|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on May 9, 2020 13:58:48 GMT
Any ideaology should be open for mockery, even the so called "idealogy" of atheism How is atheism a so called ideology?
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on May 9, 2020 14:13:23 GMT
Any ideaology should be open for mockery, even the so called "idealogy" of atheism How is atheism a so called ideology? It's not, that was kind of why I called it "so called" and put idealogy in quoatation marks.
|
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on May 9, 2020 15:06:35 GMT
Personally, I think it's very petty to mock someone else's faith. I'm extremely tolerant of other beliefs and opinions, and I basically live and let live. Religion is largely an expression of culture, and I find both very interesting. I travel a lot, and I love talking to people about their beliefs, anyone from Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Jainists, Taoists, Animists, Amazonian Shamans, etc, etc. They all find meaning and strength in their beliefs, and I don't judge them for that. i don't judge them for that either. i judge them exclusively for their never ending ability to coerce and therefore manipulate young minds into swallowing mantras of malarkey BEFORE those same young minds have a chance to logically view the world. You know the drill. You see the ridiculous genuflecting. You shrug off the 'my way or the highway' attitudes that permeate religious gatherings. You do, until it's someone else's belief system being forced down your child's throat. Someone else's head hunting interfering with your right to peace and quiet. I think it's very petty to insist on placating a circus side show just because they went from foisting a tent to building a stained glass structure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2020 15:14:42 GMT
No.
|
|
|
|
Post by mystery on May 9, 2020 18:25:02 GMT
Personally, I think it's very petty to mock someone else's faith. I'm extremely tolerant of other beliefs and opinions, and I basically live and let live. Religion is largely an expression of culture, and I find both very interesting. I travel a lot, and I love talking to people about their beliefs, anyone from Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Jainists, Taoists, Animists, Amazonian Shamans, etc, etc. They all find meaning and strength in their beliefs, and I don't judge them for that. i don't judge them for that either. i judge them exclusively for their never ending ability to coerce and therefore manipulate young minds into swallowing mantras of malarkey BEFORE those same young minds have a chance to logically view the world. You know the drill. You see the ridiculous genuflecting. You shrug off the 'my way or the highway' attitudes that permeate religious gatherings. You do, until it's someone else's belief system being forced down your child's throat. Someone else's head hunting interfering with your right to peace and quiet. I think it's very petty to insist on placating a circus side show just because they went from foisting a tent to building a stained glass structure. I'm very happy to discuss religion with Christians. I have a few thousand questions that I'd like to have answered, which exhausts even the most dedicated apologists. I never mock, and I try not to be disrespectful. If people aren't trying to convert me, then I don't challenge their faith at all. I don't have children, but if I did, you can be sure that I would teach them to question everything and to think for themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 9, 2020 21:14:43 GMT
Secondly the "atheist" definition of "evidence" is often incorrect. They really are not the unbiased "scientists" they imagine themselves to be. The attitude they know more about "evidence" than others is b___s___ that is really annoying and shows how little they really know about science. What is "the 'atheist' definition of 'evidence'" and how is it "often incorrect?" What is the correct definition of evidence?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 9, 2020 23:39:49 GMT
Secondly the "atheist" definition of "evidence" is often incorrect. They really are not the unbiased "scientists" they imagine themselves to be. The attitude they know more about "evidence" than others is b___s___ that is really annoying and shows how little they really know about science. What is "the 'atheist' definition of 'evidence'" and how is it "often incorrect?" What is the correct definition of evidence? Many if not all atheists think they are more "scientific" simply because they are too plain to understand art, that leaves them with plain science. Only what they can see themselves with their limited perception counts for them. Only what they can understand themselves with their rudimentary worldview counts for them. The study of the "self" or "Atman" has countless students in various cultures worldwide with more or less "perception" of it. In a recent discussion with FilmFlaneur he would not accept that multitude of witnesses.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 9, 2020 23:45:06 GMT
What is "the 'atheist' definition of 'evidence'" and how is it "often incorrect?" What is the correct definition of evidence? Many if not all atheists think they are more "scientific" simply because they are too plain to understand art, that leaves them with plain science. Only what they can see themselves with their limited perception counts for them. Only what they can understand themselves with their rudimentary worldview counts for them. The study of the "self" or "Atman" has countless students in various cultures worldwide with more or less "perception" of it. In a recent discussion with FilmFlaneur he would not accept that multitude of witnesses. So atheists define evidence as "what they can see themselves with their limited perception... (and) what they can understand themselves with their... worldview." That answers my first question. What is the correct definition of evidence, then? Also, a third supplemental question: how does the atheist definition of evidence differ from that of theists?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 9, 2020 23:56:13 GMT
