Religious Nonsense

I'm sorry, but this is again just coming across as a word salad seasoned with decrees. You are very direct with your decrees, but very ethereal with your justifications of them.

Perhaps some other compadre in the audience, if they can understand what you are saying, can reiterate your discussion points?

Actually, I would agree with that.

I have already made it quite clear, that setting up religion as some sort of competitor with science is just as silly as arguing for atheism on the strength of science. By the same measure, it is silly to bring science to a problem of ethics.
If the current human civilization is facing a very real threat of consuming itself to a very premature death, it's not clear how further scientific advancement can solve that problem, nor how secularism plans to steer it from falling into a ditch.
What new territory will science have to open up to discover the role austerity plays in being self controlled and satisfied?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yet it seems you cannot control yourself to refrain from using it prolifically.

One would think if such a person was engineering such usage outside of ...

https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religion

... that they would be forthcoming and clear with such explanations

If you want to avoid red herrings, its probably better to talk about what things represent rather than what they exemplify ... especially if one's posting is already plagued by some persistant communication issues.

For instance all this ....

.... leaves everyone none the wiser as to why you are fixated on the abrahamic (or what use of that word you are relying on), aside from reinforcing your own provincial world view.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A worthy goal for you guys.
You would have to stop endorsing Ardena's posts here, of course. And once again muddling theism and religion tempers optimism in the audience.
Meanwhile, bringing in various enlightenments of science is often appropriate and reasonable when arguing against common theism and theistic religion as it exists today.

It is sillier to leave it out. You can end up beating your head on a nonexistent problem.

It's not clear how one would solve it without scientific contributions.
The entire description and identification of that as a problem, along with the restrictions and criteria you face in dealing with it, you owe to science.

Dunno. Several current "hot" fields bear on aspects of that question.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't use it at all. As you know - from being corrected several times now.

The bullshit "if", and the characteristic fog of misused language in attempted innuendo- we have an Abrahamic theist posting on a science forum.

The bullshit "if", but without the foglanguage - so one can reply:
Not when they don't represent, and the matter at hand is what they exemplify.
Like this:

Since I'm not, that's no problem here.
But that kind of post from the overt and declared Abrahamic theists on science forums - ubiquitous and continual and multisourced as we find them - warns of a fairly serious problem in the larger world.
Hence the interest, such as it is, in religious nonsense - this thread.

 

You invoked a straw man: "You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that atheism has a philosophy or indeed that it is a philosophy, when it's actually an answer to one question."

As I said↑:

Meanwhile, there are priorities we might describe as philosophical that, in turn, describe how you assess information and make subjective decisions; if we think of org or flow charts, there you go, a philosophical position. It's not actually so obscure, but you might be focusing on acts of will, such as a political position deliberately adopted.​

How you get "some nebulous atheist philosophy" out of that is your own damn problem.

You invoked a straw man. A stale, overused, cheap, thoughtless fallacy.

What? You go out of your way to be disrespectful. Look, if you want me to believe you're as stupid as you behave, okay, fine. I can do that.

No, you brought a straw man.

It's not like this behavior is new: If you can't deal with the argument, just start making it up↗ in order to pretend you can.

What, you can't take the heat↗? You even tried your self-superior poseur routine↗ on a guy who had been kicked two hours before, and that was one of the only useful and decent posts he wrote during his time here, and he answered your question, and you dusted him. And in the end, it seems make-believe↗ is pretty much what you have for argument. So, yeah. The question remains: How do you expect to be taken seriously?

I would also note, because it is not irrelevant, that the rabbit hole on this thread is ridiculous. I still say↑, "Please explain the 'philosophical position' of which you speak"↑, is a challenge to the principle that there are no stupid questions. It's hard to tell if you weren't paying attention to the rabbit hole or just didn't care, but, yeah, that was just ... really: How is that to be taken seriously? Even now, do you have any idea what conversation you stepped into? Did it ever matter? Because, even accounting for the rabbit hole, "please explain the 'philosophical position' of which you speak" stands out for its utter lack of applicable, functional relevance.

 

Oh really, and that is your evidence of lack of atheist values or semiotics?

