A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"

So you are calling atheists idiots. Turns out AI was right.

I'd like to hear from AI on that one. I'm not aware of you referring to atheists specifically as morons, but you continually refer to them as irrational bigots, and above you refer to them as "dunderheaded," and to AI specifically as an idiot, so I don't see his comment as being a stretch from the truth. Oh, and you continually question my (and others') ability to think logically. If you think those aren't jabs at one's intelligence...

Again, where is the irrationality? You keep shooting that dart, but without something by way of argument in support of it, it will always miss its mark.

Agreed. Where is yours? Aqueous Id made a long, thoughtful reply to yours, and you've completely ignored it based on some invented slight. (As if you've ever ignored a post based on dishonesty; typically, you see that as an invitation to attack) It appears you'd rather hold fast to your preconceptions of atheism than actually confront them, which further cements the notion that this thread is just one huge piece of flaming shit.

How do you figure?

See, this only proves your ignorance of the subject. You'd think someone so poorly versed on a topic wouldn't be so loud about it.

What behavior? You've still failed to give us an example of it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Where are you, friend to whom
I could tell the truth
without plunging you into despair? –Elias Canetti

"Somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. Soon he will rape, torture and kill her. If an atrocity of this kind is not occurring at precisely this moment, it will happen in a few hours or days at most. Such is the confidence we can draw from the statistical laws that govern the lives of 6 billion human beings. The same statistics also suggest that this girl's parents believe at this very moment that an all-powerful and all-loving God is watching over them and their family. Are they right to believe this? Is it good that they believe this?

No.

The entirety of atheism is contained in this response. Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious. Unfortunately, we live in a world in which the obvious is overlooked as a matter of principle. The obvious must be observed and re-observed and argued for. This is a thankless job. It carries with it an aura of petulance and insensitivity. It is, moreover, a job that the atheist does not want." –Sam Harris

"Man will become better when you show him what he is like."–Anton Chekhov

We are hardly a peaceful species. We are evolutionary puppets on a string, animals, vehicles in which genes reproduce. The drive to reproduce leads us to war. War is not a cultural thing. It’s a human thing, and as you know, some of our closest primate relatives engage in war.

Parasites can control a host. A cold-virus can reproduce by making us sneeze. A fetus can manufacture hormones to manipulate a mother. Whether you like it or not, emotions are a huge part of our evolution. They are a mechanism. We use them to make everyday decisions, establish priorities, and to set goals. Our emotions can cloud our judgment but maybe…just maybe we’d all be better off if we accepted what we are. “The man is become as one of us”, not a serpent, a god, or a fallen angel, but a man. We are all animals with great limitations. We were not designed by some God. We were designed by millions of years of evolution. The universe was not created specifically for us, nor does it care about us. We are mere products of its events.

Yes, Tiassa, some wear tin foil and others, veils of delusion.

"The way to live should issue from our nature, from what it is we believe ourselves most deeply to be. We tend to assume that we know what we are, that our nature is obvious, given to us by direct observation of others and of ourselves: Just look around the world and look into your own heart and you will know the human condition. It's not so. What it is to be a human being is not clear at all, but deeply shrouded. Because, in the evolution from animal life to human life, along with the gain in knowledge and awareness, we have gained also the ability to deceive ourselves. We arrange not to know our nature, not to see what we are up to. Our self-deceptions are so dense, piled on so thick, like layers of paint on a canvas already painted, layer after layer, laid on from school and pulpit and lectern and TV and Internet, that it is all but impossible to break through, to get a clear view of what we really are.

Behind our loudly professed values of freedom, justice, and equality lies a propensity to violence far stronger and far deeper than is known to any of us, even the most cynical. It is all but invincible, invades even the bedroom, corrupts what we call love. We indulge in vast hypocrisies, flagrant and subtle, to conceal from ourselves this destructiveness. We are in fact largely the opposite of what we think we are." – Allen Wheelis

You know what they say, never avoid a teachable moment. What’ll it be…red or blue pill?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Might I suggest the red pill then?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Excuse me, but instead of simply adding to Tiassa's ignorant onslaught of attacks, could you cite an example of someone at sciforums dismissing a theist as unworthy or stupid or as someone who can be ridiculed and ignored and disregarded just on the basis of what they believe?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Bells, do you think that Newton would have rejected the theory of evolution? Did his religious studies lead anywhere or could they have hindered his scientific advances?

