ....

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

At this point, my requirement for "thinking for themselves" is satisfied.

Which brings me to a specific point: I direct a good amount of rage at religious leaders and their organizations. If you want an example, search for my comments on the Oregon Citizens' Alliance. But if I take a look around Sciforums and its prior incarnation, Exosci, one of my biggest errors in dealing with Christians was to award them too high a presumption of intellect. I know that sounds weird, but bear with me for a moment.

• I've had a number of ugly debates with Christians. In at least one case, the poster decided to eliminate 1,500 years of history with no alternate theory to fill in the gap in order to avoid considering the long-running tendency of Christian institutions to screw with the social order. Catholics, it turns out, aren't Christians, though the poster alleging that could not explain to me why God entrusted the Bible to the Catholics for 1,500 years as the sole stewards of His Word. At which point I basically unloaded on that poster and have never really let up: I make sure that absurdity is on the table any time he comes to a relevant debate until such time as he renounces the position or provides that alternate theory of how the Bible became available for him, or for me, or for any of us in the 20th century. It would have been simple enough to answer the question of why God entrusted the guide to Christian faith to non-Christians, and let them set the canon. I made a mistake early on, and presumed the guy intelligent enough to understand the issues. As a result, I spent months in a mudslinging fight with an offensive Christian who, it turns out, was not smart enough to understand the argument taking place. I feel badly for that. But I also feel my compassionate fuse burned up. However, from that experience, I've figured out how to make slower-burning fuses, so to speak.

• The debates have been so ugly in the past that Christians have threatened violence. I feel badly about that; I had presumed the Christian intelligent enough to understand the conversation and therefore erroneously presumed him to merely being difficult for the rush. Had I realized it was a genuine inability to grasp the concept, I would have taken a different tack. It is an error that can only be learned from.

• I've damn near chased someone off this site before for threatening cultural extinction in the name of Christianity. Technically, I feel badly about that. I should not ostracize or excoriate the stupid, but help educate them.

In all these cases, I should have helped the person find the necessary knowledge so that they could get the answers for themselves instead of stewing in blind faith and anger. But in all these cases, I made the mistake of presuming people to be smarter than they are.

So in the end, I no longer look at these people as the liars. I look at them as victims. And it is useless to pity a victim. It is vital raise them out of victimhood. In some cases, such as the anti-Catholic poster, I feel justified in reaching the end of my rope. However, I cannot deny the fact that I need a longer rope.

In the political arena, such as with the religious leaders who lie to the religious flock, well, the political arena is the place for screaming and action. It was a hard position in Oregon, Christian advocates pointing out that various churches were opposing the OCA while other Christian advocates who sided with the OCA were pointing out that this opposition was coming from the heirarchy, not from the flocks. In the end, a lot of Christians who never thought about it became homophobic when their faith was included alongside the liars pushing the anti-gay agenda. It was a mess. Who is lying and who is lied to?

Well, most of these people are lied to. And that is the cornerstone of what to do about bad religion.

Break the lies, show truth. Show it within their paradigm; this often has the effect of reducing the religion from all-encompassing reality to a mere template according to which things are compared. This latter state is preferable, because ideas of God take on a more subtle presence in the believer. Some, when given an inch, can actually take that mile and turn their faith into something new and, perhaps unrecognizable to the former state without your compassion. And that something might actually be beneficial to you, the believer, and the community.As an athiest I have to go with this answer. But not in a condencending nature, I just look at human nature, and see religion is the logical answer to a near impossible question.Fair enough. More than fair. It is the condescension that makes the point damaging. From a position of metaphysical neutrality, "ignorance" is the best term to use.So we can be peacefull now, correct?I would hope so. It seems to be moving that direction. I doubt anybody's praying for it, though. ;) Couldn't agree more. If I were to subscribe to those arguments, those cool conversations with my theist friends wouldn't go too far.Again, thank you ... I'll leave that as it is.Good point.Thank you. Honestly, it's a twofold annoyance to me:

