The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Why atheism should change

Why atheism should change

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. All
Atheists have a record of attacking religion, but have little to offer as an alternative. They have little to quote and little to inspire. I see their attitude of hate of little value, when they could embrace a positive approach with others, rather than spending energy on proving a point, that they simply cannot prove.

From the Quran:

Do what is beautiful. Allah loves those who do what is Beautiful (2:195)

Good and evil deeds are not equal. Repel evil, with what is better; then you know that one who was once your enemy has become your dearest friend. Al Quran 41:34

From the Bible:

13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. John 15:13
Posted by NathanJ, Friday, 2 September 2016 3:14:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Atheists are of little value , don't you just hate that?
Good old Muhammed ( peace be upon his blood-dripping sword) could have loved the enemies he cut off in their prime.
Posted by nicknamenick, Saturday, 3 September 2016 11:53:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The word atheist these days refers to globalists, they are big on criticising religious sects because religion signals stability, tradition and cultural diversity, but they don't say a word against the globalist monoculture.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Saturday, 3 September 2016 12:51:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NathanJ,

Atheism isn’t a belief system. Without getting into all the implicit/explicit, weak/strong categories, atheism is essentially just a response to a claim, so of course it has little to quote and inspire. In fact, it has nothing to quote and inspire. It has one tenet: disbelief. Where an atheist goes from there is totally up to them and says nothing about atheism per se. You assume that something needs to replace religion, but I have never heard a good case for this.

<<I see their attitude of hate of little value…>>

Not all atheists have an “attitude of hate” (whatever that is exactly). How could you generalise like that?

<<…they could embrace a positive approach with others, rather than spending energy on proving a point, that they simply cannot prove.>>

Really? All of them? And what point is it exactly that they’re trying to prove? They’re not the ones with the burden of proof, after all. If an atheist wants to disprove a god, then that is their own prerogative and can actually be quite easily, depending on what kind of a god you’re talking about.

Also from the Qur’an:
“Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom.” (2:6-7)

Also from the Bible:
“Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!” (Psalms 137:9)

And for those who think, “But that’s the Old Testament!”, is an argument:
“But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matthew 8:12)

Having something to “quote” (as you put it) isn’t always a good thing. Overall, the Bible and the Qur’an are hideously immoral books. The fact that atheism has nothing to quote is one of its virtues. Atheists get to be freethinkers.

--

Jay of Melbourne,

I have never heard the word ‘atheism’ used in such a way. I think you’re making that up.
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 3 September 2016 1:09:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I actually agree with Jay of Melbourne.

"Global cultural homogenization is sweeping the world. Indian physicist and activist Vandana Shiva calls it "monoculture of the mind." It is dominated by US and western values and lifestyles and driven by a consumer-based, free-market ideology and carried through the massive US entertainment-industrial complex and the global monoculture has infiltrated every corner of the Earth."

https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/162/27553.html

So “monoculture of the mind” treats diversity as literally a disease and creates structures to remodel a biologically, religious and culturally diverse world on the concept of one privileged class, (say atheists for example), who may and are likely to talk down religion, for example.

Finally many atheists, do have a view of hate (towards religion) as they are constantly trying and aiming to prove religion is a false concept to accept in a lot of cases. One only has to read the many points posted on this page to see that. There is the option however to accept the basic elements of freedom of choice and potentially leading to a better society to live in.
Posted by NathanJ, Saturday, 3 September 2016 1:45:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, the OED disagrees with both of you, NathanJ.

Atheism:
“disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.” (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheism)

<<… many atheists, do have a view of hate (towards religion) …>>

Perhaps, and for good reason too. Although, from my observations, most atheists barely give religious claims a moment’s thought, if ever.

<<… as they are constantly trying and aiming to prove religion is a false concept to accept in a lot of cases.>>

I think you’re confusing atheism with anti-theism. I don’t know of any anti-theists who aim to prove that religion is a false concept, though. The concept of religion exists, that’s just a fact.

<<One only has to read the many points posted on this page to see that.>>

Where?

<<There is the option however to accept the basic elements of freedom of choice and potentially leading to a better society to live in.>>

I don’t think anyone denies others “ the basic elements of freedom of choice” (whatever they are).

Are you feeling alright, NathanJ? You’re not sounding very ‘with it’ at the moment.
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 3 September 2016 2:03:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nathan
You quote Vananda Shiva as if she is someone who agrees with your point of view that atheism and consumerism are the same. I am a lapsed atheist (no holidays) and have moved to being an agnostic. Ms Shiva was referring to the mono culture of agriculture (Monsanto) not atheism. She is one of my all time heroes, as she advocates for the small farmers around the world.

No atheist have ever started a war, pogrom, or ethnic cleansing. Most mass slaughter is done in the name of religion. Religion is fine if you want to follow the teachings of this or that leader, however you probably need to talk to a few of the atheists I know, to find out what they believe and why they are turned of by religion in general.
Chris
Posted by LEFTY ONE, Saturday, 3 September 2016 4:22:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"No atheist ever started a war"..except the atheist Bolsheviks and men from Mao of nuclear overkill.
",. they are big on criticising religious sects because religion signals stability, tradition and cultural diversity,."
I need a drink . 2.
Posted by nicknamenick, Saturday, 3 September 2016 6:13:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips,

Pescatarianism:
"One whose diet includes fish but no other meat"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pescatarian

<<I don’t know of any anti-theists who aim to prove that religion is a false concept, though. The concept of religion exists, that’s just a fact>>

But that does not mean, that myself as a vegetarian, I have to accept Pescatarianism, (as a fact) for example just because some have accepted this type of diet and/or lifestyle.

In fact no vegetarian would consider this type of diet to be vegetarian at all. It is against the basic principle of being a vegetarian.

So (in that context) there are people who do refuse to accept various religions in Australia and these religions are quite well known.

<<many atheists, do have a view of hate (towards religion)>>

Not perhaps, the simple answer is yes. I have been told stories of hatred directly from others and seen such activity in public.

<<I don’t think anyone denies others “the basic elements of freedom of choice” (whatever they are).<<

Yes, they do. When atheists try to prove a point, endlessly, life is made very difficult for some (who are religious) to try and uphold their religious and/or spiritual elements as part of their life. For someone who may be an atheist though for example, they can "maintain virtues and get to be freethinkers." That is a lot easier.
Posted by NathanJ, Saturday, 3 September 2016 7:05:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nicknamenick
The two you mention were both clinical psychopaths and used the religious repression of the time to motivate followers. If someone is enslaving you, would you not tend fight back given the chance. In those situations it was the behavior of the enslaves not the Atheist belief, that bought about the massacres.
Chris
Posted by LEFTY ONE, Saturday, 3 September 2016 7:06:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nathan
When you are faced with someone who has a different belief, you simply say you agree to differ.I can tell that for the five years I lived in the US, it was down right dangerous to announce you were an atheist.
It is not personal belief that is the problem, it is the behavior of the follower, which has nothing to do with the religion.
Chris
Posted by LEFTY ONE, Saturday, 3 September 2016 7:29:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NathanJ,

What do you think it means to accept something as a fact?

