Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler*, Mao....

StealthRolex

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As long as they do not contradict YOUR interpretation of the bible you mean. Again, similar to me saying you can not speak for “The Christian” you also can not speak for “The Bible” because there are many people who think your interpretation contradicts it, and you likely think the same of them.

If I say anything on this forum that contradicted the Bible or general Christian belief there are plenty of better qualified Christian readers here who would be quick to point out any error.

So tell me - what is the bible of atheism so I can find some terms of reference?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am more than happy to talk at length about you as a Christian or your interpretation of the Bible. You have to lose this notion that you are speaking for anyone else on the matter however. You simply aren’t, except for the occasional serendipitous overlap.

I would prefer it if you talked to me rather than about me. What you say about me in my absence is your business but it is a little rude.
But is that not what atheists tend to do? The talk about Christians and believers, but never to them. It must be wonderful being so superior, but then again without God you are the superior ones, are you not.

I think you have to lose this notion that you know what Christianity is or what a belief in God is before we could pursue this line.

StealthRolex

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have asked for evidence that a given entity exists and because you have no such evidence you instead have chosen to go on a monolouge to suggest that there is something deficient about me for not just beleiving it outright.

So you came in to a thread in the Christianity forum to progress the thought that there is no God. Is that correct?

In an Christianity thread you asked for evidence that God exists?

Do you not think this question would be better served somewhere else?

StealthRolex

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

In this you are similar to the Bible which promotes this kind of thinking with comments like the fool has said in their heart there is no god. It is a common practise, which you will find when you turn on advertisements on the television which spend no time at all informing you on why the product might actually be a good choice to make, but instead bandy comments around like "Youd be mad to miss it".

Can you point out where I called you or anyone else here a fool? or mad?

If that is what you think you are so be it.

ISAW

strobe wrote: »

My evidence is where they say {paraphrasing} "they even blame god". To blame god you must believe in god. If you believe in god you are not an atheist. Simples.

Fasgnadh posted about how atheists blamed religious fundamentalists


how a polite poster got savaged by atheists and ended up savaging them:
n A brief History Of John Abu'Baker Bashir's Breakdown.
Message-ID: <lIyPl.11475$y61.10814@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
Try it in a google advanced groups search. it tis the button at the bottom of the page.

I claim to be an atheist. I do not post on alt.atheism..........
Your explanation? {this should reveal a lot, I just hope you get it}

You claimed I "choose random internet passages from people claiming to be atheists"
I already dealt with the random bit.

http://jcsm.org/1on1/AltAtheismAtheistAgnosticList.htm

Fasgnadh debated a number of atheists since 2008 and they admit to being atheists.

Your evidence? {keep in mind you need to show how the selections you have chosen need to represent every atheist that uses the internet. (now I'm no scientician but my calculations put it somewhere over 12 people)

No I don't! i posted some of the discussions and the people accused by Fasgnadh. They themselves admit to being atheist and subscribe to being numbered as such!

And why exactly were you banned/censored from posting in the A&A forum?

How that relates to a debate on the church ( such as the one on child abuse) is as follows: That debate was an article which attacked Dawkins just as atheists here attack the church hierarchy.
I was banned for "not progressing the debate" and sticking to the point that the whole underlying basis maintained by atheists was not shown to be true. The responses were "but we all know this is true" or " it has been discussed before" . I asked "Where?" I was not shown. A moderator stated that any more references to earlier posts might result in a ban.
Eventually someone posted "It [ the article attacking Dawkins] doesn't merit being discussed in a fair and balanced way" I asked that poster how do they tell the difference between an opinion like " It doesn't merit being discussed in a fair and balanced way"
and the opinion of a Bigot? I understand that i could be accused of calling him a bigot now maybe but what I meant was the same idea as in an old Carl Sagan story about the dragon in the garage http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

What is the difference between no evidence for a dragon and no dragon? how do you tell the difference? Similarly how do you tell the difference between a bigot and someone who says exactly what a bigot would say such as "it isn't worth discussion and you are wrong!" ?


If something was posted here attacking the Pope or Deli Lama I really don't think people would just post "we all know it is a load of lies" and ban anyone challenging that.

If in this debate we are getting unsupported opinion from atheists or non atheists I again ask them to support it.

There are however a few problems.

Some atheists thing christianity is "pick and mix" it isnt" see my comments on "mainstream"

There is also a tendency for atheists to say "we just disbelieve in god nothing else" . But if that is the case and it is only that then why band together in a forum ( atheism has its own forum) and attack believers and beliefs as many of them do? and they do this with a smug attitude that theirs is not a belief system!

What great atheistic civilizations were there? all we have seen above is slaughter on a level unreached by religion. And when they is pointed out these atheistic regimes are dismissed as "they were just like a religion"!

ISAW

strobe wrote: »

Stealth you do realise that in two sequential posts you just told Nozzferrahhtoo that he can't speak for atheism just himself and then as a non-atheist attempted to apply something to all atheists/atheism in general. Just thought I'd point that out, first of all.

