Seperating the real atheists from the fake ones... a Christians perspective. [Trollville]
Offline I've read some of the posts in these threads and have not been impressed with the logic or "rationality" that has been on display. I believe that many of you don't go far enough in your atheism and have instead decided to rest on the fringes. Taking advantage of the foundations (particularly if you are a westerner) built by moralists and theists, when in fact, the very nature of your belief system not only militates against a morals based worldview, but in fact totally eschews it.
Personally, as a Christian, I dont feel a need to defend Christianity, when the clear irrationality of Atheistic and humanistic views are far more fertile for discussion. I think it is time we seperate the real Atheists from the fake ones.
I believe Atheism if truely believed, ultimately ends in insanity, irrationality and incoherence.
How so, If Atheism is true, meaning that there is no God, then man's highest end is to fulfill his own self interests. Morals, notions of right and wrong, good and bad do not exist and are in fact meaningless.
Logic and reason both exist, but do not need to be accepted, since they may ( or may not) interfere with my desire to fulfill my own self interests. The highest order is self actualization and self fulfillment, not logical consistency or even coherence, since my feelings may change at a moments notice.
There is more to the discussion, but I'll wait for a response.
My real hope is that the world would fall into the hands of the real atheists... you know the kind I mean, the kind who say: "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy... " or the kind who say "life is ultimately futile and bereft of meaning" or the kind who believe like the Nazi's did, that man is whatever you define him to be, and that right and wrong are only ephemeral notions with no real root in the real world. Those are the real Atheist as Nietszche reasoned who will to power...
I'd love to see what that kind of world looks like. I say away with the Fake atheists and lets let the real ones rule.
- Login to post comments
Children of God and God the Father terms often used to describe the relationship Christians have with their God. God created man out of love, this seems to be his most noble purpose or does he have one more noble than you?
My greatest purpose for being here happens to be my children are you indicating that purpose doesn't suffice and that I should have a purpose more nobel than loving my children, seems to work for your God?
Since I think we can see love and compassion can exist outside the realm of you and your God. Self interest is not the only alternative so your statement is false.
Just a thought.
Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs
Atheism 101:
Atheism is not a belief.
This.
Also, Lhill used No True Scotsman and Ad Hominem.
Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.
Lhill, I think you should probably take the time to read the rules. You have already broken rule 2.1. as documented below, slandering atheists without any arguing to back up that assertion. You say that atheism logically ends up at nihilism and yet you don't show why. Would you care to present a clear deductive argument? I could say that logically theism ends up at suicide bombers. This is probably not true but my assertion would be no different from yours. If you antagonise the members in future I will have to give you a warning. As you are new I will let you off with the benefit of the doubt.
2.1. Antagonism.
Antagonism is giving one or more members a hard time. Cases typically comprise a series of provocations, each not necessarily sanctionable in its own right. Incidents can include, but are by no means limited to the following:
The notoriously fickle and blurry nature of such exchanges makes it near-impossible to draw up a hardcoded definition of what exactly constitutes Antagonism. Moderators are more often than not simply forced to draw upon their vast and collective experience to adjudicate when enough is enough and take whatever steps they deem necessary in order to keep the peace, good will and reputation of the board.
Atheist Books
You are not alone.
However, I'm on the other side of the barricade.
Something that should summarize the situation: in the eyes of a crazy man, YOU are the one that is crazy...
Any suggestions?
It is a very good thing that you say "moralists and theists" as if they were sepparate entities. They actually are, in fact, but I'm glad you see the difference yourself.
The very nature of our belief system DOESN'T militate against a moral-based worldview. Being an atheist doesn't mean that you are also supposed to be an anarchist, or one with an extreme dictatorial view.
Let me give you the following picture:
- what happens if you take out morality, but leave religion? will people stop killing each other, because, even if they have no morality, they have fear of God? well... umm... not exactly... and if there is an example better than 9/11, please show it to me.
- what happens if you take out religion, and leave morality? will people stop killing each other? well, difficult to believe that, but at least they will not live with fear in their hearts, they will not be in a constant mentality of "believe, don't seek", they will no longer be "sheep", unless they really and consciously want to. Furthermore, many people will no longer have religion as a pretext/excuse for their actions
- what happens if you take out both? well... make sure you have a deep-enough bunker, lots of food and water and a few pair of lead underpants...
Now... ask yourself again... it's obvious that atheists want a world without any religion, but do they want a world without morality as well?
What is that "clear irrationality" you're talking about? Care to give a few examples ... ?
Because it seems to us atheists that YOU are the ones irrational... and up to now we have pretty good reasons to believe that, whereas you... have none.
But anyway, I agree. Let's separate the true atheists from the fake ones. How?