<<But that does not mean, that myself as a vegetarian, I have to accept Pescetarianism, (as a fact) for example just because some have accepted this type of diet and/or lifestyle.>>

If you agree that there is a diet in which the only meat eaten is fish, and that some people have such a diet, then you agree that pescetarianism exists as a concept/phenomenon. You might think it’s stupid or less morally righteous, but you accept that it is a thing. There is no way around that.

<<In fact no vegetarian would consider this type of diet to be vegetarian at all. It is against the basic principle of being a vegetarian.>>

Right, but that’s not the same as denying that it exists.

<<I have been told stories of hatred directly from others and seen such activity in public.>>

I’m sure you have, but to portray this as standard atheist behaviour is inaccurate and suggests that you are confused as to what an atheist is.

<<When atheists try to prove a point, endlessly, life is made very difficult for some (who are religious) to try and uphold their religious and/or spiritual elements as part of their life.>>

Difficult in what way? Difficult to maintain delusional beliefs perhaps. That would be the purpose of endlessly discrediting religious claims, I’m guessing.

What about atheists’ right to speak out against poisonous belief systems that produce real harm to people?

To portray criticism of religious beliefs as an encroachment on one’s right to believe is ludicrous and is manifest of the offence that religions perceive in not being able to control everything unchallenged.

<<For someone who may be an atheist though for example, they can "maintain virtues and get to be freethinkers." That is a lot easier.>>

I’m not sure what this is supposed to mean. Do you mean “through example”? That wouldn’t have done much for me when I was a Christian. I wish someone had challenged my beliefs earlier. My life could have turned out very differently.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 4 September 2016 11:05:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi there NATHAN J...

I'm an atheist, I don't believe in any God at all. That said, some of the things attributed to this Mr Jesus CHRIST fellow, were remarkably true. Some of his lessons, quotes, or whatever it is they're called make a lot of sense. Sure I'm unable to quote any of them but one such 'quote' I do recall - if someone assaults you, don't assault him back... To me he sure speaks a fair amount of common sense, provided it was him who made these statements ?

For this reason, I can't see any harm if somebody wishes to pursue or follow this bloke's (Jesus) lessons, what's the iniquity or crime in it ? Similarly if someone is confronting a very serious illness, one that's considered terminal, if they can derive any comfort or any contentment by believing in any religion, where's the problem for anyone else ? Some of these more vocal atheist should really mind their own business, and leave those who believe in religion alone, especially if they're not trying to push their believes onto you.

As I stated earlier on, I'm an atheist, I lost my believe in any God years ago in South Vietnam, in a place near the Long Hai's hills. There was absolutely no evidence that any God ever existed there. But I'd much rather see people follow some of the rules that were taught to these Christian people, than watch them tear themselves apart, in murder rape and mayhem. Stupid, maybe ?
Posted by o sung wu, Sunday, 4 September 2016 2:05:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
." In those situations it was the behavior of the enslaves not the Atheist belief, that bought about the massacres. "
So slaves never start wars and if they do they didn't start it because slaves are right and don't fight when fighting. And the Chinese communists fought the Buddhist rice factory chain-gang slave- driving temple barons sacrificing children in Buddha's feast orgies, using atheist peaceful massacres smothering Buddhists in flowers and workers' sweat.
Posted by nicknamenick, Sunday, 4 September 2016 4:21:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Nick
The point I was trying to make, is that if you feel oppressed then you are likely to attempt to throw off that oppression. On the other if you are viewed by others that you are oppressed, but you do not, then you are not likely to take up arms. The religion of all parties involved is an irrelevance.
Chris
Posted by LEFTY ONE, Sunday, 4 September 2016 5:18:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lefty one
You described religious oppression as a cause of atheist war. " No atheist have ever started a war, pogrom, or ethnic cleansing."
That's a bit crook , like Hitler blaming Poland for invading Germans eating their breakfast peacefully.
The atheist paradise of Holy Mao Tse Tung punched-up the Tibetan religious karaoke choral virgins and tea drinkers. Shame on the atheist rascals.
Posted by nicknamenick, Sunday, 4 September 2016 5:46:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nick
The Chinese did invade Tibet as you point out, as it saw the area as an wayward province of China. I agree it was an example of the atheist Han expanding their control over a pacifist Buddhist region. So that is one Atheist invasion as opposed to how many Christian ones? That includes dear old Adolf who was a devout Catholic.

Chris
Posted by LEFTY ONE, Sunday, 4 September 2016 8:39:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The fact that conflicts have been started by atheists is no more significant than the fact that conflicts have been started by men sporting mustaches, and for two reasons:

1. those conflicts were not started or fought in the name of atheism, and;
2. even if they were, there is nothing within atheism to have supported what was done.

Yet another of the virtues of atheism.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 4 September 2016 9:23:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
However, I'm not faulting atheism just the claim they don't start troubles. The non-belief is said to avoid war. Not so. Is it a wee bit immoral to fudge facts by "it's only once, it's just for freedom"
?
Posted by nicknamenick, Sunday, 4 September 2016 9:57:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The strongest atheist was Stalin "steel". He broke down church buildings faster than Superman . He invaded Poland twice and Finland, East Germany and Czechoslovakia once. Putin is Orthodox , invaded Ukraine and is good friends with Stalin.
Posted by nicknamenick, Monday, 5 September 2016 9:26:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lefty One,

Hitler was not a devout Catholic. Though he self identified as a Catholic (probably for political reasons) he did not actually believe in the existence of God. You might say he was a closet atheist, though he didn't try very hard to hide it either.
Posted by Aidan, Monday, 5 September 2016 12:25:31 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Atheists could start quoting Christopher Hitchens who wrote;

Religion is “the most base and contemptible of all the forms assumed by egotism and stupidity.”

and;

I find something repulsive in the idea of vicarious redemption.
I would not throw my numberless sins on to a scapegoat and expect them to pass from me; we rightly sneer at the barbaric societies that practice this unpleasantness in its literal form. There is no value in the vicarious gesture anyway.
As Thomas Paine pointed out, you may if you wish take on a debt, or even offer to take his place in prison. That would be self-sacrificing. But you may not a assume his actual crimes as if they were your own; for one thing you didn't commit them and might have died rather than do so; for another this impossible action would rob him of individual responsibility.
The whole apparatus of absolution and forgiveness strikes me as positively immoral, while the concept of revealed truth degrades the whole concept of free intelligence by purportedly relieving us of the hard task of working out ethical principles for ourselves.
Christopher Hitchens - Letters to a Young Contrarian –Ch. 9 P5
Posted by Foyle, Monday, 5 September 2016 12:50:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good cut and paste.
You wouldn't put Soviet Russia and Mao's red Guards in the stupid basket?
You ( or your lofty author) say the scape-goat carried personal faults? And personal errors of all humans were carried in the implied Biblical sacrifice? Why ?
Posted by nicknamenick, Monday, 5 September 2016 2:22:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Since we're quoting. Here are some more inspiring quotes from well-known atheists:

"My concern with religion is that it allows us by the millions to believe what only lunatics or idiots could believe on their own." - Sam Harris

"Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him, or that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence whatsoever." - Sam Harris

"I don't think the 9/11 attacks taught us anything we didn't already know about religion. It has long been obvious - even to the deeply religious - that religious fanaticism is an extremely dangerous deranger of otherwise sane and goodhearted people." - Dan Dennett

And from the only atheists theists seem to set in their sights:

"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." - Richard Dawkins

"Religion is about turning untested belief into unshakable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time." - Richard Dawkins

Beautiful stuff.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 5 September 2016 4:38:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An idiot could believe on his own that he doesn't understand the world and then has unshakable belief that no deity is there. He then understands the world he doesn't understand.
Posted by nicknamenick, Monday, 5 September 2016 5:47:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Profound, nicknamenick. Very profound. Was that Chopra?

http://wisdomofchopra.com
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 5 September 2016 6:38:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This site is intended for entertainment purposes only. It in no way reflects the thoughts of Deepak Chopra.
PayPal ? The safer, easier way to pay online. If you like this site, you can donate to help with running costs
Posted by nicknamenick, Monday, 5 September 2016 7:44:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NathanJ: Atheists have a record of attacking religion,

No they don't. You have it all Topsy Turvy. Religionists attack Atheists then when their argument is replied too the reply is seen as an attack on Religion. Most Atheists don't even bother to think about Religion unless it gets shoved in their faces by Religionists.

