Religious Nonsense

Assuming you have an issue with the bit in bold, the DOI (If you want to take it as a catalyst for engineering the basis of all our modern democracies that incorporate equality as a cornerstone for justice) is a transcendental proposition. If there is a materialistic means to gauge equality, it is not, as yet, forthcoming.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is self-evident that all men are created equal (no need for "by their creator"), under the law.
What made you conclude that atheists are not capable of understanding metaphysical concepts of ethical behavior. The discipline even has a name; "metaethics".

If scripture ever was of help in drafting secular ethical law, it has long outlasted its' usefulness.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

3000 innocent people died, all because Allah told bin Laden that he was justified in his actions.

Let's face it, theists have lots of problems with the larger secular community, because of their religion. A baker cannot refuse to sell a loaf of bread to a gay person. A city clerk cannot deny a gay couple a marriage license. A husband cannot give his wife a thrashing. These things must be painful decisions, but in the spirit of generosity in recognition that all men, and women, are equally valuable as human beings, they are nobly suffered by theists.
That's nice........the human thing to do..........

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

......................................

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Two examples of the typical bullshit "if", as continually employed by overt Abrahamic theists on science forums.

Another form of the typical Abrahamic theist's dishonesty on a science forum - the Fox question format.

Why do they do that?

 

If you continually fudge attempts to explain what you are on about, you will advance from a position where no one understands what you are on about, to a position where no one cares what you are on about.

 

Actually the opposite is true. It is self evident that all men (sic persons) are created unequal (physically, economically, socially, intellectually, etc ... no two are equal, what to speak of everyone), if you assign their ultimate creation to their biological origins.

Law as a precursor to philosophy is a joke at best, terrifying at worst.

Metaethics doesn't operate on the provision that religion is prohibited territory.

 

And, lo and behold, many muslims cite that as grounds to discredit his authority. There was an incident of a terrorist, midway through the act, in London, being chastised from a bystander, "You ain't no muslim, bruv."
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/6...enger-taunts-machete-wielding-terror-attacker

So by the same standard, when atheists display behaviour outside your definitions, are they false atheists or are your definitions of atheists false?

 

What do you suppose He would need to tell us or that we would need to tell Him?

I am more surprised that you would think I wasn't.

It's probably not the time, place or audience to discuss these things, but you are advocating the perfectional stage of religion as the initial stage.
Its more extreme than expecting bunsen burners and strontium-90 to be broken out during a university open day.

At this stage, I would have hoped you would have at least a few critiques of defenses for theodicy up your sleeve if you were still hoping to float your bluff about being familiar with "all manner of theological contortions".

Fine.
So what would a "meaningful interaction" with God look like, if you want to demand such experiences be contained within the language of empiricism?

Remember, this is not my challenge, or some onus I put on you. This is your language, your choice in epistemology and your choice in defining the parameters of an accountable reality.
(For the record, I already offered to broaden the subject by talking about the pros and cons of several epistemologies, all of which you hastily discredited in favour of empiricism).

Personally I think the task you have set yourself is as fruitless as trying to determine the quantity of water in the pacific ocean with a thimble, but I don't own the stupid here.

Lol
What's the point in asking such q's if you can't bring anything to judge the merit of the answer?
Suppose I said "Yellow".
What next?

To be consumed by one's modesty is to not be modest.
I guess one can be proud of one's humility, but it tends to suggest an inferior level of performance.

 

Tiassa said it with more eloquence and patience than I could muster, and it's doubtful you made it further than the first line ...

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/religious-nonsense.161034/page-11#post-3536087

... so I will keep it brief, since you are obviously being economical with the time you wish to spend thinking about these subjects.

In short, if you say atheism has no values, then you can't talk of it in relation to progress, reality, education etc .. or at least you can't do that and refrain from being a douche.

 

Atheism doesn't have values but atheists do. So yes, the values that atheists have - human values, not arbitrary "values" imposed by some alien overlord for his benefit, no ours - do relate to progress.

 

I can see you have seriously thought this through.

 

I wish you would. Do you understand yet that "Atheism" is not an organization? The only thing that atheists necessarily have in common is lack of belief in gods. As long as you keep making the same silly mistake I'm going to keep pointing out that you're wrong.

 

This is such a clusterfuck of stupidity, I was almost certain you had skipped a few critical typos or sentences or something that would magically provide a semblance of something defensible. Anyway ..

Gee thanks for clearing that up. For a second there I thought there was a relationship between atheism and atheists.

I missed the part where "" renders things non-arbitrary ...

.... and the part where you valulessly established these as distinct from aliens, overlords, or the benefit of such.

It must come as a great relief to know you can gauge progress without values.

