Extreme Atheism - leads to a Proxy God by default.

[Musika]

Politics is another forum and not part of the subject matter, however theism is an ideology while atheism LACKS that ideology, hence I can only assume you're referring to theism attackimg others who don't share the beliefs, which has gone on throughout history for centuries.



Person A wants me to accept Jesus as my Lord and Savoir, while Person B wants me to place a bet on Leprechauns racing Unicorns n the Kentucky Derby. As you can see, there's no difference between what Person A or B claims, both haven't a stitch of evidence to back up thier claims, hence I hold no beliefs in Jesus or Leprechauns and Unicorns. See how easy that was to make sense.

Politics is based on identity. You identify as an atheist (or anything else), and suddenly you have friends and enemies.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Politics is another forum and not part of the subject matter, however theism is an ideology while atheism LACKS that ideology, hence I can only assume you're referring to theism attackimg others who don't share the beliefs, which has gone on throughout history for centuries.



Person A wants me to accept Jesus as my Lord and Savoir, while Person B wants me to place a bet on Leprechauns racing Unicorns n the Kentucky Derby. As you can see, there's no difference between what Person A or B claims, both haven't a stitch of evidence to back up thier claims, hence I hold no beliefs in Jesus or Leprechauns and Unicorns. See how easy that was to make sense.

Just a few questions that come to mind for now...

Do you believe denigrating a Christians beliefs to the level of pure fiction is going to help your cause?

Do you believe you know enough about the way reality works to make any claim what so ever?

Why do you consider that there is nothing unknown to you? Are you a Proxy God?

 

[Write4U]

No, you are lying you quite clearly stated as a P.S

No I am not. Read Darwins biography.

You don't consider theists as intelligencia... a quite specific statement with out much ambiguity.

I could not care less if a scientist is theist as long as his science is not cloaked in theism, like Behe's ID, which he insists should be taught in school.

How sweet.

Isaac Newton is accordingly being treated less than he is entitled to based simply on you bigotry towards religious beliefs, in violation of article 18 and article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

LOL. Sure, I am so well known and respected my words sway many minds to the evils of atheism.
Ad Hominem after ad hominem is your only defense of your belief system. Shame on you.
You want to hear from other theists? Here is another perspective on Newton's theism.

In our time, Witnesses practice their religion openly: it's hard to know how many thousands or millions of doors they've knocked on in order to explain their beliefs.

If you'd been alive in seventeenth century England and Isaac Newton had knocked on your door, he might talk to you about the many things he did in his life: mathematics, science, politics, reforming the English currency, or academic affairs. But he would say not a word to you about his religious beliefs.

He was a heretic in an age where heresy had consequences, and he went to great lengths to keep his religious convictions secret. After Newton's death, his theological writings were largely disregarded and ended up being consigned to obscurity until they were brought to light in the twentieth century.

https://www.uufhc.net/sermons/s080427.html

That's from a fellow theist.

Your extreme and some what confused atheism is glaringly obvious...

Your memory loss of history is glaringly obvious and so convenient when discussing factual evidence.

There is no such thing as extreme atheism. OTC, my atheism is consistent and certainly not confused. That is glaringly obvious to all who read my posts objectively. I am not saying that I am infallible, but I can make a scientifically supported case that my concept of a mathematical universe is a logical and possible, if not plausible concept.

I have even been accused of presenting theist concepts, because I speak of a universe that functions in a quasi-intelligent mathematical manner and because of that fact God is a superfluous concept, a left-over from early hominid assumption that natural phenomena are being caused by gods.

I even presented proof that modern chimpanzees still react to thunderstorms as being caused by "an unseen enemy" in the sky, i.e. a god.

Early Nordic European Humans gave this god the name Thor.

But then there is this additional and still persistent theistic belief.

Polytheistic peoples of many cultures have postulated a thunder god, the personification or source of the forces of thunder and lightning; a lightning god does not have a typical depiction, and will vary based on the culture.

In Indo-European cultures, the thunder god is frequently known as the chief or King of the Gods, e.g. Indra in Hinduism, Zeus in Greek mythology, and Perun in ancient Slavic religion; or a close relation thereof, e.g. Thor, son of Odin, in Norse mythology. This is also true of Shangoin Yoruba religion and in the syncretic religions of the African Diaspora, such as Santería(Cuba, Puerto Rico, United States) and Candomblé (Brazil).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_thunder_gods

So what happened to Thor? You do know don't you, and that fact makes you feel very insecure about your own naive interpretation of origins. Deal with it.

