|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Mar 1, 2018 10:02:19 GMT
Your opinions and opinions very much like them might have "flourished" long before the internet, but were held back by their lack of support, their lack of accreditation. No one took them seriously or put them on the level of more scholarly works. Yes, it's an Arlon-fact that there were no scholarly, accredited arguments against god(s) before the internet. Like that smartphone-addicted millennial Epicurus who said: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" Luckily the quote is so recent that it now fits within Twitter's new character limit. If you want to be a follower of Epicurus, no one is stopping you.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 1, 2018 10:12:15 GMT
Yes, it's an Arlon-fact that there were no scholarly, accredited arguments against god(s) before the internet. Like that smartphone-addicted millennial Epicurus who said: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" Luckily the quote is so recent that it now fits within Twitter's new character limit. If you want to be a follower of Epicurus, no one is stopping you. I was just jokingly pointing out the obvious truth that there were serious, scholarly, respected atheists publishing their opinions before the internet. I just picked the oldest I could think of; I wasn't actually endorsing the argument.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Mar 1, 2018 10:30:03 GMT
If you want to be a follower of Epicurus, no one is stopping you. I was just jokingly pointing out the obvious truth that there were serious, scholarly, respected atheists publishing their opinions before the internet. I just picked the oldest I could think of; I wasn't actually endorsing the argument. Ah. Understood. Incidentally, most of the people I meet today are sensualists and materialists, whether they claim to believe in a deity or not.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 1, 2018 10:58:07 GMT
If you want to be a follower of Epicurus, no one is stopping you. I was just jokingly pointing out the obvious truth that there were serious, scholarly, respected atheists publishing their opinions before the internet. I just picked the oldest I could think of; I wasn't actually endorsing the argument. If you go back that far you might find anything.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 1, 2018 11:01:14 GMT
I was just jokingly pointing out the obvious truth that there were serious, scholarly, respected atheists publishing their opinions before the internet. I just picked the oldest I could think of; I wasn't actually endorsing the argument. If you go back that far you might find anything. Give me any time limit and I can refute your claim.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 1, 2018 11:05:49 GMT
If you go back that far you might find anything. Give me any time limit and I can refute your claim. Refuting my claim that Wikipedia is a problem by quoting Wikipedia, priceless! I'm not denying those people existed, I'm saying without Wikipedia no one much would ever hear about them.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 1, 2018 11:17:53 GMT
1) Refuting my claim that Wikipedia is a problem by quoting Wikipedia, priceless! 2) I'm not denying those people existed, I'm saying without Wikipedia no one much would ever hear about them. 1) Your claim wasn't about a problem with Wikipedia, and I wasn't really "citing Wikipedia" by providing a list of atheist philosophers. 2) First, Yeah, the internet totally made Karl Marx, Schopenhauer, Bertrand Russell, Friedrich Nietzsche, David Hume, etc. famous. Second, nice goal-post shift when what you originally said was: "Your opinions and opinions very much like them might have "flourished" long before the internet, but were held back by their lack of support, their lack of accreditation. No one took them seriously or put them on the level of more scholarly works..." Now it's about popularity rather than scholarly accreditation. Please make up your mind, sir!
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 1, 2018 11:34:19 GMT
1) Refuting my claim that Wikipedia is a problem by quoting Wikipedia, priceless! 2) I'm not denying those people existed, I'm saying without Wikipedia no one much would ever hear about them. 1) Your claim wasn't about a problem with Wikipedia, and I wasn't really "citing Wikipedia" by providing a list of atheist philosophers. 2) First, Yeah, the internet totally made Karl Marx, Schopenhauer, Bertrand Russell, Friedrich Nietzsche, David Hume, etc. famous. Second, nice goal-post shift when what you originally said was: "Your opinions and opinions very much like them might have "flourished" long before the internet, but were held back by their lack of support, their lack of accreditation. No one took them seriously or put them on the level of more scholarly works..." Now it's about popularity rather than scholarly accreditation. Please make up your mind, sir! You opinions about how atheists have been treated in the past is clouded by your own respect for them. Yes, atheists have been "popular" with other atheists. That is not the same thing as a well educated person or established organization having any respect for them. You are still clinging to the obvious delusion that atheists have any more sense than god gave geese.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 1, 2018 11:43:00 GMT