Remember: "I believe..."
What, is the picture too grim for you? Have you watched too many movies with a happy end?
Let's get clear on something: no matter how deep the shit may look, it's still possible for it to actually be that deep...
It seems to me that you completely fail to understand the very nature of logic. Tell me, how do your feelings affect the logic law "A = A" ?
You say those are the real atheists? I'm curious... how did you reach such a conclusion?
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
I just have to say this. There was a time when religion ruled the world and everyone believed in god, this we call the dark ages.
You're basically suggesting that to be an atheist, one must either be a hedonist or a sociopath. You clearly haven't a clue what atheism is.
I'd suggest that you peruse the site a little more and you'll find a wealth of information regarding morals.
I haven't gotten a laugh this good in awhile, btw. Thanks.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
If I might be so bold as to make an observation. If we continue to send all of these sorts of posts to Trollville, we will have very few theists with whom to have discussion. I understand that we must train them in our rules, but many posts are being sent here without truly heinous reasons. *shrug* If you kill the fox too soon, then what fun is the hunt?
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
That sums up my beliefs quite well, actually.
To be honest, I would love it if all atheists were sociopathic nihilists. Life would be much more interesting, I think. Such as it is, however, not all atheists are sociopaths, nihilists, existentialists, are otherwise bum-fuck crazy and irrational characters.
Still, one can look to the future with hopeful eyes...
And this is bad because....?
Well first of all, let me note that this argument commits the fallacy of arguing to dire consequences. Even if it were true that a lack of a god would mean morals are non existent and that any apparent moral system is actually a facade,, this would not require that a god exist to avoid the dilemma! One might as well argue that a person falling from the Empire state building must have a parachute, otherwise, he'd die!
Second, your claim is a non sequitur. The fact that morals are not given to us by some supernatural entity would not mean that they do not exist. It would merely mean that they were created by humans.
This in turn would not mean that morality could not be, at least in part, objective. A man made moral system can be both objective and inter-subjective.
I find this a hollow complaint from a person of faith. Faith, after all, is belief without justication, or in the face of negating evidence!
Your claim also assumes that self interest need not also consider the desire to be reasonable! Do you know about Leon Festinger's concept of Cognitive Dissonance? People also desire to be consistent in their thinking.
The problem with this claim is that self actualization can be predicated on logical consistency!
Ironically, I can think of one position that automatically rejects the need for logical consistency: THEISM!
Your 'real atheist' is a strawman built out of your ignorance of what atheism actually implies: a lack of belief in the claims of theists qua theism. In addition, while you've used some psychological terms, you don't seem to realize that self actualization is not antithetical to reason, in fact, cognitive dissonance alone drives people towards consistency. Finally, you don't really seem to know much about moral philosophy. I don't see why you think you can pontificate on matters upon which you ignorant in a public forum: others will know where you go astray, and they will not take you seriously...
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Gosh, what an insult. If we don't believe in God, life after death and the so-called "ultimate purpose", then how is that supposed to make us insane and irrational? It's not like some emotion appealing, man-made "ultimate purpose" defines our existence. Life, universe and everything may just be completely purposeless physical processes, and all these "morals" and "sufferings" are just man-made terms.
And what the heck is wrong with you? Life may be more interesting, yes, but it would suck even harder than having religion in the world.
Trust and believe in no god, but trust and believe in yourself.
Theist argument checklist
A collective score of over 100 = fundythink (tm)
a collective score over 300 = an honorary doctorate in Fundi-logic
a collective score of over 500 = The winner of the Willow Tree Memorial Award for Advanced Schizophrenic Thinking
Step 1
The theist comes in to announce:
[] Atheists are rude (1 point)
[] A confusion between agnosticism and atheism ( 5 points)
[x] Atheists are immoral or amoral (5 points)
[x] Atheists are all dishonest (5 points)
[x] Atheism does not exist - (10 points) Add 10 points if the theist claims atheists are simply lying about being atheists add 20 points if they hold that atheists are atheists because they are controlled by satan Add 50 points if they hold that a loving god purposely deludes people into being atheists.
[x] Atheists are all fools/ignorant (10 points)
[x] Atheism is akin to, or responsible for nazism, stalinism/socialism (20 points)
[] Atheists are just angry at god/Atheism is just a situational response to current circumstances/bad life events (20 points)
[] "Atheists must rely on faith" - i.e. anything that implies a confusion between contingent and non contingent faith "(25 points) 25 Bonus points if they fail to see that their argument undermines their own belief in the value of faith.