• I submit this perfectly fits the description of a theist religion, to wit:

a) It does not have a signifier in a form that a person can see or touch.
b) It will represent a mental construct of a thing, rather than the thing itself.

Try again....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

A toddler can pick up a cell phone and talk to practically anyone on the planet, but a god can’t muster up enough divine mojo to access a phone network and do the same thing? Gods can create stars, planets and people, but don’t have the communication skills of a 3 year old child?

Our ignorance? Who are you including in this population? I recognize my own inability to communicate with gods, and I’m not aware of anyone who can. Are you able to communicate with gods? If not, can you give an example of anyone who can?

So which specific Googled theidiocy have you adopted?

My atheism, like that of many others is based on a lack of substantive evidence that gods exist. I see empiricism as the only means that humans can effectively know reality. So if a god wants to expose itself to me, I would expect it knows where to find me. I’ll even spring for the trench coat.

How do you assess the value of your belief system? Does it involve any aspect of your material existence? Or are you in denial of such an existence?

I keep asking you the same simple question, and instead of a simple answer, you launch into a Bill Clinton imitation on the definition of terms.

Again, did you or did you not have relations with a deity. If yes, what color dress was it wearing?

But that’s not what you implied with your original comment.

Here you’re implying that 12 year olds are consumed by their immodesty. Which is it?

The reality is that 12 year olds tend to be very image conscious, which can lead to social behaviors that are impediments to learning. As a middle school teacher my wife sees this all the time.

My original reference to 12 year olds was to demonstrate that the subject matter is not that complex, and can be studied and understood by the basically educated. But to avoid answering a simple question regarding your personal knowledge of deities, you chose to focus on the behavior of adolescent Wookiees.

 

Exactly. There are no atheist values, so you can't blame fictitious "atheist values" for anything. What makes religious beliefs backward and superstitious is reality: observation and logic.

Yes, they are permissible, just like religious beliefs are permissible. Atheists are not a cabal that decides what is permissible and what is not.

And no paramilitary forces either. No atheist navy. No atheist air force.

I'm bringing human values to the table. Even some religionists support human values.

It isn't. Atheism isn't an end in itself. It's more like a symptom of progress in human thinking. Hopefully, that progress will also be reflected as progress in human values, as opposed to religious "values".

 

This is where you're losing the argument.

Yes, I get it. In the abstract, great, fine. But no, these values have nothing to do with atheism, and one of the interesting things about your notion of a symptom is that it does in fact remain problematic: What is the rational justification of these human values?

Wait: The next question is actually, which human values. The answer to that is: Precisely. What that means: Human values, as a general proposition, are all well and fine and wonderful, but what that phrase means is vaguely and diversely applied, and barring rational justification, the only difference between any iteration of human values either theistic or not is the difference about answering why: Why are these the values? The theist might explain, "Because God says so". The atheist, in this case, is left with answering, "Because." Is there a path around this rhetorical problem? Of course there is. I've been asking about it for years, and atheists keep telling me it has nothing to do with them or atheism or anything else.

Toward that last, avoidance of the issue, part of the problem is precisely what you've stumbled into: If one puts anything on the table, it is subject to the same rational scrutiny as anything else, such as, oh, let's say, a religious argument. Actually defending against that rational scrutiny means having a clue about history and philosophy, and that requires effort.

Previously in this thread, see #82↑:

You don't need God; for most people, "because" is sufficient, or, "that's just how it goes". Once upon a time even some religious people tried this point in order to ward off accusations of supremacist prejudice .... Higher cause is higher cause; if an assertion of higher cause is not rational, it isn't all that different from "God"; if we get rid of God, but keep all the other irrational higher causes, then we haven't really accomplished much except, perhaps, set a new standard for human dysfunction in having gotten rid of religion.​

Over in a differnt thread, about attitudes toward atheists, #136↗:

Try it this way: The reason atheists want their atheism to have nothing to do with anything else is because if we follow such simplistic rationalist objectivity absolutely, we very quickly brook nihilism. If we set aside some body of atheists we might reasonably presuppose, who just don't talk about it, it feels like a fair statement in my lifetime to suggest that the atheistic discourse I have encountered generally avoids this problem; in the end, what atheism challenges isn't an abstract higher authority, but, rather, a label.​

It's not a matter of disdaining the prospect of "human values", but, rather, conventional wisdom on what those values are, and what is their rational justification. This is what the atheistic argumentation we're witnessing here at Sciforums seems to be afraid of. Not merely afraid. Terrified. Petrified. Angry.