NathanJ: Finally many atheists, do have a view of hate (towards religion) as they are constantly trying and aiming to prove religion is a false concept to accept in a lot of cases.

See my comment above.
Posted by Jayb, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 2:30:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips,

<<If you agree that there is a diet in which the only meat eaten is fish, and that some people have such a diet, then you agree that pescetarianism exists as a concept/phenomenon. You might think it’s stupid or less morally righteous, but you accept that it is a thing. There is no way around that.>>

The facts are, I don't agree there is such a diet, labelled Pescatarianism. It's a word to describe something. It's not something I accept, acknowledge and I don't have to accept any individual principle behind it. Many (who eat meat), state to me they eat fish, but state they are vegetarian, which they are not. They never will be. Some will see that as a high moral stance, (as you have), but the lack of acceptance (in terms of Pescetarianism), is simply a fact, (that being you can't eat fish, (which is meat) and claim to be vegetarian.

It's like walking into a shop and not paying for something. It's not right.

When atheists try to prove a point, endlessly, life is made very difficult for some who are religious...

<<Difficult in what way? Difficult to maintain delusional beliefs perhaps. That would be the purpose of endlessly discrediting religious claims, I’m guessing.>>

Difficult, in more words that I can describe. You only have to look at the 'high attack rates', in society with words like "poisonous belief systems" on this page. My sister, (who isn't religious) now volunteers at a ADRA shop, run by the Seventh Day Adventist Church. I never thought she'd take on a role with a Church. Doing something positive, I question spending a life time "endlessly discrediting religious claims."

<<To portray criticism of religious beliefs as an encroachment on one’s right to believe is ludicrous and is manifest of the offence that religions perceive in not being able to control everything unchallenged>>

Most criticism is harsh, with no opportunity offered for balanced debate.

<<When I was a Christian. I wish someone had challenged my beliefs earlier. My life could have turned out very differently.>>

What about now?
Posted by NathanJ, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 2:46:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NathanJ: What about now?

I know, for one thing, I wouldn't be even looking at Islam. How backward could you get.
Posted by Jayb, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 7:43:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have no problem with verbal attacks on religion, I've been defending it all my adult life.

However those disingenuous passionate atheists who with religious fervor deny they do not have a faith in their beliefs "there is no god" are blatant hypocrites. They jump in with passion every time a Creator is mentioned with emotive passion rather than proof of their claims. They jump in with what people have done in the name of a theistic view in the past rather than verifiable evidence there is no intelligent purpose or design in or behind reality.
Posted by Josephus, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 8:38:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NathanJ,

There are a number of problems with this claim.

<<When atheists try to prove a point, endlessly, life is made very difficult for some who are religious ... You only have to look at the 'high attack rates', in society with words like "poisonous belief systems" on this page.>>

Firstly, there is a difference between making it difficult for others to believe a particular thing and taking away their freedom of choice. As Lefty One mentioned briefly earlier, there are some parts of the united states where people still cannot tell anyone that they are atheists lest they be ostracised by the entire community. Where is your sympathy for them? There is a double-standard in many societies whereby religion is allowed to just get away with whatever it wants without question, and your double standard here is an example of that. I can assure you that what some atheists are doing now, is nothing compared to what theists used to do to atheists.

Secondly, I have seen no evidence of believers finding it difficult to believe. Most that I know of are blissfully unaware that the world is moving on, or are happy slagging off at atheists by portraying them as caricatures (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4824308).

Thirdly, there is nothing wrong pointing out that a belief system is “poisonous”, so long as one can demonstrate that. A belief system that can cause family members to disown those who no longer believe, is poisonous. A belief system that can pollute the minds of its children to accept mythology over science, is poisonous. A belief system that causes people to become concerned over what consenting adults do in their beds, is poisonous. A belief system that can convince its adherents to ignore environmental issues because a Jewish zombie will return any day now, is poisonous. A belief system that can convince people that patiently exploring the issues behind rampant child sex abuse in a criminal organisation is a more appropriate response than shutting the whole thing down, is poisonous.

Then there’s Islam.

I could go on and on and on.

Continued…
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 12:29:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
…Continued

“But AJ”, I hear you say, “that’s so one-sided. What about all the good charity work they do?”

I’m glad you asked, NathanJ. The charity work is hardly surprising given that religions provide the social ties required for charitable organisations to form. No-one bandies together in the name of atheism. Sometimes the charity is accompanied by a sermon. Worse still, one only needs to look at the work done by the Catholic Church in Africa to see just how downright reckless it can be. The links between religiosity and charitableness are highly suspect.

http://skeptikai.com/2013/02/16/are-religious-people-more-charitable-generous-and-altruistic-than-atheists
http://skeptikai.com/2012/09/04/religious-or-non-religious-who-is-more-likely-to-be-a-good-samaritan

Finally, I'd add that there is nothing good that comes from religion that cannot arise through secular means, and that given the damage religion does to societies and individuals, a risk/benefit analysis is probably not going to result in favour of religion.

<<Most criticism is harsh, with no opportunity offered for balanced debate.>>

I don’t think it’s harsh enough. Religions are still allowed a free pass in a lot of ways for merely being religions. The softly, softly approach twenty years ago didn’t seem to be doing much either.

But what is your idea of balanced debate? There are hundreds, if not thousands, of debates happening. My YouTube “Watch later” list is full of them. If, by "balanced debate", you mean that one side has no evidence or reasoned argument in favour of their position while the other one does, then I would agree that the debate is not balanced.

<<What about now?>>

Now, I invite theists to challenge my beliefs (or lack thereof), and sometimes they attempt to (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201&page=0), but never am I presented with a rational argument in favour of theism. In the end, it always comes down to, “Well, you just gotta have faith.” Either that or a torrent of abuse flung my way, and a belief system that can cause someone to become abusive because it is threatened, is poisonous.

--

Josephus,

Atheists have no burden of proof. Atheism is the default position, so it is nonsensical to speak of it as though any faith could be involved.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 12:29:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Opposites seem to converge when the Big Bang starts as a ripple in the field of matter and anti-matter. Is that sort of anomaly caused by a generator that fits theism?
By all means expose this: "rampant child sex abuse in a criminal organisation". But " shutting the whole thing down," includes accountants, mechanics and lawyers who abuse children . Australia. Big bang universe.
Posted by nicknamenick, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 1:00:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To all still following this thread

A couple of points not covered so far. Taxation exemption for the church has been around for a long time, and is worldwide. Why do they get a pass on that, as it means anyone can call themselves a church, hold services in their front room, and avoid paying any form of tax on the building and or a business selling stuff from their front yard?