I think I might just point out that Christians actually consider Christianity the best way to live and believe in coming together in communion to state that. When asked if atheism is the best way to live and whether atheism should be institutionalised, atheists usually sidestep this with a "I don't speak for all atheists".

Going for the gold medal in self contradicting generalising rubbish I see? Do you really think that the atheists posting here, or atheists saying "I do not believe in God" are doing so from a desire to offend believers?

Not quite what was stated. Do you believe there is no God or that their might possibly be a God? Let us assume God souls etc. exist. If they do then saying they don't is denying existence. That is an offense against your nature. Your intention to offend nature or not won't change that.

It wouldn't have anything to do with being honest about thier beliefs now would it?

If you honestly believe something which is offensive (say that black people are inferior people) you are honest but you are also racist!

Or once again would it be better if they just pretended to believe in God?

Would it be better for a racist to pretend he thinks black people are equal to him?

There are far worse things people could say than, "i don't believe what you do", if a desire to offend was their motivation.

There are far worse things than saying "Jews are a threat" . In fact trying to kill all the Jews in the world is much worse. So what? Two wrongs don't make a right. If your belief is offensive you can't excuse that on the basis that others do worse than you.

ISAW

i must state for the record that when you say "you can not" I don't necessarily mean "you" I mean "one can not" or people in general making the general argument.

Miracletown

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again you have to find the logical pathway link between them.

Is there anything in religions that can cause people to view other people in a negative light? The answer to this is yes. There are many examples, from the Bible claiming homosexuality is an abomination to the not uncommon Christian concept that the Jews killed their god.

Is there however anything in the phrase “I see no reason to lend credence to the notion that a non-human intelligence exists that is responsible for the creation and subsequent maintenance of our universe” and viewing someone else badly? I am yet to be shown one. How does that statement affect how I "view" anyone else?

I think its incredibly convenient to boil religious beliefs down to the entirety of religious texts of which some parts could be used to see people in a negative light and to compare that to a nice little non offensive blanket statement that represents atheism. I would compare it to if a Christian compared the true Christian message of love God and love your neighbour with "religious people are delusional brainwashed idiots and I will fight their message of stupidity". All the descriptions used can be accurate at times but they can't be used in a logical argument as the variables. There is no one size fits all definition of how religion or even atheism affects someones attitudes towards others.

So no I don't see any casual link to violence in your statement. But I also don't think that means that atheists can't be violent and hateful based on their atheism, just as Christians can with their Christianity. Once again its all about application of those beliefs.

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

Indeed, interestingly enough one of the world's biggest producers of anti-semitic and fascist propaganda/material is Sweden... the same country touted as the closest thing to an 'atheistic' ideal touted on this very thread, as above.

True about Sweden, though I would hope you aren't trying to equate antisemitism with the atheistic ideal.

The less educated seem to hold more anti-semitic views that the more educated, and I think more education would be part of the atheistic ideal, particularly because of the link between atheism and education. Two birds with one stone as it were.

http://www.thelocal.se/3266/20060314/

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

True about Sweden, though I would hope you aren't trying to equate antisemitism with the atheistic ideal.

The less educated seem to hold more anti-semitic views that the more educated, and I think more education would be part of the atheistic ideal, particularly because of the link between atheism and education. Two birds with one stone as it were.

http://www.thelocal.se/3266/20060314/

i would dispute that. One can claim most educated people are educated by religious or that most educated people are religious. The point you are making is that as socisties become more "educated" they will become atheist. But in the US for example one of the most educationally advanced countries in the world atheism is a tiny minory. Education doesn't make people atheist and you haven't shown it does!

not alone that but the argument suggests a superiority of either educated or atheistic people over other people. Uneducated people can be Holier and nobler than the smartest and most educated people.

ISAW

Miracletown wrote: »

I think its incredibly convenient to boil religious beliefs down to the entirety of religious texts

On a related note. Many atheists (indeed even Christians) seem to think that Christianity is all about "follow the Bible" but this I suggest is about as usefull as Jews say "follow the law". Now I won't digress into "faith and good works" but givenm the Bible didnt exist as a single bound copy for about three or four centuries what did early Christians do without it? They didn't run off to look up what the Book said they lived Christianity before they had a copy of the Bible.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

But in the US for example one of the most educationally advanced countries in the world atheism is a tiny minory.

It does?

My understanding is that out of western world countries the US has one of the poorest track records in general 1st and 2nd level education.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/26/world/main530872.shtml

ISAW wrote: »

Education doesn't make people atheist and you haven't shown it does!

You think it is a coincidence that the percentage of atheists increases and the percentage of theists decreases as you go up in education brackets?

ISAW wrote: »

not alone that but the argument suggests a superiority of either educated or atheistic people over other people. Uneducated people can be Holier and nobler than the smartest and most educated people.

That is some what irrelevant to the point though, isn't it?

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

You think it is a coincidence that the percentage of atheists increases and the percentage of theists decreases as you go up in education brackets?

Correlation does not imply causation. Education leads to many things - wealth and security, for example. Why do you suppose that these aren't primary factors in atheism?

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Correlation does not imply causation. Education leads to many things - wealth and security, for example. Why do you suppose that these aren't primary factors in atheism?

