God is "dead"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yazata said:
In this thread, there seems to be an implicit argument percolating under the surface that only theists have the appropriate religious virtues (faith, trust, devotion and whatever) . . . .
Click to expand...
That's true only if faith, trust, devotion and whatever are redefined narrowly as faith in God, trust in God, devotion to God and whatever in/to/about/for God.

I have faith in quite a few mortals I know, as well as in civilization itself and the Laws of Nature. I trust my dog (as well as quite a few humans but I thought that would perk up the discussion;)). I am devoted to music. Are these virtues?

Faith, trust and devotion are not only religious virtues. They are simply virtues.

In fact it can be argued (especially in a religion-hostile place like SciForums) that since God is imaginary, and therefore those who have faith, trust and devotion to him are deluded, their faith, trust and devotion are not virtues at all, but evidence of incompetence on the part of their parents at best, or symptoms of mental illness at worst.

. . . . that in religion religious virtues are epistemological virtues, and hence that theists' views must be considered fully justified merely because they are theists' views. I don't find that kind of argument plausible at all.
Click to expand...
Welcome to the weird, wacky world of weligion. Scary, ain't it?
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
That's true only if faith, trust, devotion and whatever are redefined narrowly as faith in God, trust in God, devotion to God and whatever in/to/about/for God.

I have faith in quite a few mortals I know, as well as in civilization itself and the Laws of Nature. I trust my dog (as well as quite a few humans but I thought that would perk up the discussion;)). I am devoted to music. Are these virtues?

Faith, trust and devotion are not only religious virtues. They are simply virtues.

In fact it can be argued (especially in a religion-hostile place like SciForums) that since God is imaginary, and therefore those who have faith, trust and devotion to him are deluded, their faith, trust and devotion are not virtues at all, but evidence of incompetence on the part of their parents at best, or symptoms of mental illness at worst.

Welcome to the weird, wacky world of weligion. Scary, ain't it?
Click to expand...

In the long run, atheists will probably be ignored, except in the Middle East where they'll be thrown in jail and abused. Most people won't understand the implications of QM & GR, and will make up there own fantasies about it. In the end, God will claim the benefits of civilization and atheists will still go to hell.
 
Once Islam realizes that atheists are a threat, then you will see atheists in Muslim countries being thrown in jail. In fact, atheists in America might get shipped of to the Middle East and thrown in jail.
 
Mazulu said:
Once Islam realizes that atheists are a threat, then you will see atheists in Muslim countries being thrown in jail. In fact, atheists in America might get shipped of to the Middle East and thrown in jail.
Click to expand...

Your trolls are getting weaker and weaker. You're not even trying any more. What happened to throwing some multisyllable words in there to make yourself sound more authoritative? That got people going.
 
Magical Realist said:
Bullshit it isn't. It's your typical attempt at psychologically reducing atheism to "unwholesome motives", as if atheists are too immature to take their position objectively and rationally based on its own merits. It's your way of dismissing valid arguments because somehow atheists are not properly motivated to make them.
Click to expand...
If you characteristically attempt to renegotiate the definition of key terms, whether out of feigned or genuine ignorance, how is that not an accurate definition of your approach?
 
billvon said:
Mazulu said:
Once Islam realizes that atheists are a threat, then you will see atheists in Muslim countries being thrown in jail. In fact, atheists in America might get shipped of to the Middle East and thrown in jail.
Click to expand...
Your trolls are getting weaker and weaker. You're not even trying any more. What happened to throwing some multisyllable words in there to make yourself sound more authoritative? That got people going.
Click to expand...

[Mod note: Responding to trolls will be taken as tactic consent that their contribution is desired. Ignored trolling will be more harshly dealt with.]
 
wynn said:
Don't forget that technically, I am an atheist too.
Click to expand...

Then you are only justified in speaking for yourself, unless you can provide statistics to support your characterization of an entire group.
 