[] Atheism is a 'religion' (25 points)
[x] Any argument that holds that there is one specific "atheist worldview" and/or confuses atheism with naturalism or materialism. (25 points)
[] Atheism is contradicted by modern science (25 points)
[x] Anything that amounts to a shifting of the burdon of proof fallacy (25 points)
[] That 'fallback atheism' still has a burdon of proof, even after having this fallacy pointed out (50 points)
[] "Darwinism" is evil, or a conspiracy (50 points)
subtract 5 points if the theist is polite without being passive aggressive.
add 10 points if the poster is rude or dismissive right from the start.
add 20 points if the poster considers politeness to be an avoidance of outright insults while passively aggressively insulting everyone.
The theist's argument is:
[] a poorly worded rehash of Pascal's wager (5 points)
[] Can you see the wind? (5 points)
[] One most know everything before one can make even one negative claim (5 points) add 10 points if they persist in this argument even after being asked for their certain knowledge that one must have certain knowledge before making claims.
[] a cosmological argument (5 points) (Add 10 points if the theist has no background in science outside of a high school dipoloma, let alone a background in cosmology)
[] Argument from desire (10 points)
[] an anthropic argument/fine tuning of the universe argument (5 points) (add 10 points if the theist has no clear background in science or cosmology outside of a high school diploma and the information available on Ken Hovidnd's videos)
[] a teleological argument (20 points)
[] An argument to morality: i.e. Morals must be objective in order to make any sense/atheists cannot have morals without a god to inflict punishment (20 points)
[x] C. S. Lewis' argument for the impossibilty of a natural moral conscious (25 points)
[] Any argument to ignorance concerning the existence of the universe, (let's call this the "Then How Did We Get Here" argument), that implies that any failure to answer means god must be the answer (25 points) (Also add points for the false dichtomy fallacy)
[] Any form of the kalam argument. (25 points) Add 25 points if they fail to see the error in holding that an infinite had a starting point an infinite amount of time ago, when an infinite would never have a starting point in the first place!)
[] 'Any god of the gaps argument in general'
[x] An attack on atheism for the supposed behavior of atheists (35 points)
[] An attack on "Darwinism" (50 points)
[] The bible is inerrant (50 points) Add another 10 points for circular logic if they use the "Gastrich" defense of this claim: "we must accept that the bible is inerrant, so any claim of acontradiction itself must be in error"
[] That adam and eve knew the difference between good and evil prior to learning the forbidden knowledge of the difference between good and evil (50 points)
[] a young earth creationist argument (99 points)
[] a presuppositionalist argument (99 points)
[] Universal skepticism (100 points Add 100 more points if they fail to grasp that this implies an acceptance of nihilism)
Add 10 points if the theist assumes that no one on the site is likely to have heard this argument before.
Add 20 points is he or she delcares that any above argument is new or unique.
The theist cites the following evidence:
In general:
[] Argument from authority: Newton, or some famous scientist, was a theist (and actually was, 3 points)
[] Einstein, or some other famous scientist, was a theist. (and actually wasn't, 5 points)
[] Some famous killer/criminal was an atheist (7 points)
[x] Hitler/Stalin/Nazis was/were (an) atheist (10 points / also stop the thread for a Godwin violation)
[] biblical prophecies (25 points)
[] biblical prophecies, after being taught the concepts of "vagueness" and "postdiction" and having it pointed out to him or her that the New testament is a midrash - i.e. that events were written to fit "prophecies" in the first place (50 points)
[x] Arguments that hold that failure to prove a negative implies that the positive assertion must automatically be true (50 points - also score for the fallacy of correct by default, arguing to ignorance and shifting the burdon of proof)
[] Arguments that since god's apophatic nature sheild him from disproof (APATHEIA) we must accept god as an existent (circular logic) (50 points)
[] Any argument that implies dogmatism is superior to induction, because inductive methods may be wrong (argument to uncertainty) (75 points)
[] Anything supporting anti-intellectualism (75 points)
[] Any argument that implies that fanaticism of belief is correlated with validity of belief (99 points)
Logic Section:
[] The theist makes an ad populum argument (5 points)
[] appeal to incredulity or personal wonder (5 points)
[] appeal to antiquity (5 points)
[] appeal to normalacy (5 points)
[] appeal to authority (5 points)
[x] naked assertions (10 points_
[] argument to uncertainty(i.e. holding that since inductive methods are not certain, that this means that all inductive claims are probably false) (10 points)
[] an appeal to faith as the basis for an argument (10 points)
[] Weak analogy (10 points)
[x] No True scotsman fallacy (10 points)
[] Reification (25 points)
[] Circular logic (25 points)
[] Ad Hocism (25 points)
[] A theist incorrectly accusses another of an informal logic fallacy (10 points. 20 bonus points if they commit the very fallacy they are acusing you of in their post.