• The most obvious is that I end up having to slog through it, but let's try to find a better reason.
• The better reason is that you have to slog through it. I mean, as a theist, I'm happy to undertake the riddles of people's faiths. It's part of trying to understand what God equals in the Universe. However, I would think the atheists, if they were to consider religion at all, would rather consider a coherent part of it so that worthwhile considerations may be had. Perhaps that's a huge presumption, but I would hope not.I see that as a step up. They still comit to the "lie" but are willing to at least change it with time, and when someone thinks they actually have power of a whole religion, this church says f@ck that, good for them!Ever meet Seventh-Day Adventists? I wouldn't speak so poorly of them except that my experience is so consistently negative; anecdotally, I know several people of my own age (late 20's) who call themselves SDA "escapees". I agree with their assessment. Incidentally, though, that portion was just leading up to the "Column A/Column B" moment.K, well we've both been able to sleep on it, so let's get up, dust ourselves off, and get the hell out of these depths.Fair enough. That seems what we're working toward.K, well we've both been able to sleep on it, so let's get up, dust ourselves off, and get the hell out of these depths.A couple of things here ... where to start?

• First, the reference to the thread had multiple motivations.
• One was to show that debates of higher intellect can occur.
• Another, which occurred to me as I was looking at the referenced topic, was that yes, you can see me in the same combative mode I've been in, and aimed at a different ideology.
•_A difficult point to make is that while I respect the topic, its poster, and most of what went on in there, even this was a fairly low-level consideration. It's fundamental, to be sure, and critical to Christianity, but even the most complex debates we have about Christianity will necessarily lack something. It's the nature of the religion. Because Christianity is such a straightforward debunking, it's an easier topic than it could be. That sort of thing.Maybe this is why as soon as I try to have a debate with one they automatically think I'm out to destroy their religion.Combine that with vocabulary, you probably have something. However, in the modern US, for instance, I would assert that many Christians are aware of how tenuous the theological position has become and are sensitive toward it. It is exceptionally difficult, when trapped in the Christian paradigm, for thought and faith to evolve as a matter of will. Each rejection of an old principle threatens to become a rejection of God; in terms of the psychological weight, we see part of what stands against the development and evolution of faith in the modern period. So most likely they're reacting to a challenge of principle that they are, at their innermost core, unsure about themselves. Most everyone will walk away if they so choose, but they won't be dragged away. You might have a furious argument with a religious person and felt to have made no progress. But five years later, something they experience might click with something you said and unravel the whole of it. It's why the mellow approach is best; it increases the odds.

There is, however, a couple of things left to learn about your version of atheism. Most I know would welcome the chance to affect another's faith. Most I know would welcome the chance to reduce the effect of this or that religion. I cannot say the same with you. To wit, our manipulation discussion. Most atheists wouldn't argue that aspect of the point with me. In fact, what history suggests would be offensive to atheists is that I claimed to be more effective because of my theism at what so many of them wanted to do. Oh, well. You learn something every day.LOL!Yeah, I know. Unfortunately, pointing this out to atheists seemed to piss some of them off. You learn something every day ... ;) All I've done by being athiest is admitted I know nothing. How is that superiority?An interesting take on it, but we're trying to drop the generalization and the subsequent degradation of the discussion. My answer lies in those aspects we've agreed to try to move past.Let's hope so for both our sakes.Fair. It was something I felt was lacking.Funny, I swear I was getting down in the wallows once and a while and thought YOU existed there.Well, that's where I perceive the topic starting. My first post, I promise, was sincere. I was even arguing with myself about the tone. But literally, that post ("You're a little late") was pretty much my direct response. The PS is actually my pausing to think that such an answer was inadequate and might be considered snooty; hence I wanted to offer the topics I was referring to. I think it's quite obvious after that where my attitude went sour. Oh, well. It seems we're both looking back at the mess and wondering how we stepped in it.You're right, so let's drop it.Indeed. Dropped.