Many if not all atheists think they are more "scientific" simply because they are too plain to understand art, that leaves them with plain science. Only what they can see themselves with their limited perception counts for them. Only what they can understand themselves with their rudimentary worldview counts for them. The study of the "self" or "Atman" has countless students in various cultures worldwide with more or less "perception" of it. In a recent discussion with FilmFlaneur he would not accept that multitude of witnesses. So atheists define evidence as "what they can see themselves with their limited perception... (and) what they can understand themselves with their... worldview." That answers my first question. What is the correct definition of evidence, then? Also, a third supplemental question: how does the atheist definition of evidence differ from that of theists? All information relevant to a belief is evidence. Did I say proof? No, I did not, and evidence is not the same thing as proof. I'm sorry, "theists" are a diverse assortment of people with rather diverse standards. In a very general way though you will likely find they have higher standards of evidence and proof.
|
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on May 10, 2020 0:19:28 GMT
No. Its perfect for parody.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 10, 2020 0:49:08 GMT
So atheists define evidence as "what they can see themselves with their limited perception... (and) what they can understand themselves with their... worldview." That answers my first question. What is the correct definition of evidence, then? Also, a third supplemental question: how does the atheist definition of evidence differ from that of theists? All information relevant to a belief is evidence. Did I say proof? No, I did not, and evidence is not the same thing as proof. I'm sorry, "theists" are a diverse assortment of people with rather diverse standards. In a very general way though you will likely find they have higher standards of evidence and proof. Your definition is extremely vague. How do you determine what information is relevant to a belief and how it's relevant? So "theists" are a diverse assortment of people, but atheists, all ~500 million in the world, are the same. Gotcha.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on May 10, 2020 0:59:05 GMT
Like politics, it leaves itself open for mockery and ridicule. That is the nature of an idealist belief that isn’t founded in authenticity. However, within the circus, there may be some pearls of wisdom, but these may not necessarily need religion or politics to hang their hat on if just common sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on May 10, 2020 1:17:19 GMT
What is "the 'atheist' definition of 'evidence'" and how is it "often incorrect?" What is the correct definition of evidence? Many if not all atheists think they are more "scientific" simply because they are too plain to understand art, that leaves them with plain science. Only what they can see themselves with their limited perception counts for them. Only what they can understand themselves with their rudimentary worldview counts for them. The study of the "self" or "Atman" has countless students in various cultures worldwide with more or less "perception" of it. In a recent discussion with FilmFlaneur he would not accept that multitude of witnesses. And what’s your evidence that your assumption about atheists and “plain science” is correct? Or is this just an opinion?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on May 10, 2020 1:18:38 GMT
So atheists define evidence as "what they can see themselves with their limited perception... (and) what they can understand themselves with their... worldview." That answers my first question. What is the correct definition of evidence, then? Also, a third supplemental question: how does the atheist definition of evidence differ from that of theists? All information relevant to a belief is evidence. Did I say proof? No, I did not, and evidence is not the same thing as proof. I'm sorry, "theists" are a diverse assortment of people with rather diverse standards. In a very general way though you will likely find they have higher standards of evidence and proof. Good grief.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on May 10, 2020 9:20:15 GMT
I disagree. If somebody holds a belief not supported by the evidence, that belief deserves to be challenged. Religious beliefs don't get a free pass just because they're religious beliefs. First of all most people, especially including atheists, make decisions with inadequate evidence all over the place. It really isn't practical to put every decision to a thorough investigation. There are usually several unknown quantities and no time or means to get them all. Life itself includes a vast unknown and speculation about it is normal. Secondly the "atheist" definition of "evidence" is often incorrect. They really are not the unbiased "scientists" they imagine themselves to be. The attitude they know more about "evidence" than others is b___s___ that is really annoying and shows how little they really know about science. Just saying because you deserve to be challenged too.  I guess that counts religion out to be relied on to make logical and reasonable assertions. The inadequacy of the church to prove their God and its doctrine that supposedly came from this supernatural being, has been an age old contention for it to prove its validation, other than to its deluded self.