[] an ad bacculum Fallacy (25 points) 50 hypocrisy points if they use threats after scolding atheists for being immoral or rude.
[] Self refutation (50 points)
The theists final response in the thread includes:
[] The declaration of a moral victory, based on the fact that he was insulted. (25 points. Subtract 5 points if he was actually insulted at some point. Add 10 points if the sole "insult" was that he was told he was ignorant of the subject.)
[] The declaration of an outright victory, without responding to a point by point refutation (50 points)
[] Prayers for the lost souls (50 points)
[] Damnation threats (50 points)
[] A comment such as "be well" that was preceded by at least 3 insults (100 hypocrisy points)
Special behaviors:
[] Actual physical threats (300 points)
[] Cyber stalking (300 points)
[] Attempts to bring down the site (300 points)
[] Returning to the site using another name, such as "atheist hater" or "athelogian" or "I hate atheists" (500 points)
[] Creating false accounts so as to sign on and agree with your own posts.
(500 points)
Current score: 215
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Probably more than I will ever know. Once my psychology teacher presented me with Heinz Dilemma. I told him that I thought that not only should Heinz have stolen the drug, but he also should have murdered the druggist and burnt his drugstore to the ground. He asked me why on earth I felt Heinz should do that, and I replied, "So if his wife ever gets sick again, the next druggist to come into town knows not to fuck with him." He looked very troubled.
I don't see how it would suck "harder," being that I don't see that having religion in the world necessarily sucks.
And your opinions mean so much to me. Care to try and show how morals mean nothing to a society without god? Good luck.
You don't know what atheism really is without subjectively contrasting it your theism.
Self contradictory. It's in mans self interest to be moral.
Translation: You know you are irrational, and think it's the way you should be if it makes you all warm and fuzzy inside.
You want a fascist government? I suggest North Korea.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
For someone who buys Pascal's Wager I'm not too hurt...
Don't go far enough? What do you expect? All a person has to do to be an atheist is not buy into the idea of a god, thats it.
Morals and foundations, hmmm. I hope you don't think the US is a christian nation or theism is needed for morals.
I find it interesting that you say you don't need to defend a positive claim when you also claim it would be so easy.
Ok but first lets separate the real christians from the fake ones, the real muslims from the fake ones, the real americans from the fake ones, the real russians from the fake ones, etc.
All that is needed to be atheist is lack a belief in god, to add to this and claim everything else is false is called a no true scottsmen.
Interesting claim lets see if you can prove it.
First flaw. Empathy is a natural part of the mind for social creators. It is needed for them to be able to interact and morality is impossible without it. After all without being able to precise how others might feel how is a person going to know harm is being done? With theses feelings for others the fulfillment of ones self could in fact be the betterment of mankind.
They will exist as an idea and words to get those ideas across, but they are not absolute.
Today reason and logic do not need to be accepted by people from a number of world views, so this point is weak from the start. However the idea that logic and reason are going to be cast aside for self interests is a false one. It is far more likely that emotions would cause logic or reason to be ignored in many cases against a persons self interests.
You paint these desires as some how evil or wrong. These desires our what make a person them and is a motivation to do things beyond just staying alive. I also find it ironic that you would attack someone for having emotions as that seems to be what a theist would base their belief on.
Taking aspects of Nietzsche to heart isn't a must for an atheist. This would be like saying you must hold the same views of X philosopher because he believe in god.
The closest thing you are going to get to an atheist government is a secular one. It just so happens that those countries with secular governments have rather high scores on Human Development Index.
[MOD EDIT - fixed quotes]
LOL, todangst where did you get that?
I said that Heinz should not have stolen the drug, and that he should just let his wife die. That option should get the least harm done. But this doesn't have anything to do with the thread. I was just saying.
Trust and believe in no god, but trust and believe in yourself.
WTF? I could, essentially, deduct that you believe atheism is a wide swath of incoherent beliefs. The one and ONLY idea atheism is - is the lack of belief in any deity. There is no emperical or logical evidence for any deity - so such a position simply falls in line with natural coherence. That is all atheism is - end of story.
For other beliefs, a person must ascribe to other philosophies. For example, if you believe that people have inherent equal rights, whether these rights be given by social consensus or a deity, you have definite humanist influence.
If you are avidly against deities (and, perhaps, their followers) then you are an antitheist. If you believe every thought, event, physical object, viewpoint of reality is entirely subjective - then you're probably a nihilist.
I could expound on various philosophies and fill pages and pages here...
I, personally, am an atheist - but NOT an antitheist. To pretend that atheism, itself - has all these extra strata to be taken as granted for being associated with atheism is beyond naive.
Grow up and learn about what you're refering to before you spout this absurd and ignorant nonsense.