I don't suppose that. I think wealth, or more specifically financial stability, is a major aspect of atheism. I also think education is, or more specifically the development of various forms of critical thinking which are more likely to be found in high educated groups.

The theist strawman that the atheist position is that smart = atheist and dumb = theist is, some what ironically, a rather dumb misrepresentation of the position.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't suppose that. I think wealth, or more specifically financial stability, is a major aspect of atheism. I also think education is, or more specifically the development of various forms of critical thinking which are more likely to be found in high educated groups.

The theist strawman that the atheist position is that smart = atheist and dumb = theist is, some what ironically, a rather dumb misrepresentation of the position.

In fairness, it's not a theist strawman. I've seen it a number of times on this and the A&A forum.

twinQuins

ISAW wrote: »

I think I might just point out that Christians actually consider Christianity the best way to live and believe in coming together in communion to state that. When asked if atheism is the best way to live and whether atheism should be institutionalised, atheists usually sidestep this with a "I don't speak for all atheists".

This just in: everyone has their own opinions; what insanity!

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In fairness, it's not a theist strawman. I've seen it a number of times on this and the A&A forum.

I'm sure if you hang around this forum you will see a lot but it has been pointed out to you guys many times before that it isn't my position and isn't the position of most of the regular atheist posters. We have had more than one discussion about this on the A&A forum where it as a very minority view point.

I'm not quite sure how many more times this needs to be explained before you guys stop using it as the default atheist position. It seems some what opportunistic.

nozzferrahhtoo

ISAW wrote: »

This is misleading and has been commented on by me before. I usually use the word "mainstream" to denote 80 to 90 per cent of christians.

Based on what calculation are you getting 80 to 90%? For example loo kat the HUGE % of people in the US who are young earth creationist. Are you factoring them into your calculation, because it seems to me their views are wholly divergent and incompatible with the vast majority of people on THIS forum. Yet they call themselves Christian and Catholic and so on and would considering YOU to be the heretic in this. Just look at the Catholic League in the US for one of many examples of this.

Do you mean 80% of people posting here? Or what?

nozzferrahhtoo

StealthRolex wrote: »

So tell me - what is the bible of atheism so I can find some terms of reference?

I am not at all aware of ever having claimed there is one. Remember atheism is only a term to describe what people are not, not what they are. It tells you nothing about a person of any note, similar to me saying “That person does not have a moustache”.

“Atheist” is not even a term I use ever to describe myself. I am merely a person who lives by the credo:

If a proposition is presented to me that is devoid of any evidence, argument, reasons or data to lend it a modicum of credence then I dismiss it until such time as it does.

That credo (given no one has ever presented me with a shred of even a scrap of evidence to suggest that a non-human intelligence has created and is subsequently maintaining our universe) leads OTHER people to call me “atheist”. I never call myself it unless I require an easy term of reference.

StealthRolex wrote: »

I would prefer it if you talked to me rather than about me. What you say about me in my absence is your business but it is a little rude.

This is nothing at all more than cheap points scoring. It is perfectly apparent that when I said "about" I was talking with you about talking about it with you (sic). Do you want to discuss or lash out with cheap shots by twisting my words to make it look like I was taking about you behind your back?

StealthRolex wrote: »

So you came in to a thread in the Christianity forum to progress the thought that there is no God. Is that correct?

No, I am on MANY forums of this sort to investigate the claim that there is, not to progress the claim that there is not. It is after all a gigantically important claim and were it to be true the entire way I live my life may be in error. I owe it to myself to investigate the claim.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Can you point out where I called you or anyone else here a fool? or mad?

First you might point out where I claimed you did.

After you fail to find that I think you will find that I claimed the Bible does this, and advertisements, and I COMPARED your approach to that. The difference between comparing two actions and saying that the person who did action 1 also did action 2 is a little off topic, but if you want help with it we can move it to PM.

nozzferrahhtoo

Miracletown wrote: »

"religious people are delusional brainwashed idiots and I will fight their message of stupidity"

If you find people espousing that approach then I will likely join you in condemning them.

However that approach is not my approach and you have now stopped talking WITH me and chosen to speak PAST me about someone else.

Again, my main point is to compare the difference... IS there a logical pathway from Christianity and violence, fear or hatred? The answer to this is clearly yes. I am making this point without accusing anyone in particular of engaging in it. Even if no one engaged in it, ever, even once, this is irrelevant to the question I am asking. I am merely asking is the pathway THERE.

Is there a logical pathway to being unconvinced there is a god to these things however ... I am yet to be shown a single one. Ever. So maybe after saying this...

Miracletown wrote: »

But I also don't think that means that atheists can't be violent and hateful based on their atheism, just as Christians can with their Christianity. Once again its all about application of those beliefs.

... you can show me one such logical pathway of application?

StealthRolex

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Based on what calculation are you getting 80 to 90%? For example loo kat the HUGE % of people in the US who are young earth creationist. Are you factoring them into your calculation, because it seems to me their views are wholly divergent and incompatible with the vast majority of people on THIS forum. Yet they call themselves Christian and Catholic and so on and would considering YOU to be the heretic in this. Just look at the Catholic League in the US for one of many examples of this.