Ouch, my toe. :D Lol, I swear I was NOT referring to the kiss my ass thing. Should thought of that, lol. My bad,I still don't know where I got the "which cheek" bit from. Strangely, it wasn't from the kiss my ass bit. I think it was just an immediate reaction. Weird, weird.Strange, I feel the same about the religious corner. But I realize that's only one corner of something huge and not to judge the entire group on that one corner.Maybe we can undertake that. You'll notice how I side with "theism" and rarely any particular religion (Sufism, Buddhism, and various pagan revivals get preferential treatment). I agree that the religious corner is vitriolic, but that's largely because that religious corner is composed mostly of Christians, post-Christians, pagans who have Christianity in their past, Westerners attempting to assimilate Oriental philosophies according to Western perspectives ... is there a pattern developing?

To be specific: When I step outside the Abramic experience (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) I find religion to matter considerably less than it does within that experience. And even within the Abramic experience, for Sufism has vital ties to Islam, and while I am more and more disturbed by the Israeli state itself, I tend to get along fairly well with Jews and cannot ever recall having argued with one about religious ideas the way I have frequent cause to oppose Christian encroachment.

It's a matter of degrees, and it's hottest around Christianity and Islam. I think Judaism gets not necessarily a free pass, but achieves a certain understanding; there are billions of Christians, almost two billion Muslims, and only 13 million Jews. Judaism has its problems, but people generally aim for bigger game than 13 million members of a dying cult.

I think you'll find out among theism in general a much more useful atmosphere than you do sticking close to community faiths such as I remember growing up, churches in towns of 5,000 preaching any silly idea for the glory of God ... it really is different. Tiassa, nice to look you in the eyes. I feel we can do alot more this waySo do I, so do I.Don't take this in a wrong way, but get over yourself. You aren't all that. I've met plenty of deeper people than you.Don't take this the wrong way, Notme, but if I come off as a holy avenger of some sort, take a look around. I could, of course, just shut up and leave the atheists to their hurrahs and affirmations, but it really does seem a stupid reason to get on any forum just to say, "Theists are stupid!" and raise that glass over and over again with fellow atheists. I'm hardly the brightest person in the world, and while your perception of my depth drawn from a two-dimensional environment worries me little, I do wonder at your self-righteous need to say it.

Guess what, Notme: You're not all that, either. And if you want generalizations and so forth to be dropped and left in the past, I suggest that you abandon the small-mindedness altogether. Small-mindedness in a new form has the effect of reminding me of its prior forms as well.Don't take this in a wrong way, but get over yourself. You aren't all that. I've met plenty of deeper people than you.No, you haven't offended. But if you want me off my soapbox, quit saying that you want me off my soapbox while handing me a written invitation to get back up on it.

Neither one of us is all that, Notme2000. But, frankly, you'll notice that the only reason this topic is continuing is because of my participation. For instance, had you not offered one of those lines that we're trying to get past, I probably would not have continued in this topic in the first place. I probably would have withdrawn from it just as I did in the pop-culture topic.

But I will tell you, Notme2000, what I am. I'm the guy that keeps this religion forum from breaking down into a bunch of atheists yelling "stupid drunk idiots" while a bunch of Christians yell "blind numbskull sinners!" We might go through this from time to time, but if you watch carefully, at least other things are getting addressed alongside the cacophony.

What I find most amusing about that notion is that people are usually putting more thought into the religion they oppose while dealing with me than if they were simply slinging back and forth with a member of the faith. And when you stop and think about how pointless some of those arguments are, well, what can be said of the thought being put toward religion by the atheists when they're not dealing with me?

I don't mind balbutive. But I do prefer it to aim toward something. Even children must learn to walk before they can dance. Otherwise, they just sit around holding onto their ding-a-ling-a-lings. I don't mind the sandbox religion our atheists depend on, but I do wonder why they're not learning anything about the religions they're engaging.

If you get the time, though, check out the link I provided in my initial response to the topic. I do see a difference between you and a couple of the atheists who have checked into this topic. And while I greatly appreciate the harmony-seeking atheistic input in this topic, I cannot let that blind my perception of the negative aspects of this or many other debates. Maybe you didn't intend to inspire atheists to call other people stupid, drunk, or idiotic. I'm willing to bet on it, based on what you've told me in these later posts. But in that sense, I would say that you might wish to spend some time getting to know the atheist community around here. Perhaps you can help draw forth the better aspects shown by a few--again, for and to whom I am appreciative--of your atheist counterparts. After all, those folks are the clear minority among atheists at Sciforums.

