|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 20, 2020 18:50:40 GMT
"Having been shown that belief can be a good thing, that beliefs can spare the time, resources and heartache involved in trying bad ideas over and over, many atheists have lately softened down." Very terrible argument, just because something is more convenient doesn't make it better. It would be more "convenient" for cops to shoot criminals on sight rather than arresting them and having them tried (which can take a lot of time and resources), that doesn't make it more ideal. You're obstentially making an argument for intellectual laziness. "An identifiable cause of much atheism is inferior education, inadequate reading levels, and sometimes even severe mental limitations. Are there any atheist "leaders" who can show otherwise?" Except data shows correlation between education and irrelgiosity and scientists on average tend to be less religious than the general population: www.pewforum.org/2017/04/26/in-america-does-more-education-equal-less-religion/pf-04-26-2017_-useducation-00-07/www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/"When atheists start asking Christians whether they have killed their children yet (link) I believe that signals serious atheism is coming to an end." Except religion has been on the decline: www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/www.huffpost.com/entry/religion-declining-secula_b_9889398Serious question, do you actually bother looking at data or do you just make stuff up? Wait, why am I asking, I already know the answer... Being more convenient can be better in some circumstances such as when there are good leaders to follow. Being more convenient obviously can fail as you see now with leaders like Trump. See the difference? That data shows that Christians and atheists are two sides of the same bad coin. They compare in their poor performance obviously because they do not read above a rudimentary level. Any other religion outperforms Christianity and atheism. When I said atheism was on the decline since about 2012, you said it wasn't because you had a survey that showed people who believe in a god were attending less religious services. I pointed out that you are easily tricked by surveys. I couldn't possibly make up any more ridiculous atheists than you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 20, 2020 18:52:27 GMT
I think it's important for you to realize that your characterizations of religion or Christianity are only that, your characterizations. They are ridiculous. There might be a few people who actually think that way and call themselves religious, but they shouldn't speak for religion either. If it has not occurred to you how ridiculous it is to complain about a problem that does not exist, maybe get another hobby. Have you considered trout fishing? This exchange has not even TOUCHED on my "characterizations of religion or Christianity". So, (as often happens) you leave me to muse, "What the hell is he even talking about?"Then I shrug and move on. Really? Knock me over with a feather.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 20, 2020 19:04:43 GMT
There should be no philosophical reason for atheists to create groups as atheism is not based on an active belief system. That said humans form groups for many different reasons and may be there are some atheist groups. I stay clear of all religion/race/ethnicity/nationality related groups. Atheism might not be an active belief "system" but it is very much an active belief as evidenced by their buzzing around religious discussion boards.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Oct 20, 2020 19:06:12 GMT
"Having been shown that belief can be a good thing, that beliefs can spare the time, resources and heartache involved in trying bad ideas over and over, many atheists have lately softened down." Very terrible argument, just because something is more convenient doesn't make it better. It would be more "convenient" for cops to shoot criminals on sight rather than arresting them and having them tried (which can take a lot of time and resources), that doesn't make it more ideal. You're obstentially making an argument for intellectual laziness. "An identifiable cause of much atheism is inferior education, inadequate reading levels, and sometimes even severe mental limitations. Are there any atheist "leaders" who can show otherwise?" Except data shows correlation between education and irrelgiosity and scientists on average tend to be less religious than the general population: www.pewforum.org/2017/04/26/in-america-does-more-education-equal-less-religion/pf-04-26-2017_-useducation-00-07/www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/"When atheists start asking Christians whether they have killed their children yet (link) I believe that signals serious atheism is coming to an end." Except religion has been on the decline: www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/www.huffpost.com/entry/religion-declining-secula_b_9889398Serious question, do you actually bother looking at data or do you just make stuff up? Wait, why am I asking, I already know the answer... Being more convenient can be better in some circumstances such as when there are good leaders to follow. Being more convenient obviously can fail as you see now with leaders like Trump. See the difference? That data shows that Christians and atheists are two sides of the same bad coin. They compare in their poor performance obviously because they do not read above a rudimentary level. Any other religion outperforms Christianity and atheism. When I said atheism was on the decline since about 2012, you said it wasn't because you had a survey that showed people who believe in a god were attending less religious services. I pointed out that you are easily tricked by surveys. I couldn't possibly make up any more ridiculous atheists than you. "Being more convenient can be better in some circumstances such as when there are good leaders to follow." Name actual examples "Being more convenient obviously can fail as you see now with leaders like