1 of 3
1
Is this an accurate portrayal of atheism?
Posted: 02 December 2008 02:18 PM   [ Ignore ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  224
Joined  2008-10-19

In doing my research for some of the projects I am working on in this forum, I ran across this website, which portrays atheism in a different light.

Here is my challenge to atheists:  Read the entire page, reflect on it, take an honest look in the mirror, and ask yourself:  Is it an honest portrayal of atheism?

 Signature 

Please call me Immediate

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 December 2008 04:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1044
Joined  2008-02-15

What a pile of shit that was! I will bet that it is some fundie nut group that funds this crap!

 Signature 

Why is there Something instead of Nothing: No reason or ever knowable reason.

Kissing Hank’s Ass
Pope Song (rated NC17).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 December 2008 05:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1221
Joined  2008-07-20
Immediate Suppression - 02 December 2008 07:18 PM

Is it an honest portrayal of atheism?

No.
It is a dishonest, worse-than-World-Nut Daily piece of intelligent design promoting, red-baiting (by some moron utterly ignorant about dialectical materialism) piece of shit.

Please explain the following, from your authoritative web site:

There are a number of reasonable explanations for atheism:
Moral depravity
Rebellion
Superficiality
Error
State churches
Poor relationship with father
Division in religion
Learned times, peace, and prosperity
Negative experiences with theists
Scientism: Science has in many ways become a new God.

Even the non-pejorative (but utterly meaningless) “scientism” is merely a fundie canard, relied upon to argue that the 1st Amendment proscription against government establishment of religion requires “teaching the controversy,” for example, of ID vs evolution, or else the government is privileging what the fundies call “the religion of secularism” over the religion of jeezuz.  Science is only a god in the minds of ignorant fundamentalists who want to be able to argue that their god has as much right to be taken seriously as the “science god.”  It is a cynical and dishonest construct, and you, Immediate Supression, by vouching for this web site, have revealed yourself as a cynical and dishonest twit.

Not to mention tedious, humorless, dull-witted, and wimpy.

Did I say “please explain” something? Forget it.  Go fuck yourself, have a cigarette, and come back if that gets you over your hysteria.

 Signature 

“I am one of the few people I know who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity in our war on terror.”  Sam Harris October 17, 2005

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 December 2008 07:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1044
Joined  2008-02-15

I’m with you on this one,teuchter.

IS I too think you being dishonest and that you have an agenda here.

 Signature 

Why is there Something instead of Nothing: No reason or ever knowable reason.

Kissing Hank’s Ass
Pope Song (rated NC17).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 December 2008 07:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  224
Joined  2008-10-19
teuchter - 02 December 2008 10:13 PM
Immediate Suppression - 02 December 2008 07:18 PM

Is it an honest portrayal of atheism?

No.
It is a dishonest, worse-than-World-Nut Daily piece of intelligent design promoting, red-baiting (by some moron utterly ignorant about dialectical materialism) piece of shit.

Please explain the following, from your authoritative web site:

There are a number of reasonable explanations for atheism:
Moral depravity
Rebellion
Superficiality
Error
State churches
Poor relationship with father
Division in religion
Learned times, peace, and prosperity
Negative experiences with theists
Scientism: Science has in many ways become a new God.

Even the non-pejorative (but utterly meaningless) “scientism” is merely a fundie canard, relied upon to argue that the 1st Amendment proscription against government establishment of religion requires “teaching the controversy,” for example, of ID vs evolution, or else the government is privileging what the fundies call “the religion of secularism” over the religion of jeezuz.  Science is only a god in the minds of ignorant fundamentalists who want to be able to argue that their god has as much right to be taken seriously as the “science god.”  It is a cynical and dishonest construct, and you, Immediate Supression, by vouching for this web site, have revealed yourself as a cynical and dishonest twit.

Not to mention tedious, humorless, dull-witted, and wimpy.

Did I say “please explain” something? Forget it.  Go fuck yourself, have a cigarette, and come back if that gets you over your hysteria.

What hysteria?  I simply asked if you thought it was an honest assessment of atheism.  And by no means did I ever vouch for the website, I simply said it portrays atheism in a different light.

I don’t feel a need to explain anything about the website, since I never implied I agreed with anything on it.  The part of it that implies atheists don’t really exist perplexed me. 