I am not extreme. On the contrary, I am very comfortable with my concept of a mathematical universe. But I will defend my position with the best possible information and as much verbal skills as I can muster, being that my schooling was in Holland and English is my second language.

but unlike you I can present factual evidence of universal mathematical values and functions.

 

[Quantum Quack]

No I am not. Read Darwins biography.
I could not care less if a scientist is theist as long as his science is not cloaked in theism, like Behe's ID, which he insists should be taught in school.

LOL. Sure, I am so well known and respected my word sways many minds to the evils of atheism.
Ad Hominem after ad hominem is your only defense of your belief system. Shame on you.
You want to hear from other theists? Here is another perspective on Newton's theism.
https://www.uufhc.net/sermons/s080427.html
Your memory loss of history is glaringly obvious and so convenient.

There is no such thing as extreme atheism. OTC, my atheism is consistent and certainly not confused. That is glaringly obvious to all who read my posts objectively. I am not saying that I am infallible, but I can make a scientifically supported case that my concept of a mathematical universe is a logical and possible concept.

I have even been accused of presenting theist concepts, because I speak of a universe that functions in a quasi-intelligent mathematical manner and because of that fact God is a superfluous concept, a left-over from early hominid assumption that natural phenomena are being caused by gods.

I even presented proof that modern chimpanzees still react to thunderstorms as being caused by "an unseen enemy" in the sky, i.e. a god.

Early Nordic European Humans gave this god the name Thor.

But then there is this additional and still persistent theistic belief. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_thunder_gods

So what happened to Thor? You do know don't you, and that fact makes you feel very insecure about your own naive interpretation of origins. Deal with it.

I am not extreme. On the contrary, I am very comfortable with my concept of a mathematical universe.
Unlike you I can present evidence of universal mathematical values and functions.

do you really believe filling a thread with irrelevant information to avoid dealing with the fact that you lied is helping your case?
dodge #2
duck #2
Straw man #1

Here I will post your lie again:

p.s. I don't consider theists as intelligentsia.

then once you realize your mistake of including Isaac Newton as one of those theists you attempt to cover it up with irrelevant posting...to avoid embarrassment.
hence you are lying... simple, easy to see and a good example...

 

[Write4U]

Here I will post your lie again:

Write4U said:
p.s. I don't consider theists as intelligentsia.

Right, I consider Scientists as intelligentsia. Theists do not impress me intellectually at all. As I posited before, mythology and fairytales are amusing and interesting, but of little scientific value.

then once you realize your mistake of including Isaac Newton as one of those theists you attempt to cover it up with irrelevant posting...to avoid embarrassment.
hence you are lying... simple, easy to see and a good example...

Tell that to the theist who wrote that scathing indictment of Newton. I provided the link.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Right, I consider Scientists as intelligentsia. Theists do not impress me intellectually at all. As I posited before, mythology and fairytales are amusing and interesting, but of little scientific value.

Why doesn't Newton Impress you?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Right, I consider Scientists as intelligentsia. Theists do not impress me intellectually at all. As I posited before, mythology and fairytales are amusing and interesting, but of little scientific value.
Tell that to the theist who wrote that scathing indictment of Newton. I provided the link.

There is a way out for you to save face, you know, but you have to have the courage to acknowledge what you have done and take responsibility for it.

 

[Goldtop]

Politics is based on identity. You identify as an atheist (or anything else), and suddenly you have friends and enemies.

Someone must be in the wrong forum, or else someone has just equated atheism to politics. So now, a lack of belief in Leprechauns racing Unicorns is nothing short of a political identity. This just keeps getting wierder by the minute.

 

[Goldtop]

Do you believe denigrating a Christians beliefs to the level of pure fiction is going to help your cause?

Do you believe you know enough about the way reality works to make any claim what so ever?

Why do you consider that there is nothing unknown to you? Are you a Proxy God?

The Christian denigrates his own beliefs and his cause by making claims that have no evidence to support them. As a mere observer, I have no influence in this process one way or the other. The Christian brings it all on themself.

If I made a claim, which I held as a belief but couldn't support it in any way, much like a Christian, I would be ignoring reality and how it works especially when such claims tends to ignore reality as well.