My other point is my own present belief, and that is as an agnostic, who I am absolutely sure can’t be blamed for any lunatic behavior of the human species. For anyone not familiar with the term, it means I believe there is a power that created this plant and everything on it, but I don’t believe in any of the religious stories that are peddled today.

So if you wonder at the intricacies of everything from a snow flake to the DNA that runs through every plant or animal on the planet? And if you think it could not possibly have evolved by chance, but find the stories peddled by any religion illogical, then you, by definition my friend are an Agnostic.
Chris
Posted by LEFTY ONE, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 1:20:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi there JOSEPHUS...

Normally I don't usually enter into this God debate, as I believe everyone is entitled to either believe or disbelieve whatever they wish. However to describe Atheists as blatant hypocrites, is just plain wrong, and damn rude JOSEPHUS !

When I was young like many blokes of my age and generation (early 1940's - to c.1953) we were sent to Sunday School in order to comply with our parents wishes of becoming God fearing young men and women. After joining the ARA and being sent to South Vietnam, I saw plenty of evidence there, to thoroughly convince me there is no God, otherwise he'd certainly put a stop to the mayhem that was Vietnam in the late 1960's early 1970's. To say otherwise, would, as you'd correctly opined, be quite disingenuous.

I suppose, the 503 + - Australians killed over there, quite a fair proportion of them probably believed in God, yet when it counted, either the 'Dust-Off' couldn't get through in time, or it was too late anyway, as the poor bastard was simply listed as KIA so no amount of help would be needed anyway ? Furthermore, I heard one yarn that seemed to have some currency, that a few of the NVA and VC harboured Catholic beliefs ? The veracity of that rumour I wouldn't know, however the country was called French Indo China for quite awhile ?

That said, if someone does have some religious convictions, and they acquire some benefit from their faith, well good luck to them, as long as they don't try to push those believes down my neck, is all.
Posted by o sung wu, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 2:06:51 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a wise man said "No agnostic have ever started a war, pogrom, or ethnic cleansing. Most mass slaughter is done in the name of religion." Hitler had a Nazi Christmas which sits between theist and atheist but he was pretty definite about Aryan Master Race Gott Mit Uns.
Charities have to pass the squeaky clean test and Agnostic Semi-Believers Moral Support and Detox may just get the nod.
Posted by nicknamenick, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 2:07:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
O Sung Wu
". there is no God, otherwise he'd certainly put a stop to the mayhem that was Vietnam in the late 1960's early 1970's."
Choppers fly in , sarge says go, go and the grunts load into Huey.
"( mutter mutter) HQ says there's some guy with enormous hands and lightning who cancelled the flight. Says there's Catholic VC dug in on Hamburger Hill. No go. Unload weapons. Burn the chopper. Amen"
Posted by nicknamenick, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 2:12:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nick
So, I am now lifted to the lofty height of wise man?

You may be right about the squeaky clean in Australia, but I can tell you from a commune where I once lived, in NZ, and the numerous churches I saw while in the US, it all depends on your connections.

Chris
Posted by LEFTY ONE, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 2:31:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
nicknamenick,

Child sex abuse is not systemic within law societies, or amongst accounting firms or mechanics’ shops. Whether it occurs in these areas is not the issue. Lawyers aren’t shuffling each other around to evade legal action. Your analogy is invalid.

--

Lefty One,

In Australia, it has been argued by some that the tax we miss out on due to the tax exemption that churches get (around $31 billion) is out-weighed by the dollar value that churches provide in charity. However, the figures upon which this claim is based are highly dubious and are contested by many.

One thing’s for sure, though, the above certainly wouldn’t be the case in the US with their billion-dollar megachurches and some preachers getting around in private jets and living in multi-million-dollar mansions.

John Oliver did a good expose on televangelists and just how easy it is in the US to set up one’s own tax-exempt church by creating his own church that he called Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y1xJAVZxXg
http://www.ourladyofperpetualexemption.com

As for your own position on the question of a god or gods, what you describe is actually closer to deism. Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of any god or gods is unknown or unknowable. So agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. Theism and atheism address what one believes, while gnosticism and agnosticism address what one believes is knowable.

http://goo.gl/LuyGaC
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 5:22:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was meaning abuse within the home, by anybody. Sex offenders move around . Atheist incest is not preferable to the theist.
Defence forces sex-abuse has elements of Church protection .

Everything is belief, atheists wait for non-deity answers to be served up by men in white coats and white-board symbols
Posted by nicknamenick, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 5:42:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, people rarely if at all pop out of the womb "reasonable & rationale."

It takes time, education and personal development.

I had a "religious phase" in my youth wherein I was steeped in "Left of Main" ideology, allegory and fanciful interpretation. Reason came later with a study of legal studies and a group of friends who share and debate "new scientist" articles, amongst other things.

I would add that it is a damning indictment upon the secondary education system that too many kids come out anything but reasonable and rationale. I would like to see the reasons given by the various state based curriculum development bodies as to why some things are taught and some things are not.

When you get down to the manner in which "we" reckon things then most if not all of us have at least had a transitory phase wherein we reckoned things in a more rudimentary fashion, much as an unsophisticated religious intellect may.

So, to fast track things my sense of some writers is that they would prefer that some atheists would temper their intellects such that the potentially mutually beneficial process of sharing knowledge and reasoning out solutions is not unnecessarily painful, hurtful or denigrating in some way. Of course, it would be fair to say that such atheists are not educators.

I would also agree though that there are some obtuse cases, who fail to respond to reason and whose actions are profoundly hurtful to others to the extent that they well and truly deserve a taste of the "intellect whip" (and that just for starters)
Posted by DreamOn, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 6:03:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips
Damn just when I thought I had a clear understanding on what I call myself, I get corrected again.

So my solution is simple, I will hence forth call myself a "reformed Afghan Baptist". That way as I am likely to be the only one in existence, I wont be able to be challenged on the accuracy of the label on my belief.

Really AJ I think you are getting a we bit pedantic with your labels
Chris
Posted by LEFTY ONE, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 6:09:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
nicknamenick,

The military is a necessary institution for which the existence of is not reliant upon a set of unfounded claims, unlike the useless behemoth that is the Catholic Church.

--

Lefty One,

If you find you’re being corrected on definitions frequently, then perhaps you should consult a dictionary.

<<Damn just when I thought I had a clear understanding on what I call myself, I get corrected again.>>

I would recommend the Oxford, which is widely considered to be the most authoritative in the English language. Avoid the Merriam-Webster like the plague, as it has an obvious religious bias to it. www.dictionary.com isn’t much better.

Deism:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/deism

Atheism:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheism

Agnosticism:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/agnostic

<<So my solution is simple, I will hence forth call myself a "reformed Afghan Baptist".>>

That’s not very descriptive. What’s wrong with ‘deist’?

<<Really AJ I think you are getting a we bit pedantic with your labels>>

Not at all. Given that you have described yourself as an agnostic twice already on this thread and attempted to define it once, I would think that my correction is anything but pedantic. Labels clearly matter to you, after all, and so they should.