Do you mean 80% of people posting here? Or what?

Whatever about certain Christian flavours in America being literal with the Book of Genesis if you are going to lump in the Catholics with the Creationsits you had better be able to support that allegation before you factor them in to your calculations.

nozzferrahhtoo

StealthRolex wrote: »

Whatever about certain Christian flavours in America being literal with the Book of Genesis if you are going to lump in the Catholics with the Creationsits you had better be able to support that allegation before you factor them in to your calculations.

But I am not lumping anyone with anyone at all. Have you actually been reading what I am writing? I am arguing AGAINST any such lumping by pointing out that the phrase “The Christian” is meaningless in that there are so many divergent (read "unlumped together" if it helps you) branches of Christianity with often mutually incompatible views, that we simply can not lump them together.

It is people throwing about phrases like “The Christian believes….” That are lumping them all together, not me. And those people when shown Christians who believe something terrible then have to throw around phrases like "Oh but they aren't _proper_ Christians".

This is why I entered this thread saying that it is pointless to play name bingo and find people who were Christian who did awful things and thereby try and paint Christianity in a bad light. As a non-subscriber to the notion that there is a god myself, I cringe when I see people such as atheists engage in this behaviour.

Take for example the Christians in the US who recently let their daughter die of a very mild case of a very treatable strain of diabetes because they believed their Christian beliefs told them not to use modern medicine. At no point do you see ME doing what people do and say “Look what Christians believe and where it leads”.

Instead I stand back and ask “Is there in fact a logical pathway between Christian beliefs and what that couple did?”. Having found the answer is yes we have to work together Christian and Atheist alike to ensure such acts are not perpetrated and show people like this how they were wrong in their behaviour.

And if you can find an atheist who espoused or perpetrated horrid acts, then similarly I have to ask “Is there anything in their lack of belief in god that led them there” and no one, ever, yourself included, has shown me a single logical link between the two. So the actions of these people and their motivation lie elsewhere and we owe it to ourselves as a species to find out where.

StealthRolex

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And if you can find an atheist who espoused or perpetrated horrid acts, then similarly I have to ask “Is there anything in their lack of belief in god that led them there” and no one, ever, yourself included, has shown me a single logical link between the two. So the actions of these people and their motivation lie elsewhere and we owe it to ourselves as a species to find out where.

de Sade, Marquis. French atheist

nozzferrahhtoo

Ok so there is an atheist. He did awful things. So as I said I now, true to my word, have to ask:

“Is there anything in their lack of belief in god that led them there”

Nope. Cant find a thing. Can you?

StealthRolex

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Based on what calculation are you getting 80 to 90%? For example loo kat the HUGE % of people in the US who are young earth creationist. Are you factoring them into your calculation, because it seems to me their views are wholly divergent and incompatible with the vast majority of people on THIS forum. Yet they call themselves Christian and Catholic and so on and would considering YOU to be the heretic in this. Just look at the Catholic League in the US for one of many examples of this.

Do you mean 80% of people posting here? Or what?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But I am not lumping anyone with anyone at all. Have you actually been reading what I am writing? I am arguing AGAINST any such lumping by pointing out that the phrase “The Christian” is meaningless in that there are so many divergent (read "unlumped together" if it helps you) branches of Christianity with often mutually incompatible views, that we simply can not lump them together.

You were saying?

It looks a bit link lumping to me but then again I might not be interpreting you correctly.

nozzferrahhtoo

StealthRolex wrote: »

I might not be interpreting you correctly.

No you are not. You would do well to read the bit you highlighted. It starts with “Yet they call themselves….”

People calling themselves something is not the same as me calling them something or lumping them in with anything.

It is THESE people who call themselves catholic, not me. So as I said, you can not talk about the beliefs of "The Catholic" as they are completely divergent, and just because a huge number of them think the earth is 6000 years old, does not mean I lump you in with them and think that you think that too.

Which is why I said a few times now, that you speak for yourself, not "The Christian". We simply can not lump everyone together under "Christian" so easily.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm sure if you hang around this forum you will see a lot but it has been pointed out to you guys many times before that it isn't my position and isn't the position of most of the regular atheist posters. We have had more than one discussion about this on the A&A forum where it as a very minority view point.

I'm not quite sure how many more times this needs to be explained before you guys stop using it as the default atheist position. It seems some what opportunistic.

You made the assumption that I was talking about intelligence. We were talking about education, not intelligence. They can be mutually exclusive.

It would be nice if you didn't insert generalisations into your snooty chastisement. Frankly, I don't hang on every post that is created in the A&A forum, nor do I consult my fellow Christians as to what patiently explained position we will ignore.

I've seen enough people claim that religious people are stoopid (here is an ironically idiotic example) to believe that there is a vocal minority out there. If you aren't one of them that's great. I'll buy you a pint. But lets not pretend that it's all a Christian attempt at strawmanning, or that I said (or even implied) it is the default position of all atheists.