In all these years, the continued failure of this community's atheistic representation to evolve beyond pabulum and fallacy surely makes some point, but do we hold it to itself or apply it to atheism at large? Trust me, Maher and Dawkins aren't doing that much less badly. Still, though, it's one thing if, say Maher can only make jokes; he is, after all, a performing comedian. But his result does make a certain point. Any of us can call purity cult sick; but if you're not a comedian pandering to a large audience and therefore trying to keep it as simple and featureless as possible, what does the atheist bring to the psychoanalysis of Quiverfull, the Duggars, and the sex-abuse grooming cult in one corner of American Christendom? Precisely nothing.

When people around here fret at the damage religion does to society, it's easy enough to disbelieve many, simply because it's not really so important to them; rather, their priority is complaint, judgment, and the satisfaction of uttering condemnation. And that is what it is, but it's not worth much more than the moment of having done so.

The reason we don't apply these outcomes to atheism at large is the same reason people should be cautious about any such upscaled projection.

But as long as we're dealing with this range of atheism, yeah, it's actually kind of funny that even if we disagree with the religionists about why, at least they can tell us. Evangelical atheists should take the hint; they would probably stop losing these weird arguments they get into.

†​

I will also note that Musika has apparently figured out, in this thread, something about how to work the argument. And while there are many days I will disagree with him about much, other people went and handed it to him. And now all he need do is stand there and hold tightly in the buffeting bluster, and that flag will continue to fly. He's the only one that can tatter it, right now.

And on that note, it's one thing to say he has apparently figured it out, but it's something you pick up if you watch closely, because it happens over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. And it's true, if you follow this back to that point, when people fell over each other to get into that part of the back and forth, it's all trope and fallacy, and he literally need just hold fast and let everyone else embarrass themselves.

Trying to shield a critque from criticism occasionally results in these sorts of gaffes, and some people got caught out in the moment, and it actually is one of those easier said than done solutions, but it's also true, it's been years, and this latest multivectored failure seems nearly a demonstration of the point. Yeah, yeah, yeah, people get it: There is no God. Great, now what? Well, if that has nothing to do with someone, why is that person still disrupting the discussion? Clearly, some think it still has something to do with them, but absolutely refuse to acknowledge any substantial connection. And the thing is that if we atheize "God" itself, what atheism objects to is arbitrary assignation of organizing authority. It's one thing to strike "God" from the org chart, but it's not even a question of replacing it with caprice, as atheists refuse the question of the subsequent vacuum.

People can't have it both ways. One cannot reach "atheism" out to criticize something and then pretend the critique has nothing to do with atheism.

Getting rid of God doesn't cut off harm from justifying rhetoric, but that's not the point; the point of this iteration of "atheism" would seem to be usurpation of arbitrary value assignment.

Seriously, has adopting an atheistic outlook actually cured anyone of racism, misogyny, or other harmful behaviors many atheists would complain of the religious? No, it just cures them of one symptomatic excuse by offering them a different symptom.

Of course, that's the problem with making any idea into an identity politic.

 

I don't think I am.

 

A reasoned analysis of human well-being. Maximizing happiness for the most number of people. In other words, humanism. Admittedly, there is no mathematical way to arrive at ideal human values, but this is better than trusting in a book of ancient values. And go ask a Christian or Jew how they decide which laws to ignore (eating shrimp), and which they keep (hating on the gays). It's a very similar project, albeit with less basis in fact or reason.

 

That is a fair question.

And offhand my answer would be the recognition that a symbiotic and inclusive relationship with one's environment is preferable over practising the implacable cruelty of nature's harsher methods of natural selection. But even elephants carry their wounded.

But if we ask this question of atheists, we must pose the same question to theists. And history shows theist records of adherence to greater moral values (other than lipservice) is no better than that of atheists.