Neil deGrasse Tyson

 

(Something, Something, Burt Ward)

Are you accounting for any dialectic of neurosis in your assessment?

Or is the possibility of driving religious people even further into the delusion included among your potential outcomes?

If it is included among your potential outcomes, is it a good outcome, or a bad outcome?

Logically, I'm pretty sure the answer to that last is a no-brainer on paper. But it is, by all observable evidence, rather quite controversial in practice.

As with my opinion of Ms. West, hardening a delusional opposition does not facilitate useful outcomes.

• • •​

We might joke that between your typo in #347 ("The very thing many of us theists have commented about in the past?") and the above point, you might have become a theist for the functional purposes of our community.

More seriously, though, there is a grain of truth in the joke, but ... anyway.

Hence we come to the problem. The collective of atheism is appropriate when accounting for the virtues of atheism; it is inappropriate when considering applications of atheism that don't respect that presupposition of virtue.

There is also a generational difference, of sorts; generations of Sciforums users.

Spidergoat? Raithere? Well, Raithere seems to remember the difference 'twixt then and now. Spidergoat has been kind enough to maintain some ideological consistency over the years; part of the disaster of this thread is personified by Spidergoat's post at #282: "trying to convert the religious over to reason."

To the other, he and I are outvoted, here, as it would seem this aspect of atheistic identity has nothing to do with atheism.

And therein lies the catalyst for vitriol. Well, okay, the topic post was the catlyst on this occasion, but as it came in the wake of an atheist randomly making shit up to stoke his tinfoil personal causes, it occurred to me that maybe enough time has passed since the last time I pulled a version of this stunt.

Any atheist who includes in his or her outlook any version of "trying to convert the religious over to reason" has just called down a huge personal obligation through the identity politic.

We can certainly accept that atheism has nothing to do with anything else in the atheist's life, but I might as well suggest that Li'l Bunny Foo-Foo is actually God, and say that has nothing to do with anything else in the world, so leave it alone, and by the way, Li'l Bunny Foo-Foo says we need to do this or that.

The moment an atheist picks up that atheism and jabs it into any other issue—irrationality in public policy, irrational interpretations of history and science, &c.—he or she is accepting an obligation to rationality in that discussion. As long as the discussion includes religious irrationality specifically—much less gratifying when included in an academic context than when whipped out for thrills—instead of simply looking at irrationality in general, that claim to the rational becomes a central component in argumentative integrity.

It's just that, well, for some people—regardless of religious inclinations—that kind of argumentative integrity just isn't gratifying or fulfilling. This is hardly an uncommon behavior among people.

Let us consider #310 above. You, Bells, are aware of my reluctance toward men's rights groups. But imagine if someone finally made a pitch to me that was enough to get me to come to one of their meetings and sign up for the mailing list and all that.

Now, imagine that I arrive at the gathering, and sure enough, it's what I should have expected. Let's try the Dick Black platform, maybe?

Okay, so what do I do? This isn't about men's rights, but male supremacy. So, do I ...

• ... pack up and leave because I don't want anything to do with it?

• ... stick around, because, well, I'm a guy, and we have an identity politic as men, and, well, maybe I really, really want the solidarity? So, you know, I can declare myself an equal rights advocate, too. Oh, and if I choose this one, you don't get to say anything about the fact that I'm hanging out with a bunch of misogynists; that has nothing to do with my masculinity or my equal rights.​

I admit, I'm less confident in the ideological and argumentative integrities—while speaking nothing of the moral propriety—of that latter option. Then again, it really is attractive, because then I could tell all those bitches and hos out there what they're really worth—make me some pie! suck my dick and call it Daddy!—and it has nothing to do with anything in the world but the (ahem!) "fact" that women are all just irrational bitches.[sup]†[/sup]

Then again, it could be something as simple as ego defense; given the reality that if you let people keep talking they will eventually tell you the truth, maybe that's why we need to keep these disputes so short, sweet, and to a functionally useless point.