StealthRolex

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Ok so there is an atheist. He did awful things. So as I said I now, true to my word, have to ask:

“Is there anything in their lack of belief in god that led them there”

Nope. Cant find a thing. Can you?

Donatien Alphonse-Francois De Sade (1740-1814)
De Sade was a French aristocrat and philosopher, as well as a writer of extreme pornography (the term 'sadism' derives from his name). In De Sade's view, atheism legitimised sexual experimentation, since without a God there was no justification for setting any limits on human action. De Sade was in this sense an example of Enlightenment philosophy taken to its extreme, advocating total freedom and recognising pleasure alone as the goal of life

source: http://www.investigatingatheism.info/whoswhoeighteenth.html#sade

PDN

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Ok so there is an atheist. He did awful things. So as I said I now, true to my word, have to ask:

“Is there anything in their lack of belief in god that led them there”

Nope. Cant find a thing. Can you?

I'm thinking of Ian Brady (the Moors Murderer). It would appear that his atheism led him directly to a point where the lack of any accountability to a higher power provided the logic for him exercising control over those he deemed weaker than himself.

StealthRolex

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No you are not. You would do well to read the bit you highlighted. It starts with “Yet they call themselves….”

People calling themselves something is not the same as me calling them something or lumping them in with anything.

It is THESE people who call themselves catholic, not me. So as I said, you can not talk about the beliefs of "The Catholic" as they are completely divergent, and just because a huge number of them think the earth is 6000 years old, does not mean I lump you in with them and think that you think that too.

Which is why I said a few times now, that you speak for yourself, not "The Christian". We simply can not lump everyone together under "Christian" so easily.

You appear to be asserting that there are a large number of US Catholics who are also young earth creationists. Is this correct?

nozzferrahhtoo

PDN wrote: »

I'm thinking of Ian Brady (the Moors Murderer). It would appear that his atheism led him directly to a point where the lack of any accountability to a higher power provided the logic for him exercising control over those he deemed weaker than himself.

I can sort of see what you are saying here, but is tthe opposite of what I am asking.

What is the logical pathway from the atheism to the actions he perpetrated? There is none being adumbrated here.

What you are showing however is having COME to the conclusion that he was going to do these actions, there was nothing in atheism to PREVENT him from doing so. This is an argument where you will get NO disagreement from me whatsoever. Atheism is a non-term for me, as I said similar to saying “That man has no moustache”. There is nothing in it that is capable of stopping someone for perpetrating such actions.

What that is not saying however, is that atheism got him there. It just did not stop him once he arrived. Do you think there is a logical pathway from the starting position that he did not believe in a god to saying “Therefore I must <insert his actions here>”? If so what is it?

nozzferrahhtoo

StealthRolex wrote: »

You appear to be asserting that there are a large number of US Catholics who are also young earth creationists. Is this correct?

No.

I am asserting three different things which you are molding into one thing that I am not asserting.

1) I am asserting there is a large number of US creationists.

2) I am then asserting that a large proportion of which CALL themselves „Christian“ and „Catholic“ and other such terms and claim thats where their creationism comes from.

3) I am asserting that we can not therefore lump all "catholics" and "Christians" together into a statement like "The Christian believes....." because the belief of people who subscribe to these labels varies so wildly.

As such I am actually defending Christianity from what I see as the pointless attacks such as "Look what this Christian did.... Christianity is therefore bad."

I am asking instead, is there a logical pathway from things they themselves believed to the outcomes that we observe and is so what are they so we can prevent it happening again.

strobe

ISAW wrote: »

I think I might...........

First you make a point of mentioning in several posts your idea that Stealth was fine in saying he could speak for the majority of Christians because "mainstream" Christians share a huge range of fundamental tenants. I have no problem with that, but the same simply can not be said of atheism. Atheists share one fundamental tenant: a lack of belief in a god. That's it. Full stop. I can speak for every single atheist that lives or has ever lived, when I say they do not believe in a god. Beyond that I have no possible way of knowing how they feel or what they believe about anything, at all. Side stepping has nothing to do with it.

I don't care that some random internet posters in some dark corner of the web posted something or even that "they admit to being atheists" :eek:. Unless what they said was, "atheists don't believe in a god", it is irrelevant to anyone but themselves.

If you ask nicely I will go find a few posts that Christians have posted, "admitted Christians" no less, and more than that one's that specifically state that they speak for all Christians, posts stating that children should be murdered for not going to mass, posts stating that muslims should be deported from any "Christian" countries, posts stating that Roman Catholics are all going to hell, posts stating that anyone that doesn't belong to their particular mini church will be destroyed during the rapture......

But I'm not going to do that, because despite you arguing that sometimes Christians are well within their rights to speak for fellow Christians, it would be a fallacious strawmanning display of other idiocy. A pathetic attempt to pick and choose random stuff posted by random people and then apply it to other unasocciated individuals. Please extend the same courtesy.....

Do you really not understand this? You have posted on the A&A forum many times. Apparently you have been reading many other atheist inspired forums/groups. Really now, be honest, do you still not get it? Please man, just get it! It's not that hard to grasp. Just get it!