Trump. See the difference?" Devout Christians/evangelicals overwhelmingly voted for Trump, this doesn't help your argument. "That data shows that Christians and atheists are two sides of the same bad coin." No is does not, the data clearly shows more educated people tend to be less religious (college educated people are less likely to believe in God and pray then people who aren't). You can try and No True Scottsman all you want. "Any other religion outperforms Christianity and atheism." No it does not, cherrypicking some overacheiving immigrant demographics with better access to education (which is what you're most liklely refering to) doesn't look at the overall data. I've already addressed this before, why do you keep repeating the same terrible arguments? "When I said atheism was on the decline since about 2012, you said it wasn't because you had a survey that showed people who believe in a god were attending less religious services. I pointed out that you are easily tricked by surveys." No, the data I showed you clearly shows (the pew study and the Huffpot I linked) clearly shows less and less people identifying as Christians, church attendance has gone down, and for the first time there are more atheists/agnostics in Britain and Norway than god believers, and In Japan religiousity has gone from 70% to 20%. Your "evidence"" for atheism decreasing since 2012 was fucking laughable BTW (because Reason Rally attendance was down?). Serious question, why do you lie so much? Is it because you know your claims are empirically wrong and you have to make stuff up to defend them?
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Oct 20, 2020 19:13:29 GMT
What is an atheist anyway? A definition many keep pushing lately is that atheists "lack belief" in a god. That of course is what agnostics do. We've been through all this before. An agnostic is a person who believes that nothing is known, or can be known, of the existence or nature of God. 'Soft' atheists are those who merely lack belief in (what is usually) the supernatural as a cause of everything; 'hard' atheists are those who then go on to assert that God does not exist. This latter group then, say they know at least one big thing about God - which is not an agnostic position. In in regards to 'soft atheists' the lacking of belief is not contingent on thinking that one cannot know anything about how a purported deity would be. A strict agnostic would make no statement about the existence of God at all, other to say they don't know. I hope that helps, just as last time it was patiently explained to you. This is nonsense or we would see no agnostics on this board, while an atheist who merely lacks belief in God yet not asserting one does not exist, (as in myself, for instance) would not be seen either. And this is where you tell me what I 'really think' right? LOL No one denies that there is evidence for different ideas of God. But this is not the same as evidence for the reality of those conception - though of course the many different, and sometimes contradictory concepts may be true - for those who hold them. For instance yourself, who has argued on different occasions that God is both a 'code of ethics' and something 'vague and nebulous', 'a force of nature' etc See above. This has been discussed before and back then you eventually conceded, I remember, that taking part in discussions about the transcendental is not contingent on holding firm opinions (apart, perhaps, from the view that nothing can be known). For instance one can just have suspicions of the way things are, retain a recurring scepticism in the face of no evidence, or just have an interest in such matters, without settled opinions (although this is not to deny that religion can lead to strong views for some). You appear to judge everyone by your own standards.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 20, 2020 19:17:40 GMT
Being more convenient can be better in some circumstances such as when there are good leaders to follow. Being more convenient obviously can fail as you see now with leaders like Trump. See the difference? That data shows that Christians and atheists are two sides of the same bad coin. They compare in their poor performance obviously because they do not read above a rudimentary level. Any other religion outperforms Christianity and atheism. When I said atheism was on the decline since about 2012, you said it wasn't because you had a survey that showed people who believe in a god were attending less religious services. I pointed out that you are easily tricked by surveys. I couldn't possibly make up any more ridiculous atheists than you. "Being more convenient can be better in some circumstances such as when there are good leaders to follow." Name actual examples "Being more convenient obviously can fail as you see now with leaders like Trump. See the difference?" Devout Christians/evangelicals overwhelmingly voted for Trump, this doesn't help your argument. "That data shows that Christians and atheists are two sides of the same bad coin." No is does not, the data clearly shows more educated people tend to be less religious (college educated people are less likely to believe in God and pray then people who aren't). You can try and No True Scottsman all you want. "Any other religion outperforms Christianity and atheism." No it does not, cherrypicking some overacheiving immigrant demographics with better access to education (which is what you're most liklely refering to) doesn't look at the overall data. I've already addressed this before, why do you keep repeating the same terrible arguments? "When I said atheism was on the decline since about 2012, you said it wasn't because you had a survey that showed people who believe in a god were attending less religious services. I pointed out that you are easily tricked by surveys." No, the data I showed you clearly shows (the pew study and the Huffpot I linked) clearly shows less and less people identifying as Christians, church attendance has gone down, and for the first time there are more atheists/agnostics in Britain and Norway than god believers, and In Japan religiousity has gone from 70% to 20%. Your "evidence"" for atheism decreasing since 2012 was fucking laughable BTW (because Reason Rally attendance was down?). Serious question, why do you lie so much? Is it because you know your claims are empirically wrong and you have to make stuff up to defend them? There are no examples of good leaders at the moment. That includes your side. Having a blind faith in science would be an efficient (as well as convenient) thing for your side too, except that your "leaders," whoever they are, stink on ice at science. Learn to read data.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Oct 20, 2020 19:21:33 GMT