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

Pragmathen

In addition to all that, you've given me new perspective on T1. Well-timed, even if accidental, and definitely well-placed and pointed.

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

When an atheist figures out why they are correct, their atheism usually takes a step down, their pride usually two steps. It's not that they come to believe in anything, but suddenly the processes of what they oppose become clear, and it really can become an issue of compassion.
Wow, very good point. Congrats, Tiassa, you have convinced me to try to understand the idea of religion better. A strong man can admit when he's made a mistake.
It might be time for another topic in which atheists declare what religion is. One of the things I hope to discuss soon with Notme2000 is why this topic exists at all.
I have always viewed religion as filling in the blanks. I've never had any hatred or even uncomfortableness with religion. I have a 6 year old cousin, and he has been raised very religiously. He often asks me to pray with him, which I do. I don't think any God is hearing me pray, but I don't see any harm in it either.
the difference between idiots and morons. I forget the exact distinctions to each one, but the point being that most, if not all humans are one or the other. The difference had to do with doing or believing the right things for the wrong reasons versus doing or believing the wrong things for the right reasons.
Lol, so true.
Does atheism in any way lead to knowledge? Or is it just a bandwagon?
The way I see it, it opens the door to knowledge, but it's up to the individual to walk through it. Now before you say it isn't fair that athiesm opens the door to knowledge and theism doesn't. Theism opens the door to spirituality, something equally important.
What am I supposed to think when what you call "the rest" composes so much of your posts? At this point, though, we hope to be past that. Very simply: If the mere presence of "the rest" in my posts indicates a lack of confidence in me, what does the predominating presence of "the rest" in your posts indicate about you? It's mostly a food-for-thought jab.
All I meant by "the rest" was the paragraph about a book you read to make a point that could easily have been made without it. Know what I mean?
It was mostly a comparative point: many do, and I point out that they are ridiculing the mentally ill. However, as relates the current topic which seems to be absent of that particular sentiment, I don't think it should have to go that far before the theists should be awarded human compassion.
It must be tough sticking by a belief and being concidered mentally ill for believing it, especially since you cannot produce and physical evidence that you're not (Not saying you are). And these people NEED physical evidence to believe you, I could see it being frustrating and trying. But in the same coin toss, as an athiest, I am often concidered void of emotion, like some sort of logical calculater. I assure you I have strong emotions, in fact I find emotion to be incredibly beautiful to me, since I cannot logically explain it. So you see, we are in the same boat.
But I don't understand why so many atheists chooses to identify themselves and take their swings. Is it mere release of internal stress?
You want to know what I think? I think athiests miss God, and we're making up for it with "swings". As you can imagine, being in a universe all alone, with no heavenly father, can be a little intimidating.
I will officially stop harping on the logical generalization, though I will reserve the right to use it as an example. But thank you. Truly.
This is so much easier. In less than 3 posts I've gone from despising you (sorry) to actually liking you... Lol, ah how the tides turn.
Break the lies, show truth. Show it within their paradigm; this often has the effect of reducing the religion from all-encompassing reality to a mere template according to which things are compared
I couldn't agree more. Have something to lean on, not hold them up.
Fair enough. More than fair. It is the condescension that makes the point damaging. From a position of metaphysical neutrality, "ignorance" is the best term to use.]
But I do not look at myself as better than thiests. Just more correct in a certain area, and certain area alone. Which is why I realize that just because I may be right in one area, it does not mean that I am the shit and can force feed it to whomever I feel. That would only show how ignorant I would be in other certain areas myself.
I would hope so. It seems to be moving that direction. I doubt anybody's praying for it, though
Well I've dropped the hatchet, I hope I can trust you not to take advantage of that.
I would think the atheists, if they were to consider religion at all, would rather consider a coherent part of it so that worthwhile considerations may be had. Perhaps that's a huge presumption, but I would hope not.
Makes sence to me.
Ever meet Seventh-Day Adventists?
No I haven't, if you have a moment, please explain.
You might have a furious argument with a religious person and felt to have made no progress. But five years later, something they experience might click with something you said and unravel the whole of it. It's why the mellow approach is best; it increases the odds.
Believe it or not I usually go about the mellow way. Only reason this debate was so heated at first is many people were rippin on me for my generalized thread, and you came in at the wrong moment and mentioned something about making my debate or shut the hell up (don't bother explaining, water off the duck's back now) and something just snapped. But I have also noticed the mellow aproach to work. One of those theist friends of mine, is now the closest to athiesm as a theist can be, thanks to me. And I've watched it happen. Once I mentioned the fact that truth doesn't tend to our needs, it is what it is, like it or not, it's up to you wether you seek truth or hapiness... Well he suddenly changed his philosophy in the journey of life. But likewise, with his intelligent remarks as a theist, I am now as close to a theist as an athiest can be. I doubt you have seen this side of me in this debate, but every time someone brings up an argument for God, instead of just discarding it cause I already "know" there is no God, I put it in my bank of evidence/arguments, and apply it to the evergoing struggle of logic vs spirituality every time I am confronted by it. I only want the truth, not a pre-decided one. If there isn't a God, ok. If there is... GREAT!
Most I know would welcome the chance to reduce the effect of this or that religion. I cannot say the same with you. To wit, our manipulation discussion.
I fell victim to pride, wasn't willing to let my previous statements go. Phew, that's hard to admit. I do agree with your subtle but helpfull religous advice method, and do follow it when in that sort of situation.
An interesting take on it, but we're trying to drop the generalization and the subsequent degradation of the discussion. My answer lies in those aspects we've agreed to try to move past.
Fair enough, though I hope with my previous statements I have convinced you I do not hold myself above anyone.
Oh, well. It seems we're both looking back at the mess and wondering how we stepped in it.
Amen to that.
Westerners attempting to assimilate Oriental philosophies according to Western perspectives
Lol, if you ever talk to Empty Dragon (the real one), he is one of those, though very deep, so don't shrug him off!
I think you'll find out among theism in general a much more useful atmosphere than you do sticking close to community faiths such as I remember growing up, churches in towns of 5,000 preaching any silly idea for the glory of God ... it really is different.
I first started out as an athiest with a grudge against religion. Until I met 2 of my deep thiest friends now. One is a somewhat gnostic, one taoist. When talking with them, I realized religion can be something much deeper than an excuse not to ask important questions and think everything is peachy. In fact, quite the oposite sometimes. This is the theist I respect. When they make an argument, I concider it harder and longer than I do most athiests (simply pointing out how much respect I, an athiest, put in certain theists).
Small-mindedness in a new form has the effect of reminding me of its prior forms as well.
In your last post I have come to realize it was a defense mechanism you were using against my offensive mechanisms, which I took to heart as thinking you were full of yourself. I completely retract that statement. I know, now that we have dropped the "mechanisms" all together, you ARE just here to learn and teach. My bad, truly, sorry.
I'm the guy that keeps this religion forum from breaking down into a bunch of atheists yelling "stupid drunk idiots" while a bunch of Christians yell "blind numbskull sinners!" We might go through this from time to time, but if you watch carefully, at least other things are getting addressed alongside the cacophony.
And that is what attracted me BACK to this forum which I had originally planned on abandoning.
I would say that you might wish to spend some time getting to know the atheist community around here.
I have really begun to notice that in this conversation. I didn't use that "drunken idiot" comment to back me up for 1 reason: It's totally untrue. I have been pre-judged in almost every thread I've been in for being an athiest, and now that I am getting to know some of these athiests I'm being generalized with, no wonder. They seem to think rejection of God means they are the new replacement God, when in reality they're on someone else's coat tails. I'm glad you have realized I am NOT one of these athiests. I am in search for the truth, and realize I may not like it. And with every bit of temporary truth I find, I do my best to cope. Now that it seems we are no longer pushing each other and getting nowhere, we can get somewhere twice as fast... And I just spent an hour writing the post, lol.