 

Yes, your arguments are religious nonsense.

Are you actually incapable, or simply making excuses?

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

Stop and look at what you're arguing:

Atheist 1: Human values as alternative to religious belief. (#208↑)

Inquiry: Human values, sure, but what is the rational justification of those values? (#209↑)

Atheist 2: Explain the theist's "rational justification of these human values". (#215↑)​

No, really, you're demanding one project a theistic rational justification of an atheist's counterpoint to religious belief.

And let's just be clear, here:

You call that behavior showing respect and courtesy?

How about the perpetual vendetta, not being able to discuss this subject without perpetually bawling what about theists? No, really, you appear to have entered the thread with it at #195↑, in which it's pretty much the whole of the post (less one paragraph telling someone to read something, and apparently perceive everything just the way you do); then pushed the bit again in #206↑, in which it is the whole of your argument. So, we've just accounted for it in #215; the rubber-glue tit for tat is the whole of #213↑, eighty-two percent (nine of eleven apparent paragraphs) of #212↑. You keep it up in #221↑, and #222↑. I did want to congratulate you, though, on #225↑, in which you broke form long enough to appropriate the Golden Rule.

(Does anyone ever wonder why Desmond Dekker said, "Golden Rules", or does that only stand out to people who know there is more than one, and the one most commonly in circulation is an inversion of its original form? Or does nobody listen to Dekker, these days?)​

But, yeah; you're back to it in #231↑.

And we should note, in the moment, that you accidentally got close in #234↑, but you're also making a certain point for me, and I thank you, about the bigotry of a prejudicial zealot replacing one irrationality with another. "Common sense"? Really? In a society that is mostly theist? Common sense: In a time featuring Afro Celt Sound System, Willie & Lobo, Carrie Akre, Tanita Tikaram, &c., people bought Britney Spears. Just saying; left to common sense, music performance instruction in the future won't be about breath control, form of the wrist, or efficiency of motion; it will be about making sure the unit is powered and turned on, finding the appropriate software library, and how to send your demo portfolio archive to which businesspeople, and if young musicians are lucky, they won't have to pay extra for the course in releasing their own album and booking their own shows. Remember: Actual musical instruments are inefficient, or, at the very least, can be said to be so according to any number of theses that might address "music" and "society".

Nonetheless, take that moment in which you're looking at the Deadly Sins and how they work in society, and please understand that such examinations are indeed possible once you get beyond your tit-for-tat, rubber-glue vendetta.

The atheist rejecting the subjectivity of projected divinity is what it is, but replacing it with the subjectivity of personal aesthetics is no less irrational or dangerous.

#237↑ ... oh, hey, depoliticize #240↑, and you're nearly in a useful range; the next thing to do is offer more than mere vagary: "The question thus becomes if atheists would be unable to come to transcendental conclusions, without the aid of transcendental literature written by theist humans." Yeah, actually, you're pretty close to a starting point. Because the next thing to do is start identifying those questions, conclusions, and discursive processes, and as I noted in #209:

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.​

If the punch line would be that it must suck to have only one story to write, I would point out that this eye-for-eye jealousy is in other threads, too. Check the freedom of religion thread; my critique of your post at #554↗, to Billvon, would have something to do with imposing definitions on people in history; watch the transformation, though, in #555↑↗—Jeeves was insufficiently condemning of religion in a response to Iceaura, so you jumped in with tit-for-tat rubber-glue. (And then you're back to sympathy with Billvon in #567↗, imposing your definitions on history.) And then, as I'm going rounds with Jeeves, you decide to get in on that, in #576↗, with more tit-for-tat vendetta.

Can we just confirm that you really do describe this behavior as "respect and courtesy"?

You're just trying to quash discussion you're not up to participating in. That's neither courteous nor respectful. Hell, even when you're not doing that, you're imposing fallacies on history, which is hardly respectful or rational, though it might qualify, behaviorally, under some iteration of commmon sense according to how much people do it. Kind of like making an uncreative song the foremost example of a society's musical culture because it gets middle aged men hard. Y'know. Britney Spears.

#242↑. Oops, you did it again?

At least you went for variation in #243↑, but refusing to address the question is neither respecful nor courteous, though to cover the pedantry it's true, you said me and nothing about Musika.

So what's that? You "have shown you only respect and courtesy"?

No, seriously, the one who can't stop crashing discussion with petty vendetta? The one who disrupts discussions for slothful non sequitur fallacy?

And you are a bigot.

(Diversion, aspersion! You sound like a theist!)​

I would think someone ostensibly advocating some manner of rational argument would know better than to try that cheap fallacy to be applied in circumstances you are ignorant of. What, you want the summary without the green ink?