1) Your claim wasn't about a problem with Wikipedia, and I wasn't really "citing Wikipedia" by providing a list of atheist philosophers. 2) First, Yeah, the internet totally made Karl Marx, Schopenhauer, Bertrand Russell, Friedrich Nietzsche, David Hume, etc. famous. Second, nice goal-post shift when what you originally said was: "Your opinions and opinions very much like them might have "flourished" long before the internet, but were held back by their lack of support, their lack of accreditation. No one took them seriously or put them on the level of more scholarly works..." Now it's about popularity rather than scholarly accreditation. Please make up your mind, sir! You opinions about how atheists have been treated in the past is clouded by your own respect for them. Yes, atheists have been "popular" with other atheists. That is not the same thing as a well educated person or established organization having any respect for them. You are still clinging to the obvious delusion that atheists have any more sense than god gave geese. You are clinging to an obvious delusion if you think the aforementioned atheist philosophers are only taken seriously by other atheists. You are utterly clueless about the entire field. Nietzsche and Hume only respected by atheists?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 1, 2018 12:02:13 GMT
You opinions about how atheists have been treated in the past is clouded by your own respect for them. Yes, atheists have been "popular" with other atheists. That is not the same thing as a well educated person or established organization having any respect for them. You are still clinging to the obvious delusion that atheists have any more sense than god gave geese. You are clinging to an obvious delusion if you think the aforementioned atheist philosophers are only taken seriously by other atheists. You are utterly clueless about the entire field. Nietzsche and Hume only respected by atheists? Are you forgetting? We live on different "planets." On Planet Arlon there have been respected atheists too. H.G. Wells is actually a "great" writer. He helped start the genre of "science fiction." He is copied, imitated and enjoyed today. He was a raging atheist more so than any on your list. It does appear later in life he got wiser about that, but nevertheless, there you are, a respected atheist. Other examples might be the Shelleys, Percy Bysshe and his wife Mary Wollstonecraft. There are considered among the greatest minds of their time even by me. I am not sure their "atheism" counts as atheism for several reasons, but I will let you count it as you like. Notice what the Shelleys have in common with Wells? They are contemporaries of Darwin. Yes, that was an unusual time in history when even very intelligent people actually believed science was near explaining the origin of life on Earth. Now those are the real exceptions to my claim. Forget about yours.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Mar 1, 2018 12:02:28 GMT
A remarkable thing about the internet is that all opinions have equal merit. Your opinions and opinions very much like them might have "flourished" long before the internet, but were held back by their lack of support, their lack of accreditation. No one took them seriously or put them on the level of more scholarly works. Now is your chance. You can just go on the internet and get counted. It doesn't matter that your ideas have no merit. Who are you to say what a god should do? Are you running anything yourself? Can you even fix your own breakfast? On the internet there are no qualifications, but it does seem a new and exciting opportunity to see what "most people" think. As it turns out most people do not think. They just follow the herd. Without qualified leadership the herd wanders aimlessly. That's the problem with the internet. Maybe that will be worked out later. ^Asks me what I think god should do, then questions who I am to say what god should do. Says that all opinions have equal merit, then tells me that my ideas have no merit. Suggests that no atheists were considered “scholarly” or had opinions that were taken seriously before the existence of the internet because they lacked qualifications, and accreditation. Destroys and contradicts his own argument without me even having to lift a finger. Do I even need to continue arguing at this point?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 1, 2018 12:08:31 GMT
A remarkable thing about the internet is that all opinions have equal merit. Your opinions and opinions very much like them might have "flourished" long before the internet, but were held back by their lack of support, their lack of accreditation. No one took them seriously or put them on the level of more scholarly works. Now is your chance. You can just go on the internet and get counted. It doesn't matter that your ideas have no merit. Who are you to say what a god should do? Are you running anything yourself? Can you even fix your own breakfast? On the internet there are no qualifications, but it does seem a new and exciting opportunity to see what "most people" think. As it turns out most people do not think. They just follow the herd. Without qualified leadership the herd wanders aimlessly. That's the problem with the internet. Maybe that will be worked out later. ^Asks me what I think god should do, then questions who I am to say what god should do. Says that all opinions have equal merit, then tells me that my ideas have no merit. Suggests that no atheists were considered “scholarly” or had opinions that were taken seriously before the existence of the internet because they lacked qualifications, and accreditation. Destroys and contradicts his own argument without me even having to lift a finger. Do I even need to continue arguing at this point? I doubt reading is your strong suit. So yes, there are probably lots of better ways you could spend your time.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 1, 2018 12:12:10 GMT