Originally posted by theists
Well, think of it this way, GB-GIL: I know atheists are individuals. You know they are individuals. But damn, do they act like robots. One person makes an offensive generalization about a group of people and suddenly there are two more atheists there trying to rip open the wound. I tend to think atheists are like religious people in the sense that they are individuals when alone but prefer to think in a commonly-identified group when more than one is present. This whole thing probably wouldn't have gone so far without a couple of atheists stepping in and making what was a rather silly personal conflict between Notme2000 and myself into a nicely-generalized mess. I do know when one atheists stops and the next starts, but when the atheists put so little effort into it, what am I supposed to do?This is a wholly inaccurate statement, GIL, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself for it. Most atheists argue over the petty, tiny gods that they learn from the least educated, most superstitious theists. I would like to see a broader knowledge base among atheists. In other words, I find an almost tragic paradox here, that atheists are more directly affected by gods than the theists are. Shake it off, that's all.

Take a look at the topic, GIL ... don't be so obsessed.

Of course, if I don't know when one atheist stops, what should be said about atheists? I mean, if "thesists" are so hypocritical, perhaps you could explain to me the core hypocrisy of a Hindu compared to the core hypocrisy of a Jew compared to the core hypocrisy of a revivalist shamanist. I would love to see how those hypocrisies work together. But the best most atheists can do is to lump all religious groups together as one, even those they don't know about, and say "theists _____" (fill in the blank: are drunk, stupid, idiotic, obsessed, named Tiassa, ad nauseam.

I have no doubt that there is intelligence among atheists. Such a question really has no place on the table. However, I do wish that more atheists would show that intelligence. Remember when arguing against narrow theism such as we might find in vulgar Christianity and fundamentalist Islam that as long as you argue the point at the level of any given individual, you're arguing against a paradigm that is specifically constructed to hold together according to that individual's needs. Meeting such a religion head-on will only freeze and polarize the issues, and debate or argument do not change much.

Rather, one must bear in mind that humans are imperfect, and therefore no theology created by a human is perfect. With vulgar Christianity, as noted, the Bible is a straight debunking, so it seems very easy to go for the jugular. But because the Bible is so straightforward in its errors, an atheist can honestly inquire about those gaps that present themselves to his or her intelligence.

And at that point, it comes down to why people are arguing. For the rush? Sure, meet them head on. In that case, there's no progress to be had and what can be said of what atheism brings a person except that obsession? However, in learning about and understanding that vulgar Christianity, one can usually present conditions within the paradigm that lead to change. The paradigm should be exploited, not opposed. Telling a Christian they're stupid only reinforces their belief in their propriety. Asking, "Well, if the Bible says this, could it mean this?" And then you can go on to lay out the argument from the Bible, from Christian epistemology, and from modern faith among other factors.

Like Notme2000's generalization about logic (noted for example): The problem with Christian logic is best encapsulated with the Catholics. If you go to NewAdvent (http://www.newadvent.org) or other such repository of Catholic history, philosophy, and dogma, it becomes quickly apparent that the Catholics are among the most logical people on earth, save two a priori assumptions: that God exists and that the Bible is accurate and true in its descriptions of God.

Now, the second comes from the first, but the second reinforces the first.

What's funny is that the only reason I'm a theist is that buried in there is a definition of God that I can accept. I find it ironic that the concept didn't catch on with the Catholics, and that's one reason why I've never become a Catholic. That's all it is. Personal integrity does not allow me to deny that definition: God is that which is greater than our conception. At such a level, you approach a mystical notion that "God is". Being, form, persona ... these are all mere speculations. It's the reason why I have no religion. The concept of God is largely irrelevant to me except that it affects other people. Technically, they're entitled to it the same as we're entitled to voice our opinions. And when they voice their opinions in a forum like this, we have an opportunity to understand how that opinion forms and holds together.

And that seems a more pleasant, more effective, more respectable approach than the kind of condemnation I've been protesting throughout this topic.