There is much unnknown to me, just like there is much unknown to everyone else. The key is not to make claims of having special knowledge of God when no such knowledge exists. That might be a Proxy Liar.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The Christian denigrates his own beliefs and his cause by making claims that have no evidence to support them. As a mere observer, I have no influence in this process one way or the other. The Christian brings it all on themself.

If I made a claim, which I held as a belief but couldn't support it in any way, much like a Christian, I would be ignoring reality and how it works especially when such claims tends to ignore reality as well.

There is much unnknown to me, just like there is much unknown to everyone else. The key is not to make claims of having special knowledge of God when no such knowledge exists. That might be a Proxy Liar.

Do you believe in free will and self determination?

 

[Quantum Quack]

The Christian denigrates his own beliefs and his cause by making claims that have no evidence to support them. As a mere observer, I have no influence in this process one way or the other. The Christian brings it all on themself.

If I made a claim, which I held as a belief but couldn't support it in any way, much like a Christian, I would be ignoring reality and how it works especially when such claims tends to ignore reality as well.

There is much unnknown to me, just like there is much unknown to everyone else. The key is not to make claims of having special knowledge of God when no such knowledge exists. That might be a Proxy Liar.

How does Sir Isaac Newton, being a theist, fit in with your "unicorns"?
He claimed to have special knowledge of God, if I recall, called Gravity.(among many things)

 

[Sarkus]

Actually the subject moved from discussing philosophical examples of extreme atheism to discussing political examples of extreme atheism. The reason was because our resident atheists fervently declared that there is no manner that one can label an atheist extreme with their views even politically, what to speak of philosophically. Kind of like the archetypal overweight elderly uncle at family functions who requests, "Go on. Give it your best shot. Punch me as hard as you can in the stomach."

Red herrings are red herrings, whether you want to justify them or not. But I hope they're a tasty treat 'cos that's all you're supping on here.

 

[Sarkus]

It is rather typical is it not of persons fearful of their own self esteem will accuse another of associating or linking something when in fact it is their own imaginations at work.

Be honest, for once.

If you have a fear of being associated with mass murderers like Hitler, Stalin and Mao then that is a problem for you to consider for surely your fearing or not doesn't change the reality of those actions carried out with the desire to promote atheism.

So you don't deny that you linking people to Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc was not just imagination on their part. Thank you for being honest, even a sentence after trying to claim it was just imagination. But you think that you linking them to such people is an issue they have to deal with?

It is worth keeping in mind, I guess, that ultimately the forum membership get the threads, topics and postings, that they deserve.
...
Do I get the opportunity?

I would think you forfeited any ability to claim victimhood, and certainly the ability to claim the moral high ground, when you created this thread. You can dress it up however you want, but when you explicitly define people who hold a certain philosophy as "extreme atheist" and then define that "extreme atheism" in rather unglowing terms regarding actions, double down by linking "extreme atheism" to a rather troubled man, and then triple down by equating the holders of that philosophy to the likes of Hitler, Stalin etc, you have simply removed any semblance of fires being started accidentally. And no, it really wasn't their imagination doing the linking.
If you walk into a building carrying a gallon of petrol and a lit match, you don't have much justification for complaint when either the building burns down around you or if you get burnt on the way out.
But maybe you can tell the fire marshalls afterward that people were really just imagining you pouring petrol on everything before dropping your match on it.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Be honest, for once.

Always honest as I have absolutely no reason to lie. The cost of lying is way too high IMO.

So you don't deny that you linking people to Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc was not just imagination on their part. Thank you for being honest, even a sentence after trying to claim it was just imagination. But you think that you linking them to such people is an issue they have to deal with?

a deliberate distortion of what was posted... another fine example ... thanks Sarkus. btw which one do you think you are, Hitler, Stalin or Mao (all atheists) by association... which ones do you associate your atheism with ( if any)?

I would think you forfeited any ability to claim victimhood, and certainly the ability to claim the moral high ground, when you created this thread. You can dress it up however you want, but when you explicitly define people who hold a certain philosophy as "extreme atheist" and then define that "extreme atheism" in rather unglowing terms regarding actions, double down by linking "extreme atheism" to a rather troubled man, and then triple down by equating the holders of that philosophy to the likes of Hitler, Stalin etc, you have simply removed any semblance of fires being started accidentally. And no, it really wasn't their imagination doing the linking.
If you walk into a building carrying a gallon of petrol and a lit match, you don't have much justification for complaint when either the building burns down around you or if you get burnt on the way out.
But maybe you can tell the fire marshalls afterward that people were really just imagining you pouring petrol on everything before dropping your match on it.

but you are an extreme atheist IMO who believes in a proxy God by default, because of your beliefs... so go figure...