Magical Realist said:
One can try to impose over the child an adult model of behavior that goes against his own nature as a child. Training that conditions the child with pain, threats, fear, reward, and deprivation of pleasure. But then we're talking what the natural state of the child is aren't we? Selfish, bratty, tempermental, vindictive, cruel, hedonistic. That's what children are without any training for adulthood. Is that what theists want to be like?
Click to expand...
To become like a child means that we give up all we think we know now, all our conditioning and preconceptions, and see the world as if it was "young as when the world was new", to quote Wrath of Khan. It's a metaphor. It doesn't mean we should forget English and crap our pants.
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
In fact it can be argued (especially in a religion-hostile place like SciForums) that since God is imaginary, and therefore those who have faith, trust and devotion to him are deluded, their faith, trust and devotion are not virtues at all, but evidence of incompetence on the part of their parents at best, or symptoms of mental illness at worst.
Click to expand...

A religion-hostile environment does not make God imaginary, especially considering that a very small minority are overrepresented in such an environment. You should also provide studies or statistics to support claims of delusion or mental illness, otherwise these claims are bare assertions, at best, and ad hominems, at worst.
 
That definition is typically used as a pejorative for an adult
Click to expand...

Exactly, as in adults trying to use children as rolemodels. "Except ye become as little children.."

So you think children are just naturally rotten?
Click to expand...

No..I think children are just naturally childish..


Again, no real surprise considering your lifestyle
Click to expand...


Reported for homophobic insult against my "lifestyle."
 
Syne said:
A religion-hostile environment does not make God imaginary, especially considering that a very small minority are overrepresented in such an environment. You should also provide studies or statistics to support claims of delusion or mental illness, otherwise these claims are bare assertions, at best, and ad hominems, at worst.
Click to expand...

Well the imagination is quite powerful. So one would say God is imagined like the rest of us.
 
Magical Realist said:
Reported for homophobic insult against my "lifestyle."
Click to expand...

There is nothing "homophobic" about surmising that someone whose lifestyle does not readily avail itself to procreation may not have the best outlook on children. It is similar to the same sort of assumption often made of someone in their 40's or 50's without children.


This study supports my assumption:

Overall, heterosexuals have more certain positive childbearing intentions and
show more favorable attitudes towards children. However, the picture is less clear for sexual minorities.
While many do intend having children and most show positive attitudes towards children, the proportions
that are positive are smaller and there is more variation in the results. It appears to be the case that sexual
minority women, compared to heterosexuals, have slightly less positive attitudes towards children and are
less sure about their intentions to have children, although differences exist between those in unions and
those who are single. Single sexual minority men have very much the same intentions and attitudes
towards children as single heterosexual men but, again, the proportions in these groups are smaller.
Sexual minority men in unions appear to have fewer intentions to have children and less positive attitudes towards children than anyone else. - http://paa2008.princeton.edu/papers/81513​

Warning: "homophobic" is an ad hominem, and will be treated as such in the future unless there is clearly hate-speech.
 
Last edited:
Syne said:
There is nothing "homophobic" about surmising that someone whose lifestyle does not readily avail itself to procreation may not have the best outlook on children. It is similar to the same sort of assumption often made of someone in their 40's or 50's without children.


This study supports my assumption:

Overall, heterosexuals have more certain positive childbearing intentions and
show more favorable attitudes towards children. However, the picture is less clear for sexual minorities.
While many do intend having children and most show positive attitudes towards children, the proportions
that are positive are smaller and there is more variation in the results. It appears to be the case that sexual
minority women, compared to heterosexuals, have slightly less positive attitudes towards children and are
less sure about their intentions to have children, although differences exist between those in unions and
those who are single. Single sexual minority men have very much the same intentions and attitudes
towards children as single heterosexual men but, again, the proportions in these groups are smaller.
Sexual minority men in unions appear to have fewer intentions to have children and less positive attitudes towards children than anyone else. - http://paa2008.princeton.edu/papers/81513​

Warning: "homophobic" is an ad hominem, and will be treated as such in the future unless there is clearly hate-speech.
Click to expand...

Ad homs will not be tolerated. You slur my sexual orientation again and you will be reported again. This forum will not tolerate homophobic insults.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top