I am vigilant in correcting definitions in this area because theists have always attempted to twist them for their own purposes. To the point that many atheists are too afraid to label themselves as such because they think it implies a dogmatism or renders them communists.

It has always fascinated me, though, how those who refer to themselves as ‘agnostic’ can become so upset when they find that they were using the word incorrectly, or that they are actually atheists when they have spent so much of their lives despising atheists because of a caricature of them that they had invented but doesn’t actually exist.

Clearly definitions here matter, and to many too.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 7:09:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Again atheists merely attack the beliefs of people rather than the premise: "The universe has intelligence and design in its chemistry and motion, that human intelligence and disciplines are an example of the nature of that reality."

The atheist with a passion hold a belief system based in a negative premise, highlighting the attitude of people and their dysfunction. They cannot debate theism and the higher aspiration of the Creator and purpose of the Universe.
Posted by Josephus, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 7:47:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You are a big noter A J Philips with all your stupid talk you think your smarter then everybody else here but you are a show off with all your big words as well as a big noter. Im a catholic person and I beleve in my God and because you don't believe in God you critize people who do. Go away smart alec and leave the people alone who beleve in God. You will get punished because of your nasty words remember that Philips you will get punished.
Posted by misanthrope, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 8:07:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oooo! Disgusting little pedophile friend church. If I get my way I'll see the catholic church listed as a banned organisation, its property siezed and its leaders arrested, interrogated and gaoled as required.

..

And you see again AJ you seem to have offended one of the low IQ inmates. LOL And therein lies a not insignificant challenge in terms of how best to elevate the consciousness of some of these ding-a-lings? Can't just send them down to be turned into fertilizer now can we?

..

It reminds me of being at the vatican (albeit briefly) many years ago. What first grabbed my attention were the armed guards. And then, whilst going up the steps, this poor old dear getting a thrill from reverentially touching a bit of the door. And then, you get in there, and you've got what I call the "slot machine" prayer room. You know, an alcove with an art work, and a big slot up front to pump in a coin to add a bit of weight to your prayers. HaHaHa

Still, at least they still have a service in there. That much at least dissapointed me in Moscow when in the central churches as it was like a cold and lifeless museum.

I don't mind snorting some good incense and having a bit of communion wine - a bit of a show - tourists love that sh!t. ;-)
Posted by DreamOn, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 8:49:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Josephus,

Would you rather I attack your premise?

<<Again atheists merely attack the beliefs of people rather than the premise: "The universe has intelligence and design in its chemistry and motion, that human intelligence and disciplines are an example of the nature of that reality.">>

Okay, there is no evidence for that. There is nothing to suggest that intelligence was required, and insisting that it was is the special pleading fallacy. The universe is amazingly complex and complexity arises out of necessity or poor design - neither of which would be the case if a supreme being were involved.

<<The atheist with a passion hold a belief system based in a negative premise…>>

There is no one atheist belief system. I had already explained that before.

<<They cannot debate theism and the higher aspiration of the Creator and purpose of the Universe.>>

Apparently they can.

--

misanthrope,

I’m hearing a lot of this accusation lately:

<<… you think your smarter [than] everybody else here but you are a show off with all your big words as well as a big noter.>>

I’m starting to think that others think I’m a lot smarter than I do. I’m not sure of where all these big words are either. That’s the second time I’ve heard that accusation in as many weeks.

<<[I’m] a catholic person and I [believe] in my God …>>

You have my sympathies.

Isn’t it funny how we’d all leave an organisation at the snap of a finger as soon as we found out that it was a criminal organisation, but we make exceptions here where religious institutions are concerned.

<<… and because you don't believe in God you critize people who do.>>

No, I more criticise the belief, and for reasons I’ve already outlined.

<<You will get punished because of your nasty words remember that Philips you will get punished.>>

Threatening an atheist with hell is about as scary for them as a hippy threatening to punch you in your aura. But thank you for highlighting yet another way in which religion can poison people's minds.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 9:02:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ
"A belief system that can convince people that patiently exploring the issues behind rampant child sex abuse in a criminal organisation is a more appropriate response than shutting the whole thing down, is poisonous."
So then .. atheist Defence sex-abuse is patiently explored like theist Defence sex-abuse. You say defence is a necessity. So then...
what ? Atheist abuse is OK / explored / shut down / avoided by emotional talk of behemoth criminals...
Come on AJ, some clarity and logic. please.
Posted by nicknamenick, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 9:33:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I recall a doco looking at members of the population who most often retained the sharpness of their wit into old age, and, if I do not misrecall, it was those who had achieved high academic status and continued to practice, such as a professor.

It was further posited that the reason for this was not because they are learned, but rather because they made a daily practice of learning new things.

And from biology, it is not the strong who survive but rather those who can adapt best and in order to do so, learning new tricks fast is the name of the game.

Arguably, atheism is far less likely to impede a person when required to learn something new as opposed to those bent over with misguided religious beliefs.

..

" ... AIDS kills don't be silly, put a condom on your willy. ... "
Posted by DreamOn, Tuesday, 6 September 2016 9:43:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<When atheists try to prove a point, endlessly, life is made very difficult for some...>>

<<Secondly, I have seen no evidence of believers finding it difficult to believe...>>

Life involves many things, that operate at various times. So when a person's life is made difficult (in various ways) it can be difficult to maintain a balanced lifestyle, (including facing difficulty and holding passions or values). I know from example. When I decided to go vegetarian as part of a year 12 project, my parents didn't like it. I had a bowl of meat thrown in my face, and one of my parents demanded I eat it. I was trying to work on the school project (for three weeks) and it wasn't easy.

Luckily I was (over the age of consent), or who knows what my parents may have done, in terms of (a) my passion for vegetarianism and (b) my own freedom of choice? My parents still don't like the fact that I'm vegetarian and that change occurred over 10 years ago.

<<Most criticism is harsh, with no opportunity offered for balanced debate.>>

Even the unfairly labelled, "biased ABC" Media Watch program showed that those who do not support same sex marriage for example, had not received equal opportunity with 2015 media coverage, compared to those who support same sex marriage.

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4295137.htm

<<What about now?>>

Why? A lot of your comments) don't use words like passion for example, but simply "criticise believers" or simply wish to state how "atheism isn’t a belief system."

Newspaper columnist Adam Lee says that it’s time for atheists to stop debating God's existence and decide what to do now, to move past theoretical questions about the existence of God and move onto more practical pursuits, like how to fight for justice.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/15/atheists-god-existence-social-justice

That is why I mentioned my sister volunteering at a local charity shop, run by a local church. The shop itself is large, sells a lot of items (very cheaply) and is very popular in the local community. A lot of people are benefiting, as a result. Comments based on hate benefit no-one.
Posted by NathanJ, Wednesday, 7 September 2016 12:14:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My comments were in relation to an AJ Philips post.

<<As Lefty One mentioned briefly earlier, there are some parts of the united states where people still cannot tell anyone that they are atheists lest they be ostracised by the entire community. Where is your sympathy for them?>>

Personally, I haven't said anything rude or non sympathetic to any person on this topic. Sympathy, as much as possible, should be a two way street, as much as possible.