• • •​

Who the hell needs pills?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

I mean, really, the rational decision is marijuana before pharmaceuticals. To the one, we have a relatively well-established natural phenomenon; to the other we have a synthesized compound about which middle- and long-term statistics and projections are commonly withheld because true data might hurt sales.

As rational decisions go, Trooper, that one's a no-brainer.

Perhaps it might behoove you to stuff the ego in favor of, oh, I don't know, being rational?
____________________

Notes:

[sup]†[/sup] TURD: Owing to the previously acknowledged conicidence between the people who think I have no sense of humor and those who don't laugh at my jokes, the otherwise blatantly apparent sarcasm in the second sentence of the annoted paragraph should be disclaimed as specifically sarcastic. Because, you know, it is easy enough recognize that compared to a body of literature existing in history, the idea that such a paragraph is sarcastic instead of a literal confession of misogyny is exceptionally extraordinary. One might think such a paragraph unnecessary, but history unquestionably reminds the necessity of This Unfortunately Requisite Disclaimer.

 

Perhaps.

Good day to you, Tiassa.

 

You know, as I watch, this discussion is getting interesting, because I recall well your predilection for compelling answers from posters in response to your straw man propositions. You know, the ol' Tiassa-demands-you-answer-his-suppositions-or-be-banned thingie. And people say there are two sets of rules on SF! Tch. Sillies.

They are, of course. SSDD. But that's all right: Tiassa has wisely acquired 'posting insurance'.

Interesting - speaking from experience, this is a discernment you don't seem to have bothered with previously.

 

Not everyone is ripe for conversion. Sometimes I'm just in it for the laughs. There's a strategy involved. Will I convert more people by making someone else look silly? Or would it be better to try and convince that person of their error?

 

meh, I'm not reading all that...

Semantics, maybe, but I thought all atheist's and the religious were defensive... agnostic is well, a word or more?

 

LOL! Irony.

I take issue with your assessment of atheism. If you want to call that defensive, I think you're stretching the meaning of the word to the point of uselessness. But then, it was only meant as an insult anyway, so why am I bothering to use logic with you?

I've read their posts. How does a dislike--or in Fraggle's case, hatred--of religion amount to militancy? It seems the word has become a throw-stone for the politically-correct on this site to toss at people who have negative opinions of religion, which is not what the word actually means.

This should be good.

Do you realize that by "religionist," Sorcerer refers to religious zealots? Specifically, those who disrupt scientific threads with their mythology? I mean, let's take a look at the full quote in context:

Viewed in context, Sorcerer's comments have nothing to do with what someone believes, but how they behave. Sorcerer doesn't want ignorant, disruptive assholes whose sole purpose is to reject science so they feel better about their faith messing up earnest discussions.

Again, looking at the post, I fail to see how you reach the conclusion that Sorcerer doesn't view theists as human beings with thoughts. Let's take a look at the post in question:

Okay, so, again, Sorc is talking about religionists, who are classified as religious zealots by definition, and in the context of this forum are defined further as ignorant, disruptive douchebags. Do you agree with this definition?

Further, the only thing I see which remotely relates to your assessment of the post is the line "I don't care what religionists think," which, again in context, seems to be a reference to Sorc not having a problem with what they think, rather than being dismissive of their beliefs. However, even if he (she? I'm sorry I don't know Sorc's gender) were being dismissive of the beliefs of religionists, how would that translate to not seeing them as human beings?

Are there? Care to cite a source for that claim? Who currently leads the various campaigns to keep gays from having equal rights, and woman from receiving equal pay and having rights over their own bodies?

As far as I'm aware, there are no secular initiatives to demonize gays or women, or to keep them subjugated. But, should those entities exist, obviously they should be accounted for and argued against.