You are clinging to an obvious delusion if you think the aforementioned atheist philosophers are only taken seriously by other atheists. You are utterly clueless about the entire field. Nietzsche and Hume only respected by atheists? Are you forgetting? We live on different "planets." On Planet Arlon there have been respected atheists too. H.G. Wells is actually a "great" writer. He helped start the genre of "science fiction." He is copied, imitated and enjoyed today. He was a raging atheist more so than any on your list. It does appear later in life he got wiser about that, but nevertheless, there you are, a respected atheist. Other examples might be the Shelleys, Percy Bysshe and his wife Mary Wollstonecraft. There are considered among the greatest minds of their time even by me. I am not sure their "atheism" counts as atheism for several reasons, but I will let you count it as you like. Notice what the Shelleys have in common with Wells? They are contemporaries of Darwin. Yes, that was an unusual time in history when even very intelligent people actually believed science was near explaining the origin of life on Earth. Now those are the real exceptions to my claim. Forget about yours. Now you're shifting goalposts again. You do realize your original claim was about "scholarly... accreditation." When talking about atheism, the only place you'd find "scholarly... accreditation" directly is in philosophy, so I mentioned famous philosophers who happened to be atheists. Now you're bringing up authors who were neither scholars nor accredited, who are respected more for their art than for their thought. PB Shelley, who's a personal favorite poet of mine (I recently quoted his Ozymandias on a Politics thread about building statues to Trump), didn't exactly publish his "The Necessity of Atheism" in a scholarly journal; rather, he wrote it as a student at Oxford and nearly got expelled for it; and it's not exactly a major tract in the history of philosophy. So it seems strange to hold him up as a beacon of a "scholarly... accredited" atheist thought when, were it not for his poetry (the majority of which isn't about atheism), nobody would remember him at all.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 1, 2018 13:00:19 GMT
tpfkar This is what you sound like and it's perfectly OK to admit I nailed it: This is what steams theophobiacs. They get upset that people aren't like them and because they can;t understand that they have to come up with a theory (As if they're scientists all of a sudden...) as to why I could be so different. My beliefs only harm you in the sense that it annoys you . Only thing you nailed is emphasis of your easy wild fantasy and ever-entertaining free projection. You talk about "steams" and "upset", and "annoys" a lot, for a reason. People not being "like" in the use of fundamental rationality and with shooting off nonsensical two-snaps when their silly is pointed out is generally just a free-flowing source of amusement. However, this word is no big deal. It took me forever to find it after being chastised for using the h-word.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 1, 2018 20:41:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 1, 2018 20:45:15 GMT
Ah. Understood. Incidentally, most of the people I meet today are sensualists and materialists, whether they claim to believe in a deity or not. erg, that is hilarious and I'm not even sure what you mean. This thread gets better and better with Planet Arlon and Erjenious in full loonie flight!
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 2, 2018 15:48:37 GMT
tpfkar How warring with God goes down is not really a belief, but yes i do believe that kids tend to die droves in war by simply being with their parents that are on the wrong side. It's not a sins of the father. the kids just die with them. It's the end game. If a bomb is dropped, does the explosion steer around the kids? I'm meandering which means I'm about to get accused of something else by giving too much information. But one last thing to clarify, I am not the one that is bringing this up to the level of scaring people. Isapop is. To me, it was always implied that if wicked people are killed that would include the children of wicked people. I had no idea that people actually thought a billion feral kids would be roaming the woodlands like lost Bambis. And what a depraved ideology it is. From a thoroughly depraved deity straight to real people. The Lord is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Mar 4, 2018 0:37:35 GMT
Are you forgetting? We live on different "planets." On Planet Arlon there have been respected atheists too. H.G. Wells is actually a "great" writer. He helped start the genre of "science fiction." He is copied, imitated and enjoyed today. He was a raging atheist more so than any on your list. It does appear later in life he got wiser about that, but nevertheless, there you are, a respected atheist. Other examples might be the Shelleys, Percy Bysshe and his wife Mary Wollstonecraft. There are considered among the greatest minds of their time even by me. I am not sure their "atheism" counts as atheism for several reasons, but I will let you count it as you like. Notice what the Shelleys have in common with Wells? They are contemporaries of Darwin. Yes, that was an unusual time in history when even very intelligent people actually believed science was near explaining the origin of life on Earth. Now those are the real exceptions to my claim. Forget about yours. Now you're shifting goalposts again. You do realize your original claim was about "scholarly... accreditation." When talking about atheism, the only place you'd find "scholarly... accreditation" directly is in philosophy, so I mentioned famous philosophers who happened to be atheists. Now you're bringing up authors who were neither scholars nor accredited, who are respected more for their art than for their thought. PB Shelley, who's a personal favorite poet of mine (I recently quoted his Ozymandias on a Politics thread about building statues to Trump), didn't exactly publish his "The Necessity of Atheism" in a scholarly journal; rather, he wrote it as a student at Oxford and nearly got expelled for it; and it's not exactly a major tract in the history of philosophy. So it seems strange to hold him up as a beacon of a "scholarly... accredited" atheist thought when, were it not for his poetry (the majority of which isn't about atheism), nobody would remember him at all. And he goes silent! Nice job.
|
|