Belief in God does not, has not mitigated or altered natural survival instincts and techniques in humans. It can be argued the opposite is true. Unspeakable cruelty has been committed in the name of God. How convenient.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Moreover, it is clear that religions are prejudicial and exclusive in their very essence.
IMO, not a desirable foundation for building benign versions of ethical and moral values.

Theism begins with the words, "thou shalt have no false gods before thee, and we'll kill you if you do"........

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Atheism begins with "thou shalt have no gods of any kind before thee", but we won't kill you if you do".......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The latter sounds much more intellectually mature and responsible to me..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It places responsibility clearly within the pervue of the actor. No absolution by confession.
The atheist has to live with the consequences of his bad moral or ethical actions forever....
a secular hell....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Religion did not invent moral behavior!!!
Maybe it's time to get rid of this false premise.

 

Meaning? And, no, I'm not ignoring the subsequent sentence; it's just that you're still out in an undefined, subjective range, which is what it is, but justifying yourself as a comparison—

—only reiterates that this is about supremacism or simple jealousy.

• • •​

Well, thanks for that. Too bad about the rest:

Yeah, yeah, I know, sounds great. What it comes down to, though, is personal aesthetics. And—

—your manner of intellectual grift, i.e., just making it up as you go, would be merely silly except it seems intended to be disruptive: Spend your time demanding theists justify themselves according to your stereotypes, find yourself facing a point you feel the need to answer, respond that theists should have to answer, too, despite the circumstance that the demand against them is already in place. All you have is jealous comparison:

Do you have anything to offer that doesn't depend on theists?

Because, yeah—

—"it can be argued", but, honestly, the way you're going about it, it's going to be a shitty argument possibly even worse than worthless.

Of course it does. Because that's when you get to pretend your arbitrary irrationality is the higher cause. Like I said, jealousy.

What about absolution by blaming everyone else? That's a great "atheism" you're pushing, there, really intellectual and rational and mature.

No, you're wrong. Utterly, completely wrong.

Atheists are human, and that means two important things, here:

(1) They're human, and can make whatever excuses they want to convince themselves it's everybody else's fault.

(2) They're human, and eventually die.​

Forever? Or is that a finite period in "atheist years"?

 

Well then, if I am incapable of explaining why atheists have no worse ethical standards than theists, then you explain the theist's "rational justification of these human values"? Who wrote the bible? God???

And I certainly do not appreciate your dismissive attitude, where I have shown you only respect and courtesy. So stop that line of diversion by aspersion, please?? You're beginning to sound like a theist.
I would think that in your position you would adhere to the ethical secular standard of a staff member. Look within yourself before you try to reflect poorly on someone else.

 

I thought that the OP title read; "Religious Nonsense. Am I wrong? My answer is perfectly on topic.
OTOH, your question is completely off topic and irrelevant. Do you have anything to offer in regard to Religious Nonsense, other than asking about atheist ethical motivations?

I consider that tactic as part of the world of Religious Nonsense.

(".......forever")? You are not really going to give me a lecture on semantics now are you?

I do find it curious that you begin each answer in agreement with my post, but then try to diminish its value by ridicule. You managed to even ruin your acknowledgement of my compliment, by dismissing the rest of my post altogether.

"Yes, but......", is still a "Yes".
Can't we just leave it at that? Is there some compulsion that forces your gratuitous extras?

 

It is superior to analyze one's moral values and alter them in light of new information and understanding (slavery is bad). It's not superior in the sense that atheistic values will always be superior to religious ones. Atheists could be wrong. But if wrong values are incoded into a religious doctrine, they will be wrong forever.

Is maximizing human well-being really all that subjective? I bet I could construct a survey to adequately measure it.

 

History.

 

Measure it against what with what?
Maybe you can invent a unit that measures atheiometers, just to make it sound scientific and distinctly atheistic.

https://amp.dailydot.com/unclick/reddit-atheism-uganda-water-barrel-donation/

 

That's an odd reason to dismiss accurate description and identification of bad stuff that needs remediation. You don't like the tone of voice of the messenger, ok, but the message remains.