Think of it this way:

• When I was about 7, I read a children's book called My Mother the Mayor Maybe, which was my first exposure to the politics of Democrats and Republicans (I liked Carter in the 1980 election not specifically because he was a Democrat, but, as a child, he seemed intensely more personable and kind than Ronald Reagan). My father tried to teach my brother and I about Democrats and Republicans, and did so with the intent of making Republicans sound better. Unfortunately, he put it in the wrong terms for my young conscience; his basic division helped turn me into a Democrat. On the flip-side, my brother decided he was a Republican. As such he felt justified when Reagan was elected and it wouldn't be until 12 years later, in adulthood, that he would see that he was just agreeing with a position. The more he learned from sources he trusted about the American history and politics, the more obvious it was that he was merely riding the Republican ticket in order to "ride a winner". By the end of the Republican revolution, it had set in on him that he had grasped one concept, gotten lucky (via Reagan's election) and held on to "being right" without ever looking closely at what he was supporting. In the end, he got 12 years of being "right" about something that it turns out he doesn't believe in, and much conflict entered his life toward the end of that when people realized he had just shut off those beliefs one day and didn't bother to tell us. I can still remember sitting at dinner and hearing him calmly explaining his position on something--utterly in contradiction of what he had said for years; I can still remember him saying, "No, I never thought that. Why do you think I did?" Well, dude, because you said it for twelve years. Because you condemned people for disagreeing with you. And the whole time you weren't paying attention to the what you were endorsing.

In the same vein: Atheists, generally, are correct. Except it seems that they don't know it.

What does that mean? Atheists, by picking the seemingly logical option in the face of narrow religion, are generally correct. However, atheists tend to merely hold their line, confident that their logic is enough. Even oppositional atheists tend to do this. However, just as when my brother should have known what he was advocating, so, too, do I feel about an atheist. It's well enough to know that 2+2=4, but if you know that by rote and have no arithmetic skills, what possible good can it do you? Learning the 2+2 of religion means learning a little more about religions. Is it enough that an atheist should be correct without knowing why?

When an atheist figures out why they are correct, their atheism usually takes a step down, their pride usually two steps. It's not that they come to believe in anything, but suddenly the processes of what they oppose become clear, and it really can become an issue of compassion.

Whether atheists see religion as a mental illness, as a social menace, or as a personal stumbling block, merely deriding people of faith is, in effect, the same as telling a cokehead how big a piece of shite he has become while piling more dust on the table for him.

It might be time for another topic in which atheists declare what religion is. One of the things I hope to discuss soon with Notme2000 is why this topic exists at all. It doesn't seem that he wants to erase religion. It doesn't seem he wants to undermine faith. It doesn't seem he wants to spread some social salvation through the elimination of religion. So I'm left wondering why the topic exists at all. It seems we're moving that direction, though, so it's best to take it as it comes.

Just one piece of advice, though, GIL: When generalizing to make a point (iMac users, named TIassa, &c.) it is best if you maintain a certain degree of consistency. My observations of atheists, while not uniformly applicable to atheists, find far better statistical correlation than your generalisms in response. I don't mind the tit-for-tat, but I do wish you would employ one of the many real and legitimate aspects available than simply reducing it further to a blast against me.

Is it theists or is it the Tiassa? Seriously.

You could have asked why theists tend to become so aggressive when challenged. Of course, that one is easily answered, so I understand why you didn't. You could have asked why most theists lack much of the same human sympathy I find absent in atheists. That would have been a tougher answer, but it would have been a more responsible and, by proxy of what I interpret your point to be, more effective approach from the atheistic corner.

Somewhere in Foucault's Pendulum (by Umberto Eco), Pow and Belbo have a conversation about the difference between idiots and morons. I forget the exact distinctions to each one, but the point being that most, if not all humans are one or the other. The difference had to do with doing or believing the right things for the wrong reasons versus doing or believing the wrong things for the right reasons.