Why you are not proud of what you are, I really don't know...

Perhaps it is because YOU believe that YOU are an illusion and don't really exist in the first place..

any way another post about your self-esteem issues...

the use of the term extreme, (In the context of this thread) is to differentiate between atheist who believe that free will and self determination exists and atheist that don't
It would be extremely unfair to reasonably minded atheists to include your extraordinary beliefs in their more moderate atheist belief systems.

 

[Bells]

Sir Isaac Newton FRS PRS (25 December 1642 – 20 March 1726/27) was an English mathematician, physicist, astronomer, theologian, and author (described in his own day as a "natural philosopher") who is widely recognized as one of the most influential scientists of all time, and a key figure in the scientific revolution. wiki....

As much as Write4U is ranting about his vehement opposition to anything religious he fails to realize that the "father of modern science" and yes even mathematics with the various and profound advances he made, was a staunch and devoted Christian and Christian theologian.

When the alternative was what?

I mean, they did not really have much choice.

But his audience is also Sciforums, which makes its own point; additionally, it is atheists at Sciforums, which further makes its own point. And whatever prejudice he brings to the discussion is his own, just as anyone else's is theirs. As I noted earlier in the thread, we have an atheist demanding what God is allowed to be before we can discuss It. Nor is that religious demand form atheists unique to that individual or this thread.

In that context, as much as we might find variations on what "extreme atheism" can be, the point at hand is our neighbor's audience, and even without the question of tyranny and ethnic cleansing, the mere idea of "extreme atheism" demonstrably offends atheists at Sciforums.

One could only be offended by it if one applied atheism as a form of religious ideology.

For example, Christians are offended when their religious ideology is deemed an extremist ideology, the same applies to Muslims, Jews, Hindu, etc..

To suggest atheist are similarly offended when someone utters the words "extreme atheism" is kind of silly. The reason being that there are no varying grades of lack of belief when it comes to atheism, which is vastly different to some Christians, for example, who may argue that stoning one's child for talking back is acceptable because it's in the Bible. One is either an atheist or one is not.

His argument regarding "proxy-God" is equally ridiculous. The notion that one is so much an atheist, that they start to believe in something something... I mean, really?

You missed what people are offended by.

People are offended that he is literally re-inventing the meaning of words to suit his argument. An argument that fails in every way imaginable.

My bringing up his previous behaviour on this site, or as you so ironically argued my "classic argumentum ad hominem", was more to point out that he did the same thing there as well. Remember?

But you do bring up an interesting point:

"it is atheists at Sciforums, which further makes its own point"​

Yes. It's called trolling.

But congratulations. Where before, he simply had no idea, you are simply trying to tell him what his argument should be.

And he is still failing.

There have been certain serious accusation made in this thread towards me...
Water carrier for a genocidal regime is one...

You are mistaken.

Mine was not a mere accusation but a statement of fact.

The reason I brought it up is because you spent pages and pages attempting to redefine words there too, to defend a genocidal regime and you pitched a fit when no one took you seriously and called you out on it.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The reason I brought it up is because you spent pages and pages attempting to redefine words there too, to defend a genocidal regime and you pitched a fit when no one took you seriously and called you out on it.

not true.... take it up ...start a thread.. let's have at it...
I am sure we will have a great readership all waiting with baited breath to see you make your point...
Seriously , it's about time for a Rohingya thread especially given the recent events over there any how...

 

[Quantum Quack]

OK I posted to the old thread that you are quoting.
It can be found here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/aung-san-suu-kyi-the-fall-of-a-human-rights-icon.159909/

I look forward to it...

 

[Sarkus]

Always honest as I have absolutely no reason to lie.

No reason, I agree, yet you are dishonest by word and by deed, and seeminly oblivious of it.

a deliberate distortion of what was posted... another fine example ... thanks Sarkus.

No distortion. The attempt at association is clear with your use of the term "extreme" and the examples you have subsequently given. If no association was intended, why example them at all? It's not rocket science.

btw which one do you think you are, Hitler, Stalin or Mao (all atheists) by association... which ones do you associate your atheism with ( if any)?