GAD - 02 December 2008 09:55 PM

You came here started splitting atheism into groups that are along mainly theist lines, gods, guiding hands, souls, afterlives, fundies etc.. Then you post a link to a nut job website and ask, do we really want to be like this. As if you presupposing that we are like that and implying that we to be fixed (to be more like theists?)!

That is not a correct analysis, GAD.  I’m not splitting atheism into groups, I’m merely analyzing and describing different types of atheists and their tendencies.  My goal is certainly not go get atheists to be more like theists.  I am more interested in addressing some of the fundamentalist behavior in this forum regarding tolerance and certainty, and discussing different types of atheists.

 Signature 

Please call me Immediate

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 December 2008 08:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  30
Joined  2008-12-02

Hey, this is the second thread I’ve viewed on this site. More entertaining than the first but still very low on intellectual content. I guess you can’t do much with this OP. Glad to see you can speak your minds but did it really deserve the effort of any comment at all? I’ll keep searching.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 December 2008 01:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  951
Joined  2007-06-23
Argonaut - 03 December 2008 01:08 AM

Hey, this is the second thread I’ve viewed on this site. More entertaining than the first but still very low on intellectual content. I guess you can’t do much with this OP. Glad to see you can speak your minds but did it really deserve the effort of any comment at all? I’ll keep searching.

Wow, two whole threads Argo? Nothing like contempt before thorough investigation…

Back to the OP.

I find Conservapedia to be a riot. Try looking up your favorite generally accepted scientific terms/theories or historical accounts. You’ll get the drift of the site pretty quickly.

My favorite of the “reasonable explanations for atheism” is Francis Bacon’s “Learned times, specially with peace and prosperity; for troubles and adversities do more bow men’s minds to religion.” The obvious corollary? “Quick, make everyone ignorant and miserable so they’ll turn to religion!”

Groucho Marx was once approached at dinner by a priest who thanked him “for bringing so much joy into the world”, Marx shot back “And I’d like to thank you for taking so much out.”

Marketing 101: make your customer feel like he’s missing something from his life that only you can provide.

No, IS. The article is a sloppily constructed collection of apologia, propaganda and biased quotations of “research” written in an attempt to paint atheists as confused, in denial, morally unbalanced and destined to lead short, unhappy lives. Whereas many of us, or at least myself, have found in the act of rejecting theism a grounding of self, a wealth of freedom (with concomitant responsibility) and a sense of contentment previously absent.

Ultimately, though, I get the feeling that the compilers of this pile of excrement are those who would return to their chains in Plato’s allegory of the cave. Uncomprehending, they grasp at straws.

Whew! I’m winded (and windy) tonight. Insomnia - a terrible disease.

 Signature 

He who is not a misanthrope at forty can never have loved mankind  -Chamfort

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 December 2008 02:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  30
Joined  2008-12-02
mpbrockman - 03 December 2008 06:05 AM

Wow, two whole threads Argo? Nothing like contempt before thorough investigation…

Saves time. Let’s see…a thread about reviewing the veracity of a website that proclaims…...

“The starting point for increasing your knowledge, your faith and the well-being of you and those around you is to understand concepts better. Conservapedia enables you to do that, and to impart what you have learned to others by editing here. The truth shall set you free. No other encyclopedic resource on the internet is free of corruption by liberal untruths.”

It sounds like the just the sort of intellectually honest material that deserves serious consideration. Sorry, this drivel should be left for the afterlife.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 December 2008 07:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1891
Joined  2007-12-19
Immediate Suppression - 02 December 2008 07:18 PM

Here is my challenge to atheists:  Read the entire page, reflect on it, take an honest look in the mirror, and ask yourself:  Is it an honest portrayal of atheism?

Thought you said you had a challenge.

 Signature 

“This is it. You are it.”


- Jos. Campbell

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 December 2008 08:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  305
Joined  2008-10-08

Isn’t Conservapedia a parody? Or is this Poe’s Law at work?

 Signature 

“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of the death penalty…” -Sam Harris
“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research and abortion…” -Me

Jump through the Blackmun Hole!