<<Then there’s Islam. I could go on and on and on.>>

Why? I don't see any point based on my previous post and comments made by Adam Lee, in his newspaper opinion piece.
Posted by NathanJ, Wednesday, 7 September 2016 12:24:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
nicknamenick,

Whenever possible, I try to give others the benefit of the doubt and grant that I mustn’t have made myself clear enough when someone is having trouble understanding me. In this case, I can’t.

As for emotive language: there’s emotive, and then there’s using words that others are too afraid to or don’t even think to because of the undue prestige and immunity religion has acquired itself.

--

NathanJ,

Not even the most vocal atheists are demanding that believers stop believing. Ironically, your analogy involving your vegetarianism and your parents’ response to it actually describes the way the religious behave towards atheists, not the other way around. Again, though, religion gets a free pass and you overlook that.

I hope you’re right about theists finding it more difficult nowadays to hold their values. Values that are purely religious usually go against the values of those held by modern, enlightened societies and have no rational basis.

You see, the goal is not to ban bad ideas like religion, it’s to promote enough rational thought so as to encourage those who hold bad ideas to abandon them, or to make those who'll cling to bad ideas too embarrassed to voice them. For example, the modern homophobe does not say that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry, he asks what the government is doing in the marriage business; the modern chauvinist does not overtly control women, he expresses disappointment at the rate of abortions; the modern ant-vaxxer isn’t against vaccination, they’re just “asking questions”.

Finally, one important difference between your vegetarianism and religion, is that you are not harming anyone else or providing passive support to dangerous fundamentalists. So in that sense, your analogy doesn’t work.

As for “balanced debate”, I guess it’s like any other topic (e.g. vaccination, climate change, same-sex marriage): when theists find more evidence or reasoned argument in support for their beliefs, then they can have more air time.

Continued…
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 7 September 2016 5:28:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
…Continued

<<Why? A lot of your comments) don't use words like passion for example, but simply "criticise believers"...>>

Why do I need to use words like “passion”? How would that change anything? My criticism of believers (or more specifically, their belief) has been justified. You need to address those before you criticise my criticism.

As for what this Adam Lee says, I would refer you (and him) back to my second and third paragraphs to you in this response. For so long as, “But it’s my faith”, is (as you demonstrate) perceived by many (even those with no religious belief) to be a valid argument, then highlighting the irrationality of religious belief will always be an inextricable part of the same goal.

<<That is why I mentioned my sister volunteering at a local charity shop, run by a local church ... A lot of people are benefiting.>>

That’s great. Although, I refer you back to my previous comments on charity yesterday that foresaw the fact that you were going to go there.

<<Comments based on hate benefit no-one.>>

I agree wholeheartedly. I’m not sure why you’re telling me this, though. Vocal atheists like myself justify their criticism with rational argument, which is something that people driven by hate tend not to do. Again, your words are more appropriate for the religious; but once again, you make exceptions for them.

<<Personally, I haven't said anything rude or non sympathetic to any person on this topic.>>

You don’t have to have. The fact that you overlook them is enough, and only serves to demonstrate what I’ve been saying about the undue privilege and immunity that religion has managed to acquire itself. Anything less than total control and zero criticism, and suddenly the poor dears are being attacked. Well, cry me a flippin' river. It's about time their unearned power and influence was tapered back a notch.

<<Why? I don't see any point based on my previous post and comments made by Adam Lee, in his newspaper opinion piece.>>

Well, hopefully you can see now after my response to his comments.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 7 September 2016 5:28:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DreamOn
Atheists are more likely to learn? The Industrial revolution was made in theist Britain and US growth also. Atheists were in it but what advantage can be shown?
AJ
"The military is a necessary institution for which the existence of is not reliant upon a set of unfounded claims, unlike the useless behemoth that is the Catholic Church."
So if no-vaccination parents abuse kids, the atheists get off and theist families are shut down? You defend atheist soldiers rape?
Posted by nicknamenick, Wednesday, 7 September 2016 6:21:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, nicknamenick. That’s exactly right.

<<So if no-vaccination parents abuse kids, the atheists get off and theist families are shut down? You defend atheist soldiers rape?>>

If parents who don’t vaccinate their children are child abusers, then that means that atheists get off scot-free and religious families should all be shut down. And yes, I therefore defend to the death the soldier’s right to rape. Rape is good so long as it’s not done by religious people.

But only if parents who don’t vaccinate their children are child abusers. Otherwise, my logic collapses.

Do you require any more clarification?
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 7 September 2016 6:50:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's 7 am and you're drunk already?
Posted by nicknamenick, Wednesday, 7 September 2016 7:25:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ cannot debate intelligence, purpose and design in the universe actually comes from a Creator, because he cannot face the idea of his Creator. He merely attacks false religion a product of human behaviour and ignorance. I also am disgusted with false religion and superstition, but atheism is a belief system equally based in ignorance, it is not open to the idea of intelligence, design and purpose behind the Universe.

A lot of belief systems need to change, and be challenged by the reality of discovery of the nature of reality and good social order. God is revealed in character, behaviour and wisdom of ideas. The love and pursuit of that revelation and the sacrificial love for others including opponents as equal to the love of one's self is good social order for humanity.
Posted by Josephus, Wednesday, 7 September 2016 8:46:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Josephus: but atheism is a belief system equally based in ignorance, it is not open to the idea of intelligence, design and purpose behind the Universe.

Where do you get that idea from. Just because atheists refuse to be influenced by some silly ideas like Intelligent Design or the Purpose behind the Universe.

Why is there a need to believe there is a "purpose?" Does there have to be a "purpose?" The Universe is just there, no great plan, no purpose, it just "is." Wishing or wanting doesn't make it so.
Posted by Jayb, Wednesday, 7 September 2016 12:30:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
nicknamenick,

What? Do your insinuations sound ridiculous when I say them outright? Why insinuate them then?

Furthermore, I responded to your question according to how it literally read. My response may have been difficult to understand, but I can assure you that deciphering your question was no easier.

Finally, nothing I have said (sarcasm aside) should suggest that I think rape committed by atheist soldiers is alright. If you can extract that from what I've said, then you can extract anything.

--

Josephus,

You won’t actually address anything I say directly, will you? You just blather on in a meandering and directionless manner.

<<AJ cannot debate intelligence, purpose and design in the universe actually comes from a Creator, because he cannot face the idea of his Creator.>>

Why is it that you think I can’t face such an idea? I spent half my life revelling in it. Why would that be any different now apart from a lack of evidence?

<<… atheism is a belief system equally based in ignorance… >>

Once again atheism only has one tenet, so it cannot be a system of beliefs.

Although, I would agree that atheism is based on ‘ignorance’ in the sense that one can acknowledge what they DON’T know. Theism, on the other hand, is a based on ‘ignorance’ in the sense that it is protected by what one WON’T know.

<<… [atheism] is not open to the idea of intelligence, design and purpose behind the Universe.>>

That depends on the individual. The problem is that you lot haven’t provided any evidence to suggest intelligence, design, or purpose.

<<God is revealed in character, behaviour and wisdom of ideas.>>

That’s not a very reliable method of revelation. For that to bear any weight, one would need to demonstrate what the above would look like without a god. What kind of a god plays silly buggers like that?