I have no idea what their particular philosophical and metaphyscial beliefs were, religious or otherwise, beyond their actions and their well document political ideologies. Do you? No, of course you don't.

but you are an extreme atheist IMO who believes in a proxy God by default, because of your beliefs... so go figure...

That's at least what you believe of me.

"How I would define it is thus:
Atheistic extremism is a belief system that requires a person to evangelize deterministic fatalism. Claiming the belief to be about natural law and that there is no alternative to that belief.
That those who believe in self determination are deluded or inclined towards theism.
Those that abhor any belief in anything associated with theism.
Those that are proactive in attacking verbally or in print any one with religious thoughts or sentiment."​

Given that you have now explicitly stated that you think me an extreme atheist, in nearly the same breath as you example other "extreme atheists", I'm sure you can provide one example, just one, of where I have satisfied any of your definitions above? Just one? Please? Pretty please? Can you do that?

Why you are not proud of what you are, I really don't know...

Perhaps it is because YOU believe that YOU are an illusion and don't really exist in the first place.

any way another post about your self-esteem issues...

More ignorance on your part, QQ. Ah, well. Should we have expected anything less? Simple answer: no. And foolish us for thinking otherwise.

the use of the term extreme, (In the context of this thread) is to differentiate between atheist who believe that free will and self determination exists and atheist that don't
It would be extremely unfair to reasonably minded atheists to include your extraordinary beliefs in their more moderate atheist belief systems.

You are ignorant of my, and likely most, atheists' belief systems, whatever they may be. Yet you link me by association to abhorrent people, simply because you opine both of us to be "extreme atheists". You are just proving that this thread had nothing to do with discussion and was just a desire to flame and insult those who you haven't been able to keep up with in other threads.
Objective achieved, it would seem. Congratulations. Can we have a big ol' round of applause for QQ!

But seriously, please don't respond unless it is accompanied by an apology to me and the other atheists you have tried deliberately to insult, attempting to associate them with abhorrent historical figures, simply because you think we hold a philosophy (not that you actually know that we do or not) that you don't understand and which you have in no way linked to those others. And an apology to everyone else for your rampant dishonesty throughout. Even just an apology by way of PM, if you're too embarassed to do it in public?

 

[Quantum Quack]

When the alternative was what?

I mean, they did not really have much choice.

so what... the fact is Sir Isaac Newton was a devout Christian who was also a theologian.
Write4u has stated explicitly :

p.s. I don't consider theists as intelligentsia.

Then back peddled when I pointed out that the "father of science" was in fact a theist.
He has since lied at least twice since to avoid loosing face.
simple really.
So how is your comment relevant?

 

[Write4U]

There is a way out for you to save face, you know, but you have to have the courage to acknowledge what you have done and take responsibility for it.

Oh really, I can save face "if I repent"? That sounds vaguely familiar. Ever heard of the Inquisition?

If you believe you can play Inquisition with me, you have another thing coming. I think it is high time that theists muster the courage to acknowledge the heinous things they have done individually and collectively to discredit science and intimidate scientists in the name of, and as proxy for god, and take responsibility for trying to stifle all scientific inquiry which threatens the scripture.

As a six year old child I was beaten up by four ten year olds because I had just learned that people and everything else were made from atoms and told everybody about my great new discovery.

These bullies demanded that I take it all back because God made people and everything else. I never did in spite that I often had to run home in order avoid further beatings. NO MORE!

People and everything else are still made from atoms and if that insults your creationist belief system, deal with it.

Theists started this religious persecution, but I'll surely finish it intellectually.
I don't need to be physical, I'm quite capable and willing to destroy your puny pseudo-scientific theist arguments.

I have given religious zealots (extreme theists) plenty of leeway in acknowledging that religion has some positive psychological aspects.
But if my generosity results in theists spouting their nonsense and their self-pity of perceived attacks on what they hold sacred in my face (such as calling my wife the anti-christ) You will taste my righteous intellectual wrath.
So......boooohooooo......cry me a river!

If you want to tangle with me intellectually about the existence of something you cannot even define and have it replace science, be prepared to have your fallacies destroyed with as many scientific facts I can find on the entire internet.

I will never submit to theist intimidation, ever! That's not extreme, that is sanity.

AFAIK, scriptural theism is a form of extreme insanity.