|
|
|
|
Post by Power Ranger on May 10, 2020 10:59:37 GMT
no. the subject is specifically religion(s). the marketability of offering an afterlife is so encased in gold that, through out history, thousands of conjured up schemes to pray and pry upon any one feeling they might be missing out on something. seeking truth is never a scam. shining light upon darkness is never a scam. the value of the heart human standing all on its own is never a scam. Someone seeking truth and arriving at a different conclusion than you did did not commit any scam.
Someone finding light and finding something one believes to be light is not a scam.
Every thing is based on marketability. I believe most lawyers are scoundrels and the law industry is full of immoral people. That won't stop me from using that industry. I believe politicians are scoundrels and corrupt people who fool common folks and even the best of the people. Can't go on asking for anarchy.
We need a judiciary. We don’t need religion. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 10, 2020 11:27:15 GMT
What is "the 'atheist' definition of 'evidence'" and how is it "often incorrect?" What is the correct definition of evidence? In a recent discussion with FilmFlaneur he would not accept that multitude of witnesses. No, it was actually the case that I would not accept an Argument from Popularity making something necessarily right or true. That's because I really do have "higher standards of evidence and proof". At best all we have is a lot of people for whom a sort of god exists - for them. It was when you implied that a majority must be right in principle then, oddly, had no answer when I pointed out you were in the minority with regards to views on, say, Darwin and Relativity, as well as Creationism er, ID as 'science'.. Remember?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 10, 2020 12:11:31 GMT
All information relevant to a belief is evidence. Did I say proof? No, I did not, and evidence is not the same thing as proof. I'm sorry, "theists" are a diverse assortment of people with rather diverse standards. In a very general way though you will likely find they have higher standards of evidence and proof. Your definition is extremely vague. How do you determine what information is relevant to a belief and how it's relevant? So "theists" are a diverse assortment of people, but atheists, all ~500 million in the world, are the same. Gotcha. Many, if not all, atheists are just malcontents, but that's a different story.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 10, 2020 12:36:02 GMT
First of all most people, especially including atheists, make decisions with inadequate evidence all over the place. It really isn't practical to put every decision to a thorough investigation. There are usually several unknown quantities and no time or means to get them all. Life itself includes a vast unknown and speculation about it is normal. Secondly the "atheist" definition of "evidence" is often incorrect. They really are not the unbiased "scientists" they imagine themselves to be. The attitude they know more about "evidence" than others is b___s___ that is really annoying and shows how little they really know about science. Just saying because you deserve to be challenged too. I guess that counts religion out to be relied on to make logical and reasonable assertions. The inadequacy of the church to prove their God and its doctrine that supposedly came from this supernatural being, has been an age old contention for it to prove its validation, other than to its deluded self.
Leadership can be unpopular work, but someone has to do it. Clarity is often a blessing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 10, 2020 13:03:46 GMT
In a recent discussion with FilmFlaneur he would not accept that multitude of witnesses. No, it was actually the case that I would not accept an Argument from Popularity making something necessarily right or true. That's because I really do have "higher standards of evidence and proof". At best all we have is a lot of people for whom a sort of god exists - for them. It was when you implied that a majority must be right in principle then, oddly, had no answer when I pointed out you were in the minority with regards to views on, say, Darwin and Relativity, as well as Creationism er, ID as 'science'.. Remember? If you keep trying, eventually you'll prove everything is illogical. Funny that.
|
|