<<The love and pursuit of that revelation ... [waffle, waffle] ... is good social order for humanity.>>

A social order that history demonstrates can be achieved more effectively without superstition.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 7 September 2016 1:17:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ
So then you say atheist soldiers who rape should be convicted.
"The military is a necessary institution for which the existence of is not reliant upon a set of unfounded claims, unlike the useless behemoth that is the Catholic Church."
Then the necessity of Defence is irrelevant to soldiers' being convicted. So the "useless behemoth" is also irrelevant. Belonging to any institution doesn't change a sex-crime. Protecting atheist soldiers' crimes does not make Defence a criminal organisation as theist priests' crimes don't make the Church criminal.
But Defence loyalty is just as poisonous as Church protection.
If a business has sex criminals in it does the business get closed down ?
I understand you want the Church dead , burnt and buried - OK but you are being extreme and terrifying in your crusade.
Posted by nicknamenick, Wednesday, 7 September 2016 1:56:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
nicknamenick,

This this the last time I’ll answer silly questions. There rest will be ignored:

<<So then you say atheist soldiers who rape should be convicted.>>

Yes.

<<Then the necessity of Defence is irrelevant to soldiers' being convicted.>>

Of course.

<<So the "useless behemoth" is also irrelevant.>>

No, the "useless behemoth" remark was made in reference to the shutting down of criminal organisations, not convicting guilty individuals. Your comparison is invalid.

<<Belonging to any institution doesn't change a sex-crime.>>

No, but an institution systematically covering up sex crimes does change the nature of the institution. You’re confusing and conflating individual instances of crimes with the systematic covering up of them.

<<Protecting atheist soldiers' crimes does not make Defence a criminal organisation as theist priests' crimes don't make the Church criminal.>>

Actually, it renders them both criminal. But we need the military.

<<If a business has sex criminals in it does the business get closed down ?>>

If the sex crimes are being systematically covered up, then you would probably find that many people would want it shut down, yes. Yet, when a church does it, suddenly we need to take the time to get to the root of the problem. There is an unjustified double-standard there.

<<I understand you want the Church dead , burnt and buried - OK but you are being extreme and terrifying in your crusade.>>

Yes, I do want that. But more importantly, I want it to happen in its own time, without force, and because that’s was everyone decides should happen. There’s nothing “terrifying” about that.

Your expression of horror in response to my quite reasonable points is symptomatic of the unjustified taboo status that criticising religion has somehow earned itself. NathanJ’s presumption of hatred on my behalf was another example of this. It’s a sad state of affairs when criticising religion is so alien to us that it invokes a sense of horror in everyone.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 7 September 2016 3:21:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A true theistic view gives meaning and purpose and moral order, to human existence. That order is recognized as a religious moral belief. Without such, criminality cannot be established as against another. All action under atheism or those not adhering to Christian moral principles is then acceptable. Such action is based in emotion rather than social well being. The unbelieving man says destroy your opponents: Christ taught, feed your enemy, give water to your enemy, pray for your enemy, seek the well being of your enemy.

Because theists believe the Universe has order, design and purpose, moral order, design and purpose is relevant.
Posted by Josephus, Wednesday, 7 September 2016 3:52:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"it renders them both criminal. But we need the military."
I'm not horrified at criticism of the Church as you can clearly see.
But Australian Defence and Catholic Church are both criminal ? We just need Defence so then...
wowee
no more can be discussed buddy
Posted by nicknamenick, Wednesday, 7 September 2016 3:53:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips

<<Not even the most vocal atheists are demanding that believers stop believing.>>

This can apply to both sides of any discussion. It is not about myself involving discrimination, or about one person (and what actions they take).

<<You see, the goal is not to ban bad ideas like religion, it’s to promote enough rational thought so as to encourage those who hold bad ideas to abandon them>>

I was at one stage, a member of a Friends of the Library group. For some reason, very suddenly the Librarian, became rude, very dictatorial, put up silly arguments to why we couldn't undertake library activities and were told our group couldn't display group brochures anymore as there was no space to do so.

So wanting to maintain a friendly relationship (with the Library) the group committee put up with two and half years of difficulty. After the last three remaining members resigned, I lodged a formal complaint with the local council, very nicely, wanting change. Six months later, getting a reply I spoke to other staff. Later on when I found the Librarian was still being rude to others, I left the group.

So in terms of what the Librarian did, there was no rational thought, and the aim was simply to ban ideas, in terms of having a Friends of the Library group and see it discontinue, which it now does, that being non-operational.

So the intention was to see the group discontinue, weather (the Librarian) said it or not, which of course he didn't, for obvious reasons, like coming out looking disrespectful.

So one could argue, you, AJ Philips have simply used a lot of words here, on this post to suit your own self.

I won't do that though. In real life, discovery and change clearly needs to come from within ones one self. I would encourage you to think about that at some stage. I know what its like to put through difficulty from others and see so called "bad ideas" be forced to close down, because of the views of others.
Posted by NathanJ, Wednesday, 7 September 2016 4:18:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
nicknamenick,

Well? Don’t leave us all in suspense.

<<But Australian Defence and Catholic Church are both criminal ? We just need Defence so then...>>

So then… what?

What terrible conclusion have you presumed that I’ve come to in order to justify the “wowee” that follows? What is it about my reasoning that is so-o-o-o-o horrible that nothing more could possibly be discussed?

What is that dreaded little ellipsis implying, I wonder?

Let me guess. You think that I believe soldiers should get away with sex crimes because, once again, you’re confusing/conflating what I say about individual instances of crimes and the systematic covering up of them?

That’s it, isn’t it?

If you are that incapable of following what others are saying, then I’m done with you. I’m not wasting any more posts on you. You need to improve your comprehension skills, because that’s appalling. Nothing I have said has been complex.

--

NathanJ,

Your offensive ‘librarian’ analogy only goes to show that you aren’t listening to what I’m saying, and are deliberately interpreting what you do selectively choose hear in the most negative possibly light. Your analogy is invalid for three reasons:

1. I’m not being disingenuous about my motives.
2. I’m not placing unfair restrictions on anyone to force their hand in any way.
3. I’m not engaging in direct sabotage.

<<So one could argue, you, AJ Philips have simply used a lot of words here, on this post to suit your own self.>>

Well, there’s the mudslinging I referred to earlier. Nothing to actually address anything I’ve said, just offensive suggestions to justify your unwillingness to absorb any of it.

But at least you didn't appeal to the need for faith.

<<I know what its like to put through difficulty from others and see so called "bad ideas" be forced to close down, because of the views of others.>>

That’s why it’s important that bad ideas be shown to be bad - so they’re not just “so-called” anymore. I’ve done that, but you’ve ignored it. And for the second time now, no-one’s forcing anything.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 7 September 2016 5:28:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have done a bit of language study, and lived in 3 different Asian countries amongst and with the locals.

I also recall my own memories as a child when I was ever so sensitive to tone of voice, and facial expression.

NathanJ is perhaps sensitive. Prefers to do things with an uplifting Spirit, for want of another way to put it. And I'm not suggesting that there is anything wrong with that. Certainly, I myself cannot discount that there is a considerable range of variance amongst different people and different cultures in this regard.

Why else would you put up with a nasty librarian for so long?

Whilst I agree with AJ's sentiment in relation to certain individuals that hold positions of authority within the church and establishment more broadly, I do find religion to be entirely devoid of merit.

Some cultures of course, are still ruled by individuals who reckon in a quite unsophisticated way, and evidenced based reason in a "spurious concept" not fully understood by them.

And yet, we must come to terms with them.

One mistake that history attests to of course is when the so-called superiors presume the right to take advantage of those less able.

So, does anyone think that practicing "safe sex" is a bad idea in AIDS infested areas?

You see, it's all very well for religious people to have faith, but when they believe that God is real, and that they know what God wants, and then that it is their right to impose this on everyone else, then it is at that point that their nonsense needs to be driven home hard, if nonsense is indeed what it is that they are espousing.
Posted by DreamOn, Wednesday, 7 September 2016 10:00:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think your assessment is pretty spot on, DreamOn. NathanJ seems like a very nice person. A sensitive soul, but very nice nonetheless. It’s just so disappointing...

If you provide links to support your argument, then you’re link-bombing.

If you provide no l links to support your argument, then you’re asserting.

If you’re asked what your qualifications are and you mention them, then you’re big-noting yourself.

If the other side has no rational arguments and you mention that before you get to demonstrate it, then you’re displaying hubris.

If you pursue a point because there are continual flaws in your opponent’s every response, then you’re an ideologue.

If your reasoning is solid and others are uncomfortable with it, then you’re smart and are deliberately making a point of it.

If your opponent has defended their position from multiple angles and you’ve successfully countered them all, then you’re point-scoring.

And in this case, I take advantage of the increased number of posts allowed in a day to provide a more detailed explanation so as to minimise misunderstanding and prevent an unnecessarily lengthy back-and-forth, and I’m using a lot of words to (somehow) suit myself.

[I think that’s NathanJ’s very nice way of saying something that I’d probably find very insulting.]

You can’t win. It doesn’t matter who you’re talking to, what you say, or how you say it. If your reasoning is sound, and someone doesn’t like that, then expect some ad hominem to fly your way.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 8 September 2016 12:14:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A person with a religious belief may forsake living their life to the full and make more sacrifices for others because they believe they will be rewarded with eternal life in the big place up in the sky.
An atheist believes this is the only life they'll ever get and may instead live this life to the full, not wanting to waste a single minute of it.

They are both valuable points of view, (though religion does seem a little kooky on face value) but they are even more valuable if your smart enough to know the difference and consider both for a wider ranging perspective on life.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Thursday, 8 September 2016 7:25:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AC: A person with a religious belief may forsake living their life to the full and make more sacrifices for others.
An atheist believes this is the only life they'll ever get and may instead live this life to the full,

This sounds like you are saying that Atheists never make sacrifices for the good of mankind. I'm sure whatever Religion or No Religion everybody does their little bit for others without even thinking about it.
Posted by Jayb, Thursday, 8 September 2016 8:46:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AC and JB
Wow I went away for a few does, and this post went nuts.
So you both seem to be saying that there are only two options. Believe the stories, be good, give service, and money to your church (hopefully the right one), and you have it made in the shade so to speak.
Alternatively you don’t believe the stories, are completely selfish ignoring the interest of all others who come in to your orbit of influence, and there is nothing after you fall of your perch.

Well what about the Buddhist’s. I live where most are Buddhist and they seem to be content believing that, if they are good to others (especially the monks) then when they come back it will be a pleasant experience.

There are also those, who live hand to mouth in the jungle and have a whole different belief system.

I have changed my religious belief many times, which I know some find difficult to understand. I think if you stay in the life you born into then you are unlikely to change much over the course of your life. However if you have invested a lot of your time in only one belief , then as you are contemplating you’re your last breath, it is likely you will be hoping you picked the right one.

You might like to read the last words of Steve Jobs, if you think I am wrong.

Chris
Posted by LEFTY ONE, Thursday, 8 September 2016 12:05:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Last words of Steve Job?

"Oh wow. Oh wow. Oh wow." (from his sister who was present)
Posted by onthebeach, Thursday, 8 September 2016 12:32:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lefty: Alternatively you don’t believe the stories, are completely selfish ignoring the interest of all others who come in to your orbit of influence, and there is nothing after you fall of your perch.

Where in hell do you get that Atheists are "Completely Selfish" & never give or never help their fellow human beings. That's your opinion & it's totally false.

What a total self abuser. It wouldn't let me use the other more appropriate word.
Posted by Jayb, Thursday, 8 September 2016 1:20:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
onthebeach
Ok your right, I did not research the bit about Jobs last words before I posted it.However I do believe the words are relevant to this thread, and clearly they made a significant impression on Richard Branson.

Chris
Posted by LEFTY ONE, Thursday, 8 September 2016 1:24:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JB
What is with the anger for expressing an opinion? I said you seemed to be saying that. Perhaps, if instead of latching on to just a few of the words that you think are aimed at disparaging your particular life, you looked at the whole post.

There are many ways to run your life and I don’t believe that any particular one is better than any other. For the record I believe that the reward for helping others is that it makes feel good. If you have no interest in being sensitive to other around you then you are a psychopath. No this is not aimed at you or any other that I have seen posting on this blog.

Chris
Posted by LEFTY ONE, Thursday, 8 September 2016 1:47:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lefty 1: If you have no interest in being sensitive to other around you then you are a psychopath.

It the ones that bleed sensitivity for a gain that I personally dislike which seems to be the Domain of the Lefty, Latte Set. I do note you get complete distain if you don't fall under their spell.

I consider the Left, Latte Sette, Politically Correct & Greenies to be insensitive as to how others feel & are the Psychopaths in this debate.

Personally I just pay it forward even if it never came my way.
Posted by Jayb, Thursday, 8 September 2016 4:33:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 8 September 2016 12:14:06 AM

" ... You can’t win. It doesn’t matter who you’re talking to, what you say, or how you say it. If your reasoning is sound, and someone doesn’t like that, then expect some ad hominem to fly your way. .. "

It's not that you can't win AJ. I, as you know, appreciate you just the way you are, but then, I do not feel threatened by you. I also appreciate your accumen, sharp wit and logical approach.

Even if I were to regress momentarily and consider things as I once did, in a religious sense, we were always encouraged to think that God (or our personal belief system if you like) does not require defending.

But that is not so with all believers, who present with a form of personal cognitive dissonance which is indeed painful for them mentally when challenged.

So, that is to say that they object to you deconstructing their belief system thus you may expect a barrage of unreasonable attack. Verily, their own Bible says that you may expect their abuse as a testimony to your success. HaHaHa
Posted by DreamOn, Thursday, 8 September 2016 10:02:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Atheists have a record of attacking religion, but have little to offer as an alternative. They have little to quote and little to inspire. I see their attitude of hate of little value, when they could embrace a positive approach with others, rather than spending energy on proving a point, that they simply cannot prove.

Who says they have to offer anything as an alternative anyway? Do you see your self as somebody who can make those sorts of rules a?

Funny how you consider their independence of thought as hate. If that statement is not hate speech itself what is?

Campaigning to have religion compulsory in everybody's mind are you?

Rather than spending energy on proving a point, that they simply cannot prove, religious people should keep their religion an their religion beliefs to themselves instead of trying to force them onto ohters.
Posted by Referundemdrivensocienty, Monday, 12 September 2016 9:29:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy