|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Apr 26, 2019 23:10:35 GMT
No, you don't. You still get indoctrinated into a system. You still get told what to do. And you still have to take responsibility for it. No, This is where you theists get it all wrong.. There are as many different 'atheists' as there are people who just don't believe in a God or gods. We may ( and do ) have many different beliefs with only one thing in common...a lack of belief in God. You lot like to spin it as though it is alternate religion, however it is far from it. Then you had better get organized and come up with a plan, because we still outnumber you more than a million to one. 
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 26, 2019 23:47:37 GMT
No, This is where you theists get it all wrong.. There are as many different 'atheists' as there are people who just don't believe in a God or gods. We may ( and do ) have many different beliefs with only one thing in common...a lack of belief in God. You lot like to spin it as though it is alternate religion, however it is far from it. Then you had better get organized and come up with a plan, because we still outnumber you more than a million to one. Like many things in this world, you are not understanding the concept.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Apr 27, 2019 0:04:47 GMT
Then you had better get organized and come up with a plan, because we still outnumber you more than a million to one. Like many things in this world, you are not understanding the concept. Yes, much like manmade "global warming." 
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 27, 2019 0:25:08 GMT
Like many things in this world, you are not understanding the concept. Yes, much like manmade "global warming." Amongst a host of other issues, yes. Anyone who is a conspiracy theorist based on YouTube videos is the stupidest of the stupid with no critical thinking skills.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 27, 2019 6:19:09 GMT
There are plenty of religions of peace. It is the people of peace that are in short supply. Being an atheist is no more guarantee of peaceful behavior than any religion. If you meant to say it is, then you were wrong. At least being an atheist you get to choose what you do in this world and take responsibility for it, instead of being told what to do by an 'alleged' higher power, or worse its human representatives! The notion that atheists are somehow well socialized is rather late and not correct. You are in the position of suggesting that people who follow a religion are "anti-social." Your understanding of society and science is so limited and misinformed that you don't see how bizarre that is. Because of their obviously limited ability to read and not having to read as dependents on a rich and generous society it can seem lately that atheists are well socialized. It is a thin veneer of civilization though. They lack important skills of communication.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 27, 2019 7:07:32 GMT
At least being an atheist you get to choose what you do in this world and take responsibility for it, instead of being told what to do by an 'alleged' higher power, or worse its human representatives! The notion that atheists are somehow well socialized is rather late and not correct. You are in the position of suggesting that people who follow a religion are "anti-social." Your understanding of society and science is so limited and misinformed that you don't see how bizarre that is. Because of their obviously limited ability to read and not having to read as dependents on a rich and generous society it can seem lately that atheists are well socialized. It is a thin veneer of civilization though. They lack important skills of communication. Congratulations. You have joined the club of stupid people on here who both tell me what I think and believe and also atheists, who are actually individuals with only ONE thing in common....a lack of belief in God or gods. For you to generalise on this basis only show how stupid, out of touch and a fossil you really . There IS no 'they' when you refer to atheists.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 27, 2019 7:33:30 GMT
The notion that atheists are somehow well socialized is rather late and not correct. You are in the position of suggesting that people who follow a religion are "anti-social." Your understanding of society and science is so limited and misinformed that you don't see how bizarre that is. Because of their obviously limited ability to read and not having to read as dependents on a rich and generous society it can seem lately that atheists are well socialized. It is a thin veneer of civilization though. They lack important skills of communication. Congratulations. You have joined the club of stupid people on here who both tell me what I think and believe and also atheists, who are actually individuals with only ONE thing in common....a lack of belief in God or gods. For you to generalise on this basis only show how stupid, out of touch and a fossil you really . There IS no 'they' when you refer to atheists. I do generalize. I have always admitted that. I have also explained why it is practical and necessary in some circumstances. I have also recognized that people can and may have unique perspectives and attitudes that can be difficult to categorize, but are no less valid thereby. I have long understood that there is no "club" for all atheists because that would be like a book club for people who don't read. "Hey, Rachel, what didn't you read this week?" "Tons of stuff, what didn't you read, Goz?" I have also noticed that despite their aspirations to be Tigger from the Winnie the Pooh stories they do exhibit some common to their crowd characteristics out of proportion to the random sample of society, and those characteristics are likely associated with their atheism. I have never tried to guess what you think since that might be a waste of time. I hope that one day you will be able to articulate more detail and meaning yourself. I do notice when you fall into patterns of thought that others have, and yes I do suspect there is some causation in that correlation. I also understand that proofs can be difficult.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 27, 2019 20:48:06 GMT
Congratulations. You have joined the club of stupid people on here who both tell me what I think and believe and also atheists, who are actually individuals with only ONE thing in common....a lack of belief in God or gods. For you to generalise on this basis only show how stupid, out of touch and a fossil you really . There IS no 'they' when you refer to atheists. I do generalize. I have always admitted that. I have also explained why it is practical and necessary in some circumstances. I have also recognized that people can and may have unique perspectives and attitudes that can be difficult to categorize, but are no less valid thereby. I have long understood that there is no "club" for all atheists because that would be like a book club for people who don't read. "Hey, Rachel, what didn't you read this week?" "Tons of stuff, what didn't you read, Goz?" I have also noticed that despite their aspirations to be Tigger from the Winnie the Pooh stories they do exhibit some common to their crowd characteristics out of proportion to the random sample of society, and those characteristics are likely associated with their atheism. I have never tried to guess what you think since that might be a waste of time. I hope that one day you will be able to articulate more detail and meaning yourself. I do notice when you fall into patterns of thought that others have, and yes I do suspect there is some causation in that correlation. I also understand that proofs can be difficult. Thank you for a nice conciliatory post. I appreciate it. It is also a step forward that you accept what is an obvious truth about being an atheist. ie that there is one core common characteristic ie a lack of belief. To me it is saying that most cat lovers are also animal lovers and they may or not like dogs, or if you think of yourself as a gourmet you like food, only quality food yet you also eat McDonalds once a year. These attributes are possibly true butt not necessarily. It is therefore a mistake to attribute characteristics to atheists, much as it might be tempting if you are a theist and cannot really understand nor appreciate the negative view of an absence of God. The other thing is that it makes you look really idiotic to make grand inflammatory statements like atheists read at a lower level. etc etc based on absolutely no evidence or proof whatsoever, in fact the truth could possibly be the opposite, since many of our great modern scientists, academics and philosophers are atheists
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Apr 28, 2019 10:30:02 GMT
It seems common sense, doesn't it? Sad part is, when superstition takes the wheel, common sense is pretty much always the first casualty to get mowed down. aka as 'fear'. The basis for Christianity and Islam. No wonder religion has a massive hold on many, because that is how many operate from, due to ignorance and the arrogant notion of self.
Absolutely. No small wonder that most major religions, and most particularly the Catholic Church, have been opponents of freely-acquired knowledge and secular education down the centuries--knowledge is power, and one of the greatest powers it confers is the freedom from superstitious fear.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 28, 2019 10:56:38 GMT
I do generalize. I have always admitted that. I have also explained why it is practical and necessary in some circumstances. I have also recognized that people can and may have unique perspectives and attitudes that can be difficult to categorize, but are no less valid thereby. I have long understood that there is no "club" for all atheists because that would be like a book club for people who don't read. "Hey, Rachel, what didn't you read this week?" "Tons of stuff, what didn't you read, Goz?" I have also noticed that despite their aspirations to be Tigger from the Winnie the Pooh stories they do exhibit some common to their crowd characteristics out of proportion to the random sample of society, and those characteristics are likely associated with their atheism. I have never tried to guess what you think since that might be a waste of time. I hope that one day you will be able to articulate more detail and meaning yourself. I do notice when you fall into patterns of thought that others have, and yes I do suspect there is some causation in that correlation. I also understand that proofs can be difficult. Thank you for a nice conciliatory post. I appreciate it. It is also a step forward that you accept what is an obvious truth about being an atheist. ie that there is one core common characteristic ie a lack of belief. To me it is saying that most cat lovers are also animal lovers and they may or not like dogs, or if you think of yourself as a gourmet you like food, only quality food yet you also eat McDonalds once a year. These attributes are possibly true butt not necessarily. It is therefore a mistake to attribute characteristics to atheists, much as it might be tempting if you are a theist and cannot really understand nor appreciate the negative view of an absence of God. The other thing is that it makes you look really idiotic to make grand inflammatory statements like atheists read at a lower level. etc etc based on absolutely no evidence or proof whatsoever, in fact the truth could possibly be the opposite, since many of our great modern scientists, academics and philosophers are atheists It could be a mistake to attribute characteristics to an individual simply because he claims to be an atheist. It is however not a mistake to notice that atheists on the whole exhibit characteristics differently from the random sample. I explained this many times before, here it is again. Consider stocking grocery store shelves with tea in the southern United States. Do you put more tea on the shelves because people in the South characteristically drink more tea? You probably should because they usually do, especially in warmer weather. Does that mean that Fred, and individual from the South, necessarily enjoys tea? No, he might not like tea at all for a variety of reasons. He might be allergic. The obvious mistake is to assume that because attributing characteristics to an individual would be an error of generalization that all generalization is in error. It is not as the example with people in the South and their tea makes clear. Yes, there are characteristics that atheists exhibit on the whole, although an individual atheist might not. If you took 500 atheists and 500 randomly chosen people, the atheist group will not read at the higher level of the general group. Might you find an atheist who does read art well? It is possible. It just isn't very likely. There is a good reason for that, and that implies causation. Most correlations indicate causation although there might be exceptions, especially with poorly designed sampling methods.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 28, 2019 21:40:30 GMT
Thank you for a nice conciliatory post. I appreciate it. It is also a step forward that you accept what is an obvious truth about being an atheist. ie that there is one core common characteristic ie a lack of belief. To me it is saying that most cat lovers are also animal lovers and they may or not like dogs, or if you think of yourself as a gourmet you like food, only quality food yet you also eat McDonalds once a year. These attributes are possibly true butt not necessarily. It is therefore a mistake to attribute characteristics to atheists, much as it might be tempting if you are a theist and cannot really understand nor appreciate the negative view of an absence of God. The other thing is that it makes you look really idiotic to make grand inflammatory statements like atheists read at a lower level. etc etc based on absolutely no evidence or proof whatsoever, in fact the truth could possibly be the opposite, since many of our great modern scientists, academics and philosophers are atheists It could be a mistake to attribute characteristics to an individual simply because he claims to be an atheist. It is however not a mistake to notice that atheists on the whole exhibit characteristics differently from the random sample. I explained this many times before, here it is again. Consider stocking grocery store shelves with tea in the southern United States. Do you put more tea on the shelves because people in the South characteristically drink more tea? You probably should because they usually do, especially in warmer weather. Does that mean that Fred, and individual from the South, necessarily enjoys tea? No, he might not like tea at all for a variety of reasons. He might be allergic. The obvious mistake is to assume that because attributing characteristics to an individual would be an error of generalization that all generalization is in error. It is not as the example with people in the South and their tea makes clear.
Yes, there are characteristics that atheists exhibit on the whole, although an individual atheist might not. If you took 500 atheists and 500 randomly chosen people, the atheist group will not read at the higher level of the general group. Might you find an atheist who does read art well? It is possible. It just isn't very likely. There is a good reason for that, and that implies causation. Most correlations indicate causation although there might be exceptions, especially with poorly designed sampling methods. You can't be serious. Even for you this is abject rubbish and nonsense!  Gee! I wonder how all those atheists doctors scientists teachers economists lawyers came to their professions without a level of reading above the Far Right Evangelical tea drinkers of the South!
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Apr 28, 2019 23:19:48 GMT
It could be a mistake to attribute characteristics to an individual simply because he claims to be an atheist. It is however not a mistake to notice that atheists on the whole exhibit characteristics differently from the random sample. I explained this many times before, here it is again. Consider stocking grocery store shelves with tea in the southern United States. Do you put more tea on the shelves because people in the South characteristically drink more tea? You probably should because they usually do, especially in warmer weather. Does that mean that Fred, and individual from the South, necessarily enjoys tea? No, he might not like tea at all for a variety of reasons. He might be allergic. The obvious mistake is to assume that because attributing characteristics to an individual would be an error of generalization that all generalization is in error. It is not as the example with people in the South and their tea makes clear.
Yes, there are characteristics that atheists exhibit on the whole, although an individual atheist might not. If you took 500 atheists and 500 randomly chosen people, the atheist group will not read at the higher level of the general group. Might you find an atheist who does read art well? It is possible. It just isn't very likely. There is a good reason for that, and that implies causation. Most correlations indicate causation although there might be exceptions, especially with poorly designed sampling methods. You can't be serious. Even for you this is abject rubbish and nonsense! Gee! I wonder how all those atheists doctors scientists teachers economists lawyers came to their professions without a level of reading above the Far Right Evangelical tea drinkers of the South! I have Arlon on Block, so I only see his posts when quoted by someone else. Since he has made a glaring typo, I would question his level of reading and writing. I would like to see the link to that, please, or did that just bubble up out of his usual word salad? I do love the irony, though... I'm with you, Goz - LOLOL!
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Apr 29, 2019 1:59:08 GMT
I have Arlon on Block, so I only see his posts when quoted by someone else. Since he has made a glaring typo, I would question his level of reading and writing. I would like to see the link to that, please, or did that just bubble up out of his usual word salad? I do love the irony, though... I'm with you, Goz - LOLOL! Unless Arlon can point us to the study he conducted, wherein he sampled 500 atheists up against 500 random believers, with resultant findings preferably published in a peer-reviewed journal (yes, I know Arlon has no peer, but whatever), I think it's safe for us to take his conclusions on this with a very large grain of salt--given that a 'sampling method' which has no samples is, out of the gate, pretty poorly designed. Yea verily, the foot-washing Southern Baptoid will always handily outclass the naughty atheist in levels of reading comprehension, when one considers the levels of mind-twisting 'comprehension' they must needs employ to make any sort of sense of the Good Book at all!
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Apr 29, 2019 4:12:59 GMT
I have Arlon on Block, so I only see his posts when quoted by someone else. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 30, 2019 9:22:20 GMT
It could be a mistake to attribute characteristics to an individual simply because he claims to be an atheist. It is however not a mistake to notice that atheists on the whole exhibit characteristics differently from the random sample. I explained this many times before, here it is again. Consider stocking grocery store shelves with tea in the southern United States. Do you put more tea on the shelves because people in the South characteristically drink more tea? You probably should because they usually do, especially in warmer weather. Does that mean that Fred, and individual from the South, necessarily enjoys tea? No, he might not like tea at all for a variety of reasons. He might be allergic. The obvious mistake is to assume that because attributing characteristics to an individual would be an error of generalization that all generalization is in error. It is not as the example with people in the South and their tea makes clear.
Yes, there are characteristics that atheists exhibit on the whole, although an individual atheist might not. If you took 500 atheists and 500 randomly chosen people, the atheist group will not read at the higher level of the general group. Might you find an atheist who does read art well? It is possible. It just isn't very likely. There is a good reason for that, and that implies causation. Most correlations indicate causation although there might be exceptions, especially with poorly designed sampling methods. You can't be serious. Even for you this is abject rubbish and nonsense! Gee! I wonder how all those atheists doctors scientists teachers economists lawyers came to their professions without a level of reading above the Far Right Evangelical tea drinkers of the South! How? The same way you accomplished anything, by mindlessly repeating things you do not have to understand. I have said many times it's actually a very good plan. Such people make the best employees in quite many endeavors. It can go terribly wrong when you start mindlessly repeating the wrong things though. Witness the mess today. What caused it? Your blind faith (ordinarily often helpful) in science (not for believing) doesn't serve you well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 30, 2019 10:22:47 GMT
I have Arlon on Block, so I only see his posts when quoted by someone else. Since he has made a glaring typo, I would question his level of reading and writing. I would like to see the link to that, please, or did that just bubble up out of his usual word salad? I do love the irony, though... I'm with you, Goz - LOLOL! Wage earnings by school type, public versus private.
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on May 21, 2019 20:01:08 GMT
True. It's wrong to believe in concepts or claims that any religion is a religion of peace. Hinduism has the concept of ahimsa and non-violence and vegetarianism. But 1000s of years of feudal society which was unjust and hideous. Rampant misogyny. Extremely rigid class divisions.
Buddhism has meditation and talks about humanity. But Tibet was one of the most rigid & feudal societies for over a millennium. I wrote an extensive thread on old IMDB how Japanese Buddhists were brutally misogynist people of levels unheard. And how Buddhist monks treated women.
Jainism - Another religion that talks of vegetarianism and peace. Has given one of the most violent kings ever in the Indian subcontinent and same rigid class-based society for years. I can talk about any major religion but you get my point....
That said, I also do not take the opposite of any extreme viewpoint. I do not believe that religions cannot be good or can never contribute positively or should be eliminated entirely. Religions do not necessarily reflect a perfect peaceful society but they are also not the opposite of that. They are a combination of good and bad. Just a reflection of humanity itself. I personally tend to respect the good and voice against the bad with a fair mind without maligning the entire systems/societies/communities.
I felt this post needed to be revisited, given the current thread of 'stop calling it Talibama'. Every religion is a combination of good and bad. Even Islam. Even Christianity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on May 21, 2019 20:17:33 GMT
True. It's wrong to believe in concepts or claims that any religion is a religion of peace. Hinduism has the concept of ahimsa and non-violence and vegetarianism. But 1000s of years of feudal society which was unjust and hideous. Rampant misogyny. Extremely rigid class divisions.
Buddhism has meditation and talks about humanity. But Tibet was one of the most rigid & feudal societies for over a millennium. I wrote an extensive thread on old IMDB how Japanese Buddhists were brutally misogynist people of levels unheard. And how Buddhist monks treated women.
Jainism - Another religion that talks of vegetarianism and peace. Has given one of the most violent kings ever in the Indian subcontinent and same rigid class-based society for years. I can talk about any major religion but you get my point....
That said, I also do not take the opposite of any extreme viewpoint. I do not believe that religions cannot be good or can never contribute positively or should be eliminated entirely. Religions do not necessarily reflect a perfect peaceful society but they are also not the opposite of that. They are a combination of good and bad. Just a reflection of humanity itself. I personally tend to respect the good and voice against the bad with a fair mind without maligning the entire systems/societies/communities.
I felt this post needed to be revisited, given the current thread of 'stop calling it Talibama'. Every religion is a combination of good and bad. Even Islam. Even Christianity. Of course you are 100% right. Sometimes what happens is that people who are unaware of any particular religion develop romanticised feelings for that religion based on the fact that they have not been bothered by that religion or because they met 3 nice people from that obscure religion. But the point to remember is that just because that 'obscure' religion has not caused problems or complications in a certain region it doesn't mean that it has not caused problems in other parts of the world. Hindu Americans, for example, would seldom cause any problems in the US. In fact, they are on average the most educated class in the US. But that doesn't mean Hindus are not causing problems in India. They sure are and have been for long. Same goes for Buddhism. There are Buddhist nations where the majority is interfering with laws p those countries. Same goes for all the other religions which have population concentrated enough in any particular society to exert influence. Religions are just reflections of human beings.
But at the same time, we must remember just because any religion causes problems it doesn't mean the vast majority of its people are contributing. On average, people of all groups are nearly the same when it comes to lying, cheating or doing positive things.
|
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on May 21, 2019 21:37:20 GMT
with so many religions of peace floating around the planet it's a miracle anyone can get a holy war in edge wise these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on May 21, 2019 21:48:15 GMT
(feats of wonder) from so many enlightened dirt clods
as the number of holy wars
kept pace
with the next generation
of
indoctrinated whores
it was
deemed necessary to implore
the advertising studios
to soar
way beyond the four k lights and scores
normally associated with
propagating wars
as
now we see
endless looping commercials
spoon fed to the spores
who believe
god
created all dirt clods equally
but some he
loved
ever so much more.
sjw 05/21/19 inspired at this very moment in time by finally finishing moving and oh that crazy little thing called holy war.
from the 'blasphemy series' of poems
|
|