Salt Creek has discovered the meaning of the first half of “Nulono”. Now, what language uses “nul” for zero?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 December 2008 08:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2927
Joined  2006-12-17

Since it seems possible to edit this website, I suggest that everybody jump in and start adding to it.  Why let the wackos have all the fun?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 December 2008 10:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2492
Joined  2008-04-05

That website has about as much credibility as the christian bible! Cool!!

Thumbs up for mythology!

 Signature 

‘Every reflecting mind must acknowledge that there is no proof of the existence of a Deity’

‘If ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, knowledge of nature destroys them’

Percy Bysshe Shelley

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 December 2008 10:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  951
Joined  2007-06-23
Argonaut - 03 December 2008 07:52 AM
mpbrockman - 03 December 2008 06:05 AM

Wow, two whole threads Argo? Nothing like contempt before thorough investigation…

Saves time.

Yes, I imagine it would LOL

Argonaut - 03 December 2008 07:52 AM

It sounds like the just the sort of intellectually honest material that deserves serious consideration. Sorry, this drivel should be left for the afterlife.

Yes again (sarcasm noted and appreciated). My post above was due to insomnia more than anything else. At the same time there is some reason to point out the ridiculous like Conservapedia when it shows up here. Letting garbage go by unchallenged can be construed as tacit admission of its validity.

If you’re looking for more highbrow stuff, use the search function and toss in some keywords that interest you. If you’re just checking the “latest posts” on any given day - you might find nothing but fuckwittery.

Happy hunting and welcome.

 Signature 

He who is not a misanthrope at forty can never have loved mankind  -Chamfort

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 December 2008 06:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  224
Joined  2008-10-19
mpbrockman - 03 December 2008 06:05 AM

No, IS. The article is a sloppily constructed collection of apologia, propaganda and biased quotations of “research” written in an attempt to paint atheists as confused, in denial, morally unbalanced and destined to lead short, unhappy lives. Whereas many of us, or at least myself, have found in the act of rejecting theism a grounding of self, a wealth of freedom (with concomitant responsibility) and a sense of contentment previously absent.

This was in part what I was asking about when I asked if it was an accurate portray of atheism.  I wanted to see if atheists felt like any of the things it implied were true, in terms of personal values and morals.

 Signature 

Please call me Immediate

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 December 2008 07:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1221
Joined  2008-07-20
Immediate Suppression - 03 December 2008 11:15 PM

This was in part what I was asking about when I asked if it was an accurate portray of atheism.  I wanted to see if atheists felt like any of the things it implied were true, in terms of personal values and morals.

You are a very weird person, IS.
Nothing about your original post implied that you “wanted to see if atheists felt like any of the things it implied were true ...”  Everything about your original post implied that you felt what was posted in the site was true, and you wanted to know if we would admit it.

Immediate Suppression - 02 December 2008 07:18 PM

Here is my challenge to atheists:  Read the entire page, reflect on it, take an honest look in the mirror, and ask yourself:  Is it an honest portrayal of atheism?

When I have been asked to review, for example, an draft appellate brief “to see if felt like any of the things it implied were true,”  this request has never been accompanied by a demand that I “take an honest look in the mirror.”

And why would I have to “take an honest look in the mirror” to determine that the statement, “Marx also stated: ‘Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction.’” is so far out of context as to be meaningless jibberish.  It is like saying that this accurate quote from the 14th Amendment, “payment of pensions…,” meaningfully summarizes the 14th Amendment.

Even without looking myself in the mirror, I certainly know that Owen was an idealist, and Marx very much a materialist, and that this distinction is crucial.  Marx and Engels broke with Hegel, and left Hegelian dialectics for dialectical materialism, as every child knows, and I need not “look myself in the mirror” to understand that.

Frederick Engels, in Ludwig Feuerbach and The End of Classical German Philosophy

“While materialism conceived nature as the sole reality, nature in the Hegelian system represents merely the “alienation” of the absolute idea, so to say, a degradation of the idea. At all events, thinking and its thought-product, the idea, is here the primary, nature the derivative, which only exists at all by the condescension of the idea. And in this contradiction they floundered as well or as ill as they could.

“Then came Feuerbach’s Essence of Christianity. With one blow it pulverised the contradiction, in that without circumlocutions it placed materialism on the throne again. Nature exists independently of all philosophy. It is the foundation upon which we human beings, ourselves products of nature, have grown up. Nothing exists outside nature and man, and the higher beings our religious fantasies have created are only the fantastic reflection of our own essence.