• Go read the rules. We're still ostensibly on about rational discourse. Your bigotry and fallacy fails that standard. We can either put on our hats and kick pretty out pretty much the entire Religion subforum, or we can do what we've been supposed to do for years, which is constrict as little as possible prejudices that reflect Administrative sentiment, and just deal with it. And this is how we deal with bigoted politics we're otherwise supposed to go out of our way to take it easy on. There are certain groups we're not supposed to accept this behavior out of, and then there are certain groups who get some manner of pass under the rules.​

So don't don't give me that self-righteous political bullshit. Seriously, this piss-poor advocacy is the sort to make us wonder if simply expecting an identifying atheist to have a clue is somehow violating his or her civil rights, and whether that applies to all political advocates, or just atheists. The coddling everyone else needs to put on in order for these atheistic advocates to feel smart is unacceptable; everyone else should not have to run around and put more effort into kissing your ass than you're willing to put into complaining, and you might notice I didn't even limit you to rational complaint. Your bigoted bawling, above all else, lazy.

If an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind, I don't understand why you would gouge yourself. Watching people embarrass themselves in pursuit of moral satisfaction is a strange experience. Remind me again, why should theists have a rational justification of atheistic argument?

 

As I keep trying to tell you, there is no such thing as an atheist organization to which every atheist belongs. Each atheist has his/her own set of values. Those values may be similar - and they tend to be progressive - because they're based on conscience, empathy, etc. instead of the capricious dictates of some alien overlord.

As I keep telling you, it isn't without values.

 

When you type things like this, it just gives you the impression you have the self awareness of a fence post.

If organization preceeds value, WTF would people organize themselves around?

If a sociological phenomena requires majority membership, WTF is there left to discuss in the name of sociology that ends in "ism"?

When you have to butcher philosophy, history and sociology just so you can float your ideas on atheism, it is probably a good clue that your ideas on atheism don't float.

Then, even to accept this BS on face value, you just robbed yourself of the opportunity to define "progressive" outside of "arbitrary".
I'm pretty sure Stalin thought he was progressive, empathetic, conscionable, etc ... and hey, if you want to bring your values as an atheist to suggest otherwise, I will have to remind you to back the fuck down, because each atheist has their own set of values.

Much like feminists have similar values under feminism.
Or cubists have similar values under cubism.
Or iconoclastics have similar values under iconoclasticism.

Let me know when you start to see a pattern emerging ...

Its when you give those values as indicative of an atheist ...

.... as distinct from having any bearing on "alien", "overlord" "capricious", "dictates" etc ...
... is the moment you become a douche.

Sure, its just your reluctance to pin them to atheism in any meaningful, non arbitrary manner that draws ire.
Look at it this way : if you can't pin an "ist" to an "ism" with specific values, you are just being a douche.
.

 

Do you really think insults enhance your position?

It doesn't. People with similar values sometimes organize.

The point is that atheism doesn't require any membership. If no atheist was a member of any organization, that would have no effect on atheism.

Nope. I can define progressive as, "moving toward an ideal of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Feminists can be feminists without any feminist organization. Feminism is the values, not the organization.

That's close to being an analogy to atheism.

My values are not pinned to atheism in any way. If there was any evidence for gods, I could become a theist without any changes in my values. The problem is that people who are theists without evidence don't always have internalized values. When you get your values from an external alien overlord is when you get shaky, changeable values.

 

click.

 

If one remains fixated on an irrelevant piece of trivia as a bastion of defence for an argument, it warrants being called out.

So organizational structure is not a necessary imperative to collective value. Let us know when you can connect the dots and cease pointing at the absence of an international constituency of card carrying atheists to mean anything ...

Values are far more lively than the institutions that arise in their wake.

Then you are not talking about atheism, for a start.

Yet they can also be feminists with an organization. IOW pointing to the presence or absence of an organization says zilch about about bringing relevant values to a relevant category.

Thats BS.
If you were hoping to find a social politic that defies organization, you certainly won't find it with iconoclastics

This is why you get branded as a douche.
You open by saying your values are not pinned to atheism in any way, and then proceed to explain numerous ways atheism pins you down to such values.
You are at a stage of defeating your own arguments before you finish the second sentence in your paragraphs.

 

You're still off topic!!!

Remind me again why atheists should have a rational justification of a theistic argument also known as "Religious Nonsense"?

I must say I am really disappointed in your demeanor as staff member. You're just nasty... bah.

p.s. I am no bigot. I am a victim of theist bigotry, the injured party and I am judging theism as severely wanting in moral and ethical behavior based on theist tenets.
If you have any problem with that then go to hell!
Aww an empty threat, hell is just religious nonsense........

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!