I'm not even going to respond to the atheism ><= racism rubbish.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You made the assumption that I was talking about intelligence.

I did, considering ISAW mentioned the term "smarter" and you were replying to that conversation.

Anyway, I think its clear by now that this isn't my position, I'm not equating education with being smarter, so moving on as it were.

StealthRolex

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What is the logical pathway from the atheism to the actions he perpetrated? There is none being adumbrated here.

In the case of both de Sade and Brady you got sketchy outlines from which you can use your favourite search engine to trawl further to fill in the gaps.

it seems quite obvious in both cases that the choice to non longer accept a higher authority other than their own led them to dark places and that is about as reductionist an adumbration as I get put together.

StealthRolex

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No.

Ok

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am asserting three different things which you are molding into one thing that I am not asserting.

I'm just trying to understand the points

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

1) I am asserting there is a large number of US creationists.

accepted

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

2) I am then asserting that a large proportion of which CALL themselves „Christian“ and „Catholic“ and other such terms and claim thats where their creationism comes from.

not accepted. Granted there may be a small number of Catholics who are fundamentalist and do not listen to the Pope or accept Vatican guidelines on matters of science but mainstream Roman Catholicism does not hold with literal creationism in the way that young earth creationists do. By putting Christian and Catholic into the same sentence that refers to young earth creationists does read like you are lumping a significant proportion of divergent Christians in to the one basket.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

3) I am asserting that we can not therefore lump all "catholics" and "Christians" together into a statement like "The Christian believes....." because the belief of people who subscribe to these labels varies so wildly.

I think this has been dealt with elsewhere on this thread and while it is accepted that there are subtly different flavours there are core tenets. If I propose a point of view that is wildly different from the accepted Christian view then I would accept correction, explore the differences, or defend my position as an individual. If I find myself in error I can retract.
In the worst case if I differ "wildly" from another "Christian" I can make my point as a Catholic and stand by it, subject to correction of errors by anyone who knows better.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As such I am actually defending Christianity from what I see as the pointless attacks such as "Look what this Christian did.... Christianity is therefore bad."

Great. Appreciated. However I don't really understand your logic sometimes but I'm trying

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am asking instead, is there a logical pathway from things they themselves believed to the outcomes that we observe and is so what are they so we can prevent it happening again.

Now are we on "they", "the Christians" or "they", "the atheists" ?

When it comes to human nature logical pathways are difficult to trace. If you want to get reductionist or try to simplify human behaviour to the point of it being easily understood we could be here a long time.
In the case of the atheist philosophers we have their writings as well as some limited biographies and through these records we can try to tease out these pathways but without actually getting inside their heads and trying to understand the world as they saw (or see) it we are only ever going to have "best guess". There are no hard and fast answers.

For example - if I decided for the sake of argument to pursue an evening of atheistic amoralistic and unrestricted hedonism just to see what it is to be a particular type of atheist and wind up breaking as many Commandments as I can is there a logical pathway to be found give that such actions are illogical for a Catholic? The only logical reason is "why not?" and for a Catholic there are many reasons why not to. So why did I?
To answer that I have to let you inside my head and you don't want to be there any more than I would want you there.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

It does?

My understanding is that out of western world countries the US has one of the poorest track records in general 1st and 2nd level education.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/26/world/main530872.shtml

so now it isn't that atheism happens correlates with education but only with primary and secondary education?

Yes i know cuba probably has higher adult literacy than the US but your idea that atheism correlates with better education is unproven and elitist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Ranking_of_World_Universities
The US fairly holds its own at the elite top levels of education.

You think it is a coincidence that the percentage of atheists increases and the percentage of theists decreases as you go up in education brackets?

I think the vanishingly small percentage of atheists in the US really dont have any infulence on anything.

A 1995 survey attributed to the Encyclopædia Britannica indicates that the non-religious are about 14.7% of the world's population, and atheists around 3.8%
...
While there are more atheists than ever before, polls show that atheism's percentages seems to be declining
...

A 2004 survey by the Pew Research Center showed that in the United States, 12% of people under 30 and 6% of people over 30 could be characterized as non-religious.[8] A 2005 poll by AP/Ipsos surveyed ten countries. Of the developed nations, people in the United States were most sure of the existence of God or a higher power (2% atheist, 4% agnostic)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#Statistical_problems


Sinn Féin or the Communist Party have a Greater chance of getting into an overall majority government than atheists have of instututing any eliteist notions they might have comrade.

If course when it is pointed out to atheists that they are making such claims they usually sidestep the issue and claim atheism is only about not believing in God and nothing else such as like "having a better society because of atheism" Whenever atheists try to have an atheist society it results in carnage which they then blame on others and say it wasn't because of state atheism!


To quote fasgnadh again:
Denmark Sweden and Norway are NOT atheist states, like
most free, open democratic pluralist secular nations they are
Majority religious and atheists are a minority..
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/15d7cfa61592df27

That is some what irrelevant to the point though, isn't it?

No it isn't if by "better" yo mean "educated and atheist" whereas normal people believe "holy and decent" is much better than that.