“The spell was broken; the “system” was exploded and cast aside, and the contradiction, shown to exist only in out imagination, was dissolved. One must oneself have experienced the liberating effect of this book to get an idea of it. Enthusiasm was general; we all became at once Feuerbachians.”

So, IS, I was about to go on another tear about your dishonesty, constantly denying that you have done what you have so obviously done (constantly whining about SaltCreeks manifestly nonthreatening metaphor about tossing you against a wall, and then insisting you did not feel threatened; repeatedly starting threads about “fundamentalist atheists” and then denying that you had started multiple threads on the same subject)and suddenly I simply lost the will.

I have finally taken pity on you.

I have finally understood that given the poverty of your language skills (misunderstanding the plain meaning of atheist by asserting that 20% of atheists believe in god) and impaired reading comprehension (when called on your statement about 20% of atheists believing in god, you referred me to a web page which you obviously did not understand, although it was written on what, a 6th grade reading level, because not only did it not support your proposition, it called your proposition idiotic):

According to a recent Pew survey, 21 percent of atheists in the United States believe in “God or a universal spirit,” and 8 percent are “absolutely certain” that such a Being exists. One wonders if they were also “absolutely certain” they understood the meaning of the term “atheist.” Claiming to be an atheist who believes in God is like claiming to be a happily married bachelor. Rarely does one discover nonsense in such a pristine state. Still this hasn’t stopped many people from concluding that there is a schism in the atheist community.

given your inability to understand nuance, implication, irony and humor, and your sad groping at whether or not Sander “appears to be joking” or is in fact joking:

Immediate Suppression - 02 December 2008 07:36 PM

I ran across another statement today that I feel needs to be examined:

Sander - 25 August 2008 11:36 PM

Welcome Wgirl,
Don’t be shy. Post your thoughts with reckless abandon.
I promise we won’t bite although we may casually toss a Molotov cocktail in your general direction.

He appears to be joking, but is it an expression of intolerance?

I finally see that you are a lonely and isolated person, and you have explained your loneliness and isolation, to yourself, by telling yourself you have some incredibly elevated intelligence, and that’s the reason nobody understands you.

Your whininess and petulance, together with the ludicrous nature of your rambling posts, would be sufficient reason for me to disengage.  However, I now see that if I actually got through to you, even for one paragraph, and this punctured your grandiose image of yourself, and left you to face the barrend waste of your life, this could be devastating, I can’t be responsible for that.

So I will try not to bother you for a while.

 Signature 

“I am one of the few people I know who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity in our war on terror.”  Sam Harris October 17, 2005

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 December 2008 08:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  951
Joined  2007-06-23
Immediate Suppression - 03 December 2008 11:15 PM

This was in part what I was asking about when I asked if it was an accurate portray of atheism.  I wanted to see if atheists felt like any of the things it implied were true, in terms of personal values and morals.

Well, color me a big no - but I can only speak for me. It is interesting to note the sorts of research they didn’t cover. For example, the recent Pew survey finding that atheists as a group have one of the highest marriage success rates (especially in the liberal Northeast) while fundamentalist Xtian Southerners have among the lowest.

The lesson? Marry an atheist from Boston rather than the Baptist Sunday School teacher from Vidalia. Seems to run a bit counter to conventional wisdom, does it not?

I don’t confuse correlation with causation (a concept Conservapedia seems unfamiliar with), but it’s still interesting to note things like that if that’s the game they wish to play.

Another issue they didn’t address is an idea that theists in general often have a hell of a time with. Namely, that a moral code can exist outside of a religious framework. My stock answer is that my ethical system (such as it is) originated in my upbringing and has been modified (and continues to be modified) by experience, observation and reflection. The work of SH and many other neuroscientists is also beginning to show pretty clearly that some aspects of what we call morality or ethics are actually hardwired and that people across the whole spectrum of belief systems react in very similar ways to ethical dilemmas.

I’m galloping off again.

I just find the article so biased, so willfully ignorant of so many aspects of atheism, ethics and related issues. That I find it difficult and rather useless to discuss at length.

Although I appear to have done just that. shut eye

 Signature 

He who is not a misanthrope at forty can never have loved mankind  -Chamfort

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 3
1
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed