Atheists more Intelligent

[Dutch Uncle]

The problem only comes up for those who regard these ancient texts as 'true'. It is just anachronism. Sensible people try to translate anything useful in the stuff - and there's a lot - into our own ways of thinking. For a long time the powers- that-be, for instance, deliberately left out most of what Jesus actually said about how the world should be organised, in favour anything they could dig up to support their robberies. To demonstrate, list what Jesus had to say about the rich, and learn to see how he made jokes about (for instance) the worthy Pharisees carrying Occupation money with a graven image of the foreign dictator on it: 'Give unto Caesar', indeed). And it's worth examining the tortuous bullshit they made up to explain about the Fatmen trying to twist like camels through the eye of a needle into 'heaven'!

Spoken like a true Totalitarian Socialist.

Problems only come in when a group of assholes seek to impose their world view upon others be it secular or religious.


Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" is both ancient and full of truisms. Why do you consider that a problem?

 

[Jerome]

Spoken like a true Totalitarian Socialist.

Problems only come in when a group of assholes seek to impose their world view upon others be it secular or religious.


Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" is both ancient and full of truisms. Why do you consider that a problem?

AtHeiSts aRe AngRy!

 

[Dutch Uncle]

AtHeiSts aRe AngRy!

Not all. Just the ones who spread hate against those of differing beliefs.

 

[Jerome]

You are applying anachronistic standards to works of literature which were mostly written in the late Bronze Age.

No, I'm not doing that. Modern American evangelicals are. You're clearly not paying attention to anything anyone's saying.

That is a defective and illogical use of reason by the standards of historical and sociological scholarship.

Agreed. Tell that to the white evangelicals in America.

It was the Christian left who were history's most powerful and effective voices against slavery and racism - from the Quakers to Martin Luther King.

And it was the MAJORITY of Christians in America who allowed chattel slavery, and its attenuated financial windfall (everything from insurance proceeds to slave-backed mortgages in the north, to free labor in the South) that to continue longer than slavery continued in any other western country.

Devout Hindi have been at the forefront of challenging inequities in the caste system.

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil...that takes religion."

Steven Weinberg

Muslim women are the most powerful voices in the Arab world against patriarchy.

And this is wholly despite the teachings of Islam, not because of them.

You obviously bear a lot of resentment about your traumatic childhood association with Baptist fundamentalism. And project that experience onto all Christians.

It's easier for you to dismiss valid points if you insult someone personally, isn't it?

I would say that you that you are more of an anti-Christian jihadist than you an actual principled atheist who practices logical detachment from all religious tradition. Your "atheism" seems to be based on emotion and politics.

It's this kind of condescending, holier-than-thou bullshit that probably causes you to come across so many "angry" atheists in your time. Rather than actually listening to the valid points given by a reasoned, secular atheist or agnostic, you'd prefer to dismiss them out of hand purely because they choose to omit the concept of deities from their belief system.

Atheism, believe it or not, is NOT a "belief" system. It's purely a case of living your life OUTSIDE of belief in a god, or gods. That is the literal definition of the word. "Atheists" should not exist, but they do purely because the concept of belief in a god created atheists. Newborn babies are atheists. Are they, too, "angry" jihadists?

You make zero sense. Ever. And your tone is insufferable.

So why not drop the act that you are just a detached observer practicing science and reason regarding world religions?

Why not drop the act that you're some learned theologian passing along wikipedia notes you have accrued from cruising pages on the abrahamic old testament?

 

[Jerome]

Not all. Just the ones who spread hate against those of differing beliefs.

How whacked out in the skull do you have to be to call someone a "totalitarian socialist" merely because they see the bible as a work of largely fiction?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

How whacked out in the skull do you have to be to call someone a "totalitarian socialist" merely because they see the bible as a work of largely fiction?

Who are you claiming did such a thing?

 

[Jerome]

Spoken like a true Totalitarian Socialist.

Problems only come in when a group of assholes seek to impose their world view upon others be it secular or religious.


Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" is both ancient and full of truisms. Why do you consider that a problem?

Who are you claiming did such a thing?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Is that your high school picture? Why show it now?

 

[Jerome]

Is that your high school picture? Why show it now?

Did it really only take 2 replies in this thread for you to forget you called someone a totalitarian socialist, even as you decry "anger" and namecalling?

You're a true fucking simpleton.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Did it really only take 2 replies in this thread for you to forget you called someone a totalitarian socialist, even as you decry "anger" and namecalling?

You're a true fucking simpleton.

I'd prefer 3 replies as long as it's funny watching you have a conniption over the fact you've advocated both socialism and authoritarianism. Are you now walking back those aims?

 

[IBDaMann]

Difficult to believe that in the 21st century, there are Modern People who actually believe in a 'Man-God' or that is even possible.

It's difficult to believe that in the 21st century there are modern, 1st-world adults who actually believe they can prove/demonstrate/show that the existence of an unfalsifiable deity is somehow impossible.

I think we can all agree that it takes a special type of uneducated moron to make that claim.

 

[Jack]

It's difficult to believe that in the 21st century there are modern, 1st-world adults who actually believe they can prove/demonstrate/show that the existence of an unfalsifiable deity is somehow impossible.

I think we can all agree that it takes a special type of uneducated moron to make that claim.

My claim is just the opposite.

'It's difficult to believe that in the 21st century there are modern, 1st-world adults who actually believe they can prove/demonstrate/show that the existence of an unfalsifiable deity is somehow possible.'

 

[IBDaMann]

'It's difficult to believe that in the 21st century there are modern, 1st-world adults who actually believe they can prove/demonstrate/show that the existence of an unfalsifiable deity is somehow possible.'

Bad news. The possibility is inherent in the unfalsifiability, which is why no one can prove/show/demonstrate it to be impossible.

 

[Jack]

I'm glad you agree with me.

"Bad news. The possibility is inherent in the unfalsifiability, which is why no one can prove/show/demonstrate it to be possible.

Bad news. The possibility is inherent in the unfalsifiability, which is why no one can prove/show/demonstrate it to be impossible.

 

[Cypress]

No, I'm not doing that. Modern American evangelicals are. You're clearly not paying attention to anything anyone's saying.



Agreed. Tell that to the white evangelicals in America.



And it was the MAJORITY of Christians in America who allowed chattel slavery, and its attenuated financial windfall (everything from insurance proceeds to slave-backed mortgages in the north, to free labor in the South) that to continue longer than slavery continued in any other western country.



"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil...that takes religion."

Steven Weinberg



And this is wholly despite the teachings of Islam, not because of them.



It's easier for you to dismiss valid points if you insult someone personally, isn't it?



It's this kind of condescending, holier-than-thou bullshit that probably causes you to come across so many "angry" atheists in your time. Rather than actually listening to the valid points given by a reasoned, secular atheist or agnostic, you'd prefer to dismiss them out of hand purely because they choose to omit the concept of deities from their belief system.

Atheism, believe it or not, is NOT a "belief" system. It's purely a case of living your life OUTSIDE of belief in a god, or gods. That is the literal definition of the word. "Atheists" should not exist, but they do purely because the concept of belief in a god created atheists. Newborn babies are atheists. Are they, too, "angry" jihadists?

You make zero sense. Ever. And your tone is insufferable.



Why not drop the act that you're some learned theologian passing along wikipedia notes you have accrued from cruising pages on the abrahamic old testament?

Good to see you concede that your anachronistic standards you applied to the bible is illogical and contrary to the standards of scholarship. I am not the only poster who made that observation about your post, so it wasn't just me.

Your assumption and guesswork that my writing is cribbed from Wikipedia I probably should take as a compliment. Apparently it is inconceivable to you that anyone can be knowledgeable informed and articulate about theology, history, world religions without having to run to Wikipedia to crib notes.

This may seem truly incomprehensible to you, but I almost never use Wikipedia as a crutch. Is that what you do? I compose my own thoughts, and what I do know originates from classes I have taken, books I have read.

I suppose should take it as a grudging compliment that you think I sound like a learned theologian. I do not think I sound like a scholarly theologian. I am just articulating knowlege and information I have learned on my own time.


Now, the facts about slavery are this: by 1860 the only Christians on the planet who supported chattel slavery generally were Christians in the southern United States and Brazil. You seem to forget that most world Christians do not live in the southern United States.

The most powerful and effective voices against slavery were not atheists. Atheists did almost nothing to end slavery. The Christian left and Deists, aka Unitarians, Congregationalists, Quakers, Transcendentalists were at the forefront of abolition. Religion and faith were powerful motivators for the abolitionist movement in a way that cynical disbelief, atheism, materialism, or empiricism never were.

 

[IBDaMann]

I'm glad you agree with me.

Nope. You are in error. I wouldn't expect you to understand, however, since falsifiability is a mandatory requirement for science and you are one of those scientifically illiterate rubes who believes that Global Warming is "thettled thienth."

Unfalsifiable theories are inherently possible. You need a model to be falsifiable in order to show it to be false/impossible.

 

[IBDaMann]

It's preposterous to blame Jews and Muslims for the effect their supposed "fundamentalism" has on American government.

It is absolutely appropriate to blame and to mock Islamic fundamentlists for their attempts to impose Sharia Law on the United States and to use the US' freedom of speech to refer to this great country as either الشيطان العظيم or شیطان بزرگ

You can count on me to blame and to mock this every day of the week.

So go ahead ... call me an Islamaphobe. I know you want to. I know you need to. I know you know no other way.

I am standing by.

 

[Jerome]

Your assumption and guesswork that my writing is cribbed from Wikipedia I probably should take as a compliment. Apparently it is inconceivable to you that anyone can be knowledgeable informed and articulate about theology, history, world religions without having to run to Wikipedia to crib notes.

This may seem truly incomprehensible to you, but I almost never use Wikipedia as a crutch. Is that what you do? I compose my own thoughts, and what I do know originates from classes I have taken, books I have read.

How are "books" so much better than referenced footnotes on wikipedia? The internet is a huge book if you know how to use it, Boomer.

I suppose should take it as a grudging compliment that you think I sound like a learned theologian. I do not think I sound like a scholarly theologian. I am just articulating knowlege and information I have learned on my own time.

No, I said you PRETEND to sound like one while you engage in endless strawman fallacies and pointless pontificating.

Now, the facts about slavery are this: by 1860 the only Christians on the planet who supported chattel slavery generally were Christians in the southern United States and Brazil. You seem to forget that most world Christians do not live in the southern United States.

Northern Christians were VERY complicit in chattel slavery and profited off of it handsomely.

The most powerful and effective voices against slavery were not atheists. Atheists did almost nothing to end slavery. The Christian left and Deists, aka Unitarians, Congregationalists, Quakers, Transcendentalists were at the forefront of abolition. Religion and faith were powerful motivators for the abolitionist movement in a way that cynical disbelief, atheism, materialism, or empiricism never were.

Darwin's Origin of Species was barely published by then, and there were almost no atheists in America at that time (largely thanks to the rote intolerance of atheism from Christians, which continues to this day, and is even present in this very thread).

 

[Jerome]

I'd prefer 3 replies as long as it's funny watching you have a conniption over the fact you've advocated both socialism and authoritarianism. Are you now walking back those aims?

I've never advocated any such thing.

Are you okay? You seem to be addled.

 

[Cypress]

How are "books" so much better than referenced footnotes on wikipedia? The internet is a huge book if you know how to use it, Boomer.




No, I said you PRETEND to sound like one while you engage in endless strawman fallacies and pointless pontificating.



Northern Christians were VERY complicit in chattel slavery and profited off of it handsomely.



Darwin's Origin of Species was barely published by then, and there were almost no atheists in America at that time (largely thanks to the rote intolerance of atheism from Christians, which continues to this day, and is even present in this very thread).

You are obviously a product of the fundamentalist Calvinist tradition, and which colors your cynical view of Christianity. The history of Christianity and the scope of Christian theology is far broader than you are aware.

Fundamentalist Christians and militant atheists are invested in wedging the debate between the familiar and comfortable territory between outright theism and outright atheism. Fundamentalists want it to stay wedged there, and militant atheists want it to remain wedged there, because to them this is a kind of war and both sides want to be armed for "victory"

All I can tell you is that there is more to religious skepticism and faith than you are aware of. Christian theologians today, and throughout history, have moved beyond the simplistic, bimodal terrain you have decided to occupy. Anyone who wants to be aware of the rich complexity and texture of theological thought needs to have some rudimentary familiarity of Plato, Aristotle, Saint Augustine, Marx, Kant, Kierkegaard, Nietsche, Hegel, Trancendentalism, liberation theology, et al.

You obviously are an orthodox ideologue whose mind is closed to the rich and complex tradition of Christian theology, natural philosophy, and science - and how there is a substantial amount of common ground in how they collectively and synergistically contributed to human reason and knowlege.