"Being more convenient can be better in some circumstances such as when there are good leaders to follow." Name actual examples "Being more convenient obviously can fail as you see now with leaders like Trump. See the difference?" Devout Christians/evangelicals overwhelmingly voted for Trump, this doesn't help your argument. "That data shows that Christians and atheists are two sides of the same bad coin." No is does not, the data clearly shows more educated people tend to be less religious (college educated people are less likely to believe in God and pray then people who aren't). You can try and No True Scottsman all you want. "Any other religion outperforms Christianity and atheism." No it does not, cherrypicking some overacheiving immigrant demographics with better access to education (which is what you're most liklely refering to) doesn't look at the overall data. I've already addressed this before, why do you keep repeating the same terrible arguments? "When I said atheism was on the decline since about 2012, you said it wasn't because you had a survey that showed people who believe in a god were attending less religious services. I pointed out that you are easily tricked by surveys." No, the data I showed you clearly shows (the pew study and the Huffpot I linked) clearly shows less and less people identifying as Christians, church attendance has gone down, and for the first time there are more atheists/agnostics in Britain and Norway than god believers, and In Japan religiousity has gone from 70% to 20%. Your "evidence"" for atheism decreasing since 2012 was fucking laughable BTW (because Reason Rally attendance was down?). Serious question, why do you lie so much? Is it because you know your claims are empirically wrong and you have to make stuff up to defend them? There are no examples of good leaders at the moment. That includes your side. Having a blind faith in science would be an efficient (as well as convenient) thing for your side too, except that your "leaders," whoever they are, stink on ice at science. Learn to read data. "There are no examples of good leaders at the moment." Then name past examples "Having a blind faith in science would be an efficient (as well as convenient) thing for your side too, except that your "leaders," whoever they are, stink on ice at science." A weird non sequitor that has nothing to do with anything "Learn to read data.: Petty ad homs don't count as an argument. I'll just take this as another one of your concessions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 20, 2020 19:31:01 GMT
What is an atheist anyway? A definition many keep pushing lately is that atheists "lack belief" in a god. That of course is what agnostics do. We've been through all this before. An agnostic is a person who believes that nothing is known, or can be known, of the existence or nature of God. 'Soft' atheists are those who merely lack belief in (what is usually) the supernatural as a cause of everything; 'hard' atheists are those who then go on to assert that God does not exist. This latter group then, say they know at least one big thing about God - which is not an agnostic position. In in regards to 'soft atheists' the lacking of belief is not contingent on thinking that one cannot know anything about how a purported deity would be. A strict agnostic would make no statement about the existence of God at all, other to say they don't know. I hope that helps, just as last time it was patiently explained to you. This is nonsense or we would see no agnostics on this board, while an atheist who merely lacks belief in God yet not asserting one does not exist, (as in myself, for instance) would not be seen either. And this is where you tell me what I 'really think' right? LOL No one denies that there is evidence for different ideas of God. But this is not the same as evidence for the reality of those conception - though of course the many different, and sometimes contradictory concepts may be true - for those who hold them. For instance yourself, who has argued on different occasions that God is both a 'code of ethics' and something 'vague and nebulous', 'a force of nature' etc See above. This has been discussed before and back then you eventually conceded, I remember, that taking part in discussions about the transcendental is not contingent on holding firm opinions (apart, perhaps, from the view that nothing can be known). For instance one just have suspicions of the way things are, retain a recurring scepticism in the face of no evidence, or just have an interest in such matters, without settled opinions (although this is not to deny that religion can lead to strong views for some). You appear to judge everyone by your own standards. It does not happen in the media much lately, especially since children and retarded adults on the internet have dominated the media, but there are very good arguments against atheism. That you still fail to recognize them is your problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Oct 20, 2020 19:32:31 GMT
shouldn't you have some respect for others who believe differently? Of course. And that has nothing, whatsoever, to do with this. Obviously you see no logical reason to have respect for others.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Oct 20, 2020 19:33:06 GMT
We've been through all this before. An agnostic is a person who believes that nothing is known, or can be known, of the existence or nature of God. 'Soft' atheists are those who merely lack belief in (what is usually) the supernatural as a cause of everything; 'hard' atheists are those who then go on to assert that God does not exist. This latter group then, say they know at least one big thing about God - which is not an agnostic position. In in regards to 'soft atheists' the lacking of belief is not contingent on thinking that one cannot know anything about how a purported deity would be. A strict agnostic would make no statement about the existence of God at all, other to say they don't know. I hope that helps, just as last time it was patiently explained to you. This is nonsense or we would see no agnostics on this board, while an atheist who merely lacks belief in God yet not asserting one does not exist, (as in myself, for instance) would not be seen either. And this is where you tell me what I 'really think' right? LOL No one denies that there is evidence for different ideas of God. But this is not the same as evidence for the reality of those conception - though of course the many different, and sometimes contradictory concepts may be true - for those who hold them. For instance yourself, who has argued on different occasions that God is both a 'code of ethics' and something 'vague and nebulous', 'a force of nature' etc See above. This has been discussed before and back then you eventually conceded, I remember, that taking part in discussions about the transcendental is not contingent on holding firm opinions (apart, perhaps, from the view that nothing can be known). For instance one just have suspicions of the way things are, retain a recurring scepticism in the face of no evidence, or just have an interest in such matters, without settled opinions (although this is not to deny that religion can lead to strong views for some). You appear to judge everyone by your own standards. It does not happen in the media much lately, especially since children and retarded adults on the internet have dominated the media, but there are very good arguments against atheism. That you still fail to recognize them is your problem. Here I'll translate what Arlon is saying: "I have no actual arguments so I'll just resort to my usual strategy of childish insults"
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Oct 20, 2020 19:33:23 GMT
We've been through all this before. An agnostic is a person who believes that nothing is known, or can be known, of the existence or nature of God. 'Soft' atheists are those who merely lack belief in (what is usually) the supernatural as a cause of everything; 'hard' atheists are those who then go on to assert that God does not exist. This latter group then, say they know at least one big thing about God - which is not an agnostic position. In in regards to 'soft atheists' the lacking of belief is not contingent on thinking that one cannot know anything about how a purported deity would be. A strict agnostic would make no statement about the existence of God at all, other to say they don't know. I hope that helps, just as last time it was patiently explained to you. This is nonsense or we would see no agnostics on this board, while an atheist who merely lacks belief in God yet not asserting one does not exist, (as in myself, for instance) would not be seen either. And this is where you tell me what I 'really think' right? LOL No one denies that there is evidence for different ideas of God. But this is not the same as evidence for the reality of those conception - though of course the many different, and sometimes contradictory concepts may be true - for those who hold them. For instance yourself, who has argued on different occasions that God is both a 'code of ethics' and something 'vague and nebulous', 'a force of nature' etc See above. This has been discussed before and back then you eventually conceded, I remember, that taking part in discussions about the transcendental is not contingent on holding firm opinions (apart, perhaps, from the view that nothing can be known). For instance one just have suspicions of the way things are, retain a recurring scepticism in the face of no evidence, or just have an interest in such matters, without settled opinions (although this is not to deny that religion can lead to strong views for some). You appear to judge everyone by your own standards. It does not happen in the media much lately, especially since children and retarded adults on the internet have dominated the media, but there are very good arguments against atheism. That you still fail to recognize them is your problem. Whether or not there are 'good arguments' against atheism, that is a separate issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Oct 20, 2020 19:37:01 GMT
It does not happen in the media much lately, especially since children and retarded adults on the internet have dominated the media, but there are very good arguments against atheism. That you still fail to recognize them is your problem. Here I'll translate what Arlon is saying: "I have no actual arguments so I'll just resort to my usual strategy of childish insults" It is worse than childish, since I have told Arlon several times that I have a severely autistic brother.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 20, 2020 19:37:44 GMT
There are no examples of good leaders at the moment. That includes your side. Having a blind faith in science would be an efficient (as well as convenient) thing for your side too, except that your "leaders," whoever they are, stink on ice at science. Learn to read data. "There are no examples of good leaders at the moment." Then name past examples"Having a blind faith in science would be an efficient (as well as convenient) thing for your side too, except that your "leaders," whoever they are, stink on ice at science." A weird non sequitor that has nothing to do with anything "Learn to read data.: Petty ad homs don't count as an argument. I'll just take this as another one of your concessions. In the past parents were much better leaders. Even now they are getting ready to "turn this car around."
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Oct 20, 2020 19:40:48 GMT
"There are no examples of good leaders at the moment." Then name past examples"Having a blind faith in science would be an efficient (as well as convenient) thing for your side too, except that your "leaders," whoever they are, stink on ice at science." A weird non sequitor that has nothing to do with anything "Learn to read data.: Petty ad homs don't count as an argument. I'll just take this as another one of your concessions. In the past parents were much better leaders. Even now they are getting ready to "turn this car around." So I'll take this as your concession that you have no actual specific examples and are just gonna appeal to some vague, incoherent appeal to nostalgia.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 20, 2020 19:45:59 GMT
It does not happen in the media much lately, especially since children and retarded adults on the internet have dominated the media, but there are very good arguments against atheism. That you still fail to recognize them is your problem. Here I'll translate what Arlon is saying: "I have no actual arguments so I'll just resort to my usual strategy of childish insults" If you are trying for George Orwell's "Newspeak" that would be "Arlon conspires against the party double plus bad."
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 20, 2020 19:46:43 GMT
In the past parents were much better leaders. Even now they are getting ready to "turn this car around." So I'll take this as your concession that you have no actual specific examples and are just gonna appeal to some vague, incoherent appeal to nostalgia. I'm sure many things seem incoherent to you.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Oct 20, 2020 19:48:11 GMT
I hope no one will mind if I interrupt all this Off Topic rambling to make an on-point reply. The Facebook group Friendly Atheist who mostly post hilarious delusional things that fundamentalist christians say and do. It takes a mocking tone to the reportage. Sometimes they also report on more serious issues like censorship by christian authorities of free thought material. Their latest videos are of Pat Robertson saying that even if T---- wins, an asteroid will destroy earth (the editor adds that this is the best news he's heard all day) and another right-wing delusional TV commentator claiming that if Biden is elected people will be able to marry and have sex with cows. I always enjoy their contributions. www.facebook.com/friendlyatheist |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Oct 20, 2020 19:50:28 GMT
So I'll take this as your concession that you have no actual specific examples and are just gonna appeal to some vague, incoherent appeal to nostalgia. I'm sure many things are incoherent to you. Petty ad homs don't count as argument. Who are these "leaders"? Give actual specific examples.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Oct 20, 2020 19:53:19 GMT
If you can choke-off your self-respect and native intelligence to think the Christian fundamentalist far right has anything to Christianity and support them as legitimate, may the only legit representatives of Christ, then you can choke-up a bad, tasteless joke.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 20, 2020 19:53:20 GMT
I hope no one will mind if I interrupt all this Off Topic rambling to make an on-point reply. The Facebook group Friendly Atheist who mostly post hilarious delusional things that fundamentalist christians say and do. It takes a mocking tone to the reportage. Sometimes they also report on more serious issues like censorship by christian authorities of free thought material. Their latest videos are of Pat Robertson saying that even if T---- wins, an asteroid will destroy earth (the editor adds that this is the best news he's heard all day) and another right-wing delusional TV commentator claiming that if Biden is elected people will be able to marry and have sex with cows. I always enjoy their contributions. www.facebook.com/friendlyatheist Yes, that is an hilarious concept of "religion." Atheists should thank "Christians" for giving them so many reasons to be atheists since without Christians there would be none.
|
|