Of course it's against religion. Who is trying to retard our culture by subjugating women and relegating gays to second-class citizens? Who is trying to destroy our future by replacing science education with mythology?

So far, your only examples of such include two posts from one poster, both of which are misrepresented in your post. Maybe you should reconsider your position.

 

Actually, atheists consider that the abandonment of religion - at least in the public dimension - would indeed result in the alleviation of mass suffering, by obviating the return from ongoing religious intolerance. I disagree, but the result is theoretically possible and it's no worse than proposing a budget, or an espionage system, or a healthcare plan: it may not work out and given the perfidity of the human organism most of those things are pretty unlikely. But that element of the dialectic exists, or we could not propose philosophies at all. So yes, their proposition relates to that exactly; you can call these serial repressions 'cultural' if you want, but theology is at the least in lockstep with the rest of their possibly multifarious etiology. To this the atheists say fuck religious influences on the public dynamic and, as a loyal son of the Dialectic, I find it difficult to disagree with them. I'm not sure how such an outcome could be resolved, but at least someone is looking. The alleged aggressiveness of the SF atheists only becomes problematic when it leads to outright abuse of theists (of whatever sort) in contravention of SF rules and of common ethics and morality, and if that's really (really? no, really now? - heh) a serious accusation, then I have to consider the ethics of the person making that accusation. Like our neighbour insists again and again, source matters, and in that case, the accusation is hypocritical at best: integrity, integrity, integrity. Hell, merely the unbounded inference of poor integrity seems to trump discussion here, sometimes.

Then do not use that sword. It seems to cut both ways - but only in one direction.

 

Weak. You already know the answer to that.

Then why did you ask the question above?

Seems a baseless accusation. Where has Sorcerer displayed an ignorance of historical context? And in what way are you demonstrating any knowledge of it?

Why do both parties need to be satisfied? I suspect a woman having the right to have an abortion doesn't satisfy religious people, certainly not religionists. Do you think, therefore, that it is bad policy to allow a woman to have an abortion? After all, it doesn't satisfy both parties. It completely disregards one side in favor of the other.

No one questions anyone's right to believe. That is a strawman that you should divest yourself of.

Yes, because what I believe is superior to what they believe. Would you not say the same thing about yourself, or do you really think that your position on women's rights is inferior to that of the religionist who would have them barefoot and pregnant regardless of what they want?

That's your opinion. Of course, that being so, even you would agree that the fight is noble.

No one is talking about taking rights away from the religious (so long as that right infringes upon others, obviously) But respecting their beliefs? I see no reason to respect the belief that woman is a lesser creature than man, or that the Earth is 4000 years old, or that we should teach Genesis in Biology class. Those aren't beliefs worthy of respect.

 

Kinda fun watching Tiassa drawing a line in the sand, and daring people to cross... except no one really seems to be paying attention. Other than those who normally pay attention to him.

This is the guy who campaigns regularly for "fairness" for "equality", for an end to misrepresentation and misogyny, for ... stuff, that enables him to write something. Lots of something. Paragraphs of something. On some occasions, a goddamned novella of... never mind.

Only, in the creation of this thread, he's guilty of pretty much everything he purports to be against. Perhaps not misogyny.

 

This the part where you pretend you only wanted to provoke an informed discussion rather than to rant a little?
And what's an overdue appearance? Akin to being "fashionably late"?
How does a fanfare translate to a discussion forum?
How wonderfully gay you sound!

No, Tiassa, there is no "why". It tells you nothing because, in spite of you standing there insisting you be told something, there is nothing to tell.
It is you who forces polarisation. You who demands one be this, or that.

Atheism doesn't have any value as an "identity" or a "label" to an atheist. Other than when such an identity is forced down his throat... If you insist, I am this. As long as I am not that.

Funny, really. This is Tiassa, the longtime champion of all those who do not want to be pigeonholed, or deemed to be different.
Forcing a definition of who they are down someones throat.

He'll probably come back now and tell us it was all planned, so he could teach us something about what it's like to be pigeonholed as gay.
In fifteen carefully annotated and referenced paragraphs.

 

If you think I'm going to waste my time replying in detail to this rambling nonsense then you're mistaken. You're a mod and should act like one, and not behave in an emotive and personal way. I've made clear at length what I believe in and I stand by that; if you are unable to understand it then I suggest a course in English would be in order.

I wonder what your motivation has been for these two posts. Are you trying to wind me up with a personal attack so that I'll respond in kind and say something I shouldn't, resulting in a warning or a ban? That's what several people have tried, remember, including another mod. If that's the case then forget it; I discuss things in a calm and rational way, unlike you, so it ain't going to work.

 

I mean... she does have a point - some people defend their atheism so intently that it has become less about an "absence of belief" in deities and more about contesting any and all religious deity.

 

In modern times, in first world cultures, it is not the religious who use government force, to undermine the atheists. This may have happened in the older days. First world religion is based on a free market approach, where the various merchants of faith, present their wares via advertisement. But in the end, everyone has to a choice to buy or not to buy. Atheism takes the approach of using central power to create laws, to restrict the free flow of intellectual goods and services, enforced with fines and punishments. This is like third world religion with the Muslims doing this.

If you want to pray in schools, religion gives one a free market choice to do or not to do. The penguins (nuns) are not beating on you with a stick and handing out fines. But atheism forces it will, punishing all violators. It uses the approach of a third world religion lacking tolerance.

Strong arm use of government, is not consistent with the atheist claim of science being its foundation. Science may have laws of science, but science always stops short of punishing those who are not with the program. The university gives one the choice to learn particular science, or to enter only liberal arts, without science ambushing you. There is an irrational bully aspect to modern atheism that transcends science.

A pure science philosophy atheism, would say religion is illogical, but so is the obsession of video gaming, so live and let live. All I can do is point out my beliefs and the laws of science, within the free market of ideas, and hope some come around.

That freedom of expression is not how some atheist activists function. Many people react to atheism in a negative way, not due to its connection to science, but due to the use of strong arm tactics to remove free speech and force conformity. This aspect I often call the atheist religion, since it acts like an older version of Christianity and/or a modern third world religion. How about a free market atheism, like in first world religion?

The only reason free market may not be acceptable to the irrational atheist, is they may not be able to compete in fair and free market. This only goes for the irrational atheist, since the rational scientific atheists are engaged in their own search for truth, via the free market of ideas.

 

Shut the fuck up already, you don't know anything! Atheists tend to enforce secularism, which is intended to create an atmosphere of religious freedom. Everyone can pray in a school if they want, it's just that the school itself can't promote it, as that would be the state promoting religion. Everyone can have a religious or non-religious after school club. It's most often the religious who try and bully the government into eroding the separation between church and state. That's the way to theocracy, and god help you if you aren't the state religion.

 

Here is another thought. When religions, like Christianity, was the only show in town, hundreds of years ago, they forced conformity via law and punishment. The atheists of the time, had to conform and try to hide under the radar, due to risks of being accused; closet atheists. What that meant for religion, was since all had to conform, the closet atheists would blend within the religious organization, based on their personal smarts, working their way up the company ladder; default social and career path.

It would be analogous if government swallowed the free market and discourage all future free enterprise. The free marketeer would need to enter the closet and it they still had ambition, would now become part of government, since that is the only ladder up. In terms of the old church, this meant that both atheist science, and atheist religion, were part of the average of the church, with the best and brightest all through the system. The alchemists were often doctors which was high in the hierarchy; pre-science.

When the two groups divided in modern times, the Christian religion becomes more easy going, while atheism becomes science as well as organized political intolerance. Is it possible that the original negativity of religion (inquisitions) was due to the integration of atheism with religion, with the top tier under the radar atheists, using the same tactics of law and punishment to create conformity; inquisition. Once they split this redistributes.

It would be like a centralized government with closet entrepreneurs, since free market is taboo. Bill Gates would be tops anywhere and would reach the top levels, being smart in any location. He would add this touch to the government. Once they split, the government would become more linear and the free market more edgy, the now openly free market talent, would leave government.