ISAW

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Based on what calculation are you getting 80 to 90%? For example loo kat the HUGE % of people in the US who are young earth creationist. Are you factoring them into your calculation, because it seems to me their views are wholly divergent and incompatible with the vast majority of people on THIS forum. Yet they call themselves Christian and Catholic and so on and would considering YOU to be the heretic in this. Just look at the Catholic League in the US for one of many examples of this.

Do you mean 80% of people posting here? Or what?

funny i was banned from the atheism group for asking questions which they claimed "everybody is fed up restating" You could search "ISAW and mainstream Christians statistics"


Add them up:
http://www.adherents.com/adh_rb.html

Leave out the JW's and Adventists and see what you come up with!

also look up what I said about the magesterium and apostolic succession http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiology

Your "divide and conquer " tactics wont work on me comrade! I am clear about what i mean and it has already been defined ages ago. Orthodox, roman and Anglican is the vast bulk of the mainstream. That is the definition!

ISAW

Morkarleth wrote: »

This just in: everyone has their own opinions; what insanity!

You see whole as i pointed out atheists can hide behind "it is just my opinion" or "atheism is only about not believe in in God and no more " when it suits them mainstream Christians can't! They can't just make it up as they go along based on their opinion.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm sure if you hang around this forum you will see a lot but it has been pointed out to you guys many times before that it isn't my position and isn't the position of most of the regular atheist posters. We have had more than one discussion about this on the A&A forum where it as a very minority view point.

I'm not quite sure how many more times this needs to be explained before you guys stop using it as the default atheist position. It seems some what opportunistic.

See when atheists are pressed there is no dogma and they revert to "all atheists may believe in different things including what they think atheism is"

ISAW

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is THESE people who call themselves catholic, not me. So as I said, you can not talk about the beliefs of "The Catholic" as they are completely divergent,

WRONG! they aren't!

and just because a huge number of them think the earth is 6000 years old,

WRONG! they don't. Very few misinformed Catholics believe that. It isnt a part of Catholic dogma or faith.

does not mean I lump you in with them and think that you think that too.

It is quite simple. Catholics believe in the magesterium, apostolic succesion and the central dogmas of the church ie. the Trinity the Resurrection etc.

Which is why I said a few times now, that you speak for yourself, not "The Christian". We simply can not lump everyone together under "Christian" so easily.

Yes you can! I did and i called it mainstream. Other people call it "Universal" i.e. "Catholic"

ISAW

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No.

I am asserting three different things which you are molding into one thing that I am not asserting.

1) I am asserting there is a large number of US creationists.


2) I am then asserting that a large proportion of which CALL themselves „Christian“ and „Catholic“ and other such terms and claim thats where their creationism comes from.

3) I am asserting that we can not therefore lump all "catholics" and "Christians" together into a statement like "The Christian believes....." because the belief of people who subscribe to these labels varies so wildly.

How "large" is your "large number" . They are not catholics like fundamentalists atheists they are fundamentalist literal Christians.

And you CAN lump mainstream christians together!

Miracletown

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again, my main point is to compare the difference... IS there a logical pathway from Christianity and violence, fear or hatred? The answer to this is clearly yes. I am making this point without accusing anyone in particular of engaging in it. Even if no one engaged in it, ever, even once, this is irrelevant to the question I am asking. I am merely asking is the pathway THERE.

Is there a logical pathway to being unconvinced there is a god to these things however ... I am yet to be shown a single one. Ever. So maybe after saying this...

... you can show me one such logical pathway of application?

I don't believe the psychology of hatred needs a logical pathway from a specific belief, that's my point. The logical pathway to any act of hate, fear, violence etc.. is when there are other people with different opinions to you who you can turn into the "other".

Christians don't commit violent acts against homosexuals because the Bible condemns homosexuality, they commit violent acts because they turn homosexuals into the enemy and they foster an attitude of hate towards them.

The real question is what causes hate? What causes violence? I don't think your logical pathway is the answer. I will admit that religious texts could be used to reinforce attitudes of hatred or prejudice but no way is there a causal link to acts of violence which somehow isn't present in atheism.

Do you think there is a logical pathway from the starting position that he did not believe in a god to saying “Therefore I must <insert his actions here>”? If so what is it?

I also would say look up some reports from Christians who are persecuted for their faith. There have been an awful lot of people killed because they won't renounce their belief in God. The real logical pathway is that they had a different opinion and ended up in a place where peer validation led to horrific acts being committed against them in the name of non-belief. (First step of the seven-stage hate model)

What is the logical pathway from belief in God to "Therefore I must<insert his actions here>"? Once again the only way you can make this argument is if you define atheism in nice general "don't tie it down" kind of way and make belief in God or religion considered in all its contexts whether abused or used well.

ISAW wrote: »

See when atheists are pressed there is no dogma and they revert to "all atheists may believe in different things including what they think atheism is"

I think this is very relevant to this discussion.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

so now it isn't that atheism happens correlates with
education but only with primary and secondary education?

What?

You said America has a world class education system. It doesn't. It has a poor education system. It has a pretty good 3rd level education system, but only 27% of the population ever finish that, and some excellent private 3rd level colleges which only a tiny proportion of the population ever go to and where atheism is found to be disproportionately higher than in the general population.

Atheism in the general population is 7%. In professors in community colleges it is 15%. In professors in the elite colleges you praise so highly it is 37%. The more educationally elite the institution the higher the rate of atheism.

ISAW wrote: »

Yes i know cuba probably has higher adult literacy than the US but your idea that atheism correlates with better education is unproven and elitist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Ranking_of_World_Universities
The US fairly holds its own at the elite top levels of education.

And atheism is dis-proportionally found in these institutions.

You can't appeal to the general population to say that atheism is tiny and then restrict your educational viewpoint to colleges like Harvard. Most people don't go to Harvard so the level of atheism in the general population is of no baring.

ISAW wrote: »

Sinn Féin or the Communist Party have a Greater chance of getting into an overall majority government than atheists have of instututing any eliteist notions they might have comrade.

What does that have to do with anything?

ISAW wrote: »

Whenever atheists try to have an atheist society it results in carnage which they then blame on others and say it wasn't because of state atheism!

Again I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, but given that there is nothing in atheism about how you should or should not react to theism (or react to anything for that matter) it is some what nonsensical to say anything was because of state atheism.

I assume you mean state anti-theism.

ISAW wrote: »

fasgnadh

Who the feck is "fasgnadh" and why should I care what he says?

ISAW wrote: »

No it isn't if by "better" yo mean "educated and atheist" whereas normal people believe "holy and decent" is much better than that.

I don't think how "holy" a person is should have any bearing on whether you provide educational facilities to him. It is irrelevant.

I really hope you aren't suggesting we don't provide education facilities to people because it will decrease the number of holy decent people are around.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

See when atheists are pressed there is no dogma and they revert to "all atheists may believe in different things including what they think atheism is"

You will also notice we do this when not pressed. :pac:

If you are getting frustrated that you can't attack my ideology perhaps it would be an idea to realise that atheism isn't my ideology, social democracy and humanism is, and attack that instead.

But then I guess you can't bring up Stalin and Hitler, so where is the fun in that.

PDN

ISAW wrote: »

funny i was banned from the atheism group for asking questions which they claimed "everybody is fed up restating"

Let's not discuss the moderation of another forum here please.

nozzferrahhtoo

StealthRolex wrote: »

In the case of both de Sade and Brady you got sketchy outlines from which you can use your favourite search engine to trawl further to fill in the gaps.

I am not about to trawl two long biographies trying to find out what other people mean by THEIR statements. If they think there is a link between X and Y then it is up to them to adumbrate that link for further exploration, not for me to do it for them.

nozzferrahhtoo

not accepted. Granted there may be a small number of Catholics who are fundamentalist and do not listen to the Pope or accept Vatican guidelines on matters of science but mainstream Roman Catholicism does not hold with literal creationism in the way that young earth creationists do. By putting Christian and Catholic into the same sentence that refers to young earth creationists does read like you are lumping a significant proportion of divergent Christians in to the one basket.

Again it is not ME that calls such people Christian or Catholic. It is those people who call themselves such things, like Bill ODonoghue and all his followers, Ken Ham and all his followers, the currently imprisoned for his crimes Kent Hovind and all his followers. I could go on at length. These people call THEMSELVES Catholics and Christian and if you have a problem with them being lumped in with those labels, then it is not me your disagreement lies with but the people themselves.

To answer that I have to let you inside my head and you don't want to be there any more than I would want you there.

Well I would start by answering that there is no logical link between atheism and those actions, and hence the source of your actions probably lies with the "hedonism" part of what you stated. Hedonism and Atheism being totally unrelated and all that.

Which brings me back to the as yet unanswered question. Can you show any logical link starting from atheism and ending with the actions mentioned in this thread, other than "X did those actions, X was also an atheist".

nozzferrahhtoo

ISAW wrote: »

Your "divide and conquer " tactics wont work on me comrade!

Ok. Luckily those tactics only exist in your head and have nothing to do with my actual tactics or anything I am actually espousing then isn’t it?

nozzferrahhtoo

ISAW wrote: »

WRONG! they don't. Very few misinformed Catholics believe that. It isnt a part of Catholic dogma or faith.

I never claimed it was. Once. Ever. Just once you might do me the service of replying to something I have actually said??

nozzferrahhtoo

Miracletown wrote: »

I don't believe the psychology of hatred needs a logical pathway from a specific belief

Nor do I, but I am not talking about NEED, I am talking about IS. My question was simply IS there such a path way there? If so where.

If you believe the creator of the universe hates homosexuals then there is a pathway there to share that view with him for example, regardless of whether you take that path way or not. Some do, with gusto.

As yet unanswered, by anyone on the thread, is my question: IS there any pathway to be shown that links “I see no reason to grant credence to the claim there is a god” and the atrocities being listed on this thread. Every single person is running away from that question and not one person has attempted an answer…

… actually one has, but the best they could come up with was not a logical pathway, but that having GOT to that place, atheism did nothing to STOP them perpetrating the actions. This was an attempt to answer my question but in fact is answering a question I never asked.