Reaching the "correct" conclusion is a mere accident if one does not understand the factors of that conclusion. My brother chose to be a Republican out of opposition. For 12 years he did not pay attention to what he meant. One day he woke up and found that much of his world had betrayed him, so to speak. I doubt the same sense of betrayal will come from atheism, but I do hope for better evidence that atheists understand the slightest portion of the subjects they undertake.

Does atheism in any way lead to knowledge? Or is it just a bandwagon?

thanx,
Theists :cool:.

Theists, just because it may be true for the vast majority of atheists (which I find it hard to believe) doesn't mean you should push it as the truth for 100%.

Now, people wouldn't be so upset at you, Theists, if you were to say "many atheists" or "most atheists" or "the vast majority of atheists" instead of "atheists" and "the atheists".

"The atheists" at least have the common sense to do the same thing about you, Theists. I mean, Theists, "most theists are dumb" has been said over and over, but never have I heard on Sciforums from anybody that posts more than 1ce a week that "theists are dumb".

Honestly, Theists, why must you take what you call statistics and warp them into pseudo-statistics?

Theists, by saying that "the atheists" this and "atheists" that makes you just another theist. However, Theists, perhaps you could jump out of that boring old mold by stopping your gross generalisations.

thanx much,
Mark

p.s.
thanx, Theists, for reading my post ;)

Originally posted by notme2000
As an athiest I love debating my beliefs in hopes of gaining even a bit of new knowledge. But one thing I've noticed about debating with theists, is it's a never ending debate... Simply because they do not incorperate logic in to the debate... And it seems that is the foundation debating is founded on... Just wondering if anyone has any thoughts or comments on this.:)

Yes, notme, I feel your pain, Tiassa are idiots and you can't gain knowledge from them. It's a never ending debate, and Tiassa never incorporate any logic into their debate.

Hopefully someday Tiassa everywhere will realised the divine truth of atheism and convert from Tiassa to atheism.

GB-GIL Trans-global:
While I appreciate that you know what I mean, I wouldn't take it as far as you have. I'm sure we could learn much from theists. The foundation of athiesm is an un-determined truth. That leaves room for thiests to be right... And hoping everyone will convert to athiem is just as bad a christianity being able to put commercials on tv. We need a balance of beliefs, or we'll get nowhere cause we'll be too busy revelling in the fact that we're "right", and won't have anyone to question us...

Originally posted by notme2000
GB-GIL Trans-global:
While I appreciate that you know what I mean, I wouldn't take it as far as you have. I'm sure we could learn much from theists. The foundation of athiesm is an un-determined truth. That leaves room for thiests to be right... And hoping everyone will convert to athiem is just as bad a christianity being able to put commercials on tv. We need a balance of beliefs, or we'll get nowhere cause we'll be too busy revelling in the fact that we're "right", and won't have anyone to question us...

I'm surprised you couldn't tell I was trying to make a point to Theists... err... Tiassa... err... Theists...?

tick, tick, tick, tick
OH I GET IT! Man I'm dumb some times, lol

Originally posted by notme2000
Wow, Tiassa, you are a truly warped and twisted individual...

Yes, make comments on the individual directly and not the idea. How...intelligent??

I personally despise hyprocrites, if you want an intelligent debate then don't make comments on the person debating.

I think most of you missed Tiassa's points, and for heaven's sake, Tiassa is a MAN. Get that straight please.

When I have time, I'll jump into this debate, so far I just see an "atheist gangup."

And oh yea, you atheists think being negative will solve the problem of ignorance? You think being derogatory and nonchalant will help the theists you condemn?

Why do you think I dropped atheism?

Negativity rarely gets you anywhere.

Chosen. Before you bludgen me with my own mistakes, look at your own, read the many post between that entry and now and you will realize you are far behind. Once you've caught up, I'd be interested in what you had to say, as I'm sure everyone here would be.

Chosen:
Yes, make comments on the individual directly and not the idea. How...intelligent??

It's called a flamewar, sweetie pie.

For some reason, I find judgements on intelligence from a man who reads "how to get girls through hypnosis" to be.....a twee bit amusing.

I personally despise hyprocrites, if you want an intelligent debate then don't make comments on the person debating.

Or