3 of 3
3
Is this an accurate portrayal of atheism?
Posted: 04 December 2008 03:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1044
Joined  2008-02-15
Immediate Suppression - 04 December 2008 05:49 PM

mpbrockman took a different perspective in answering my question than anyone else has.  Instead of reacting in a defensive knee-jerk reactionary way, as most seem to have, he took an honest look in the mirror, and went on the offensive; and answered the question in a intellectual, civil, intelligent manner. 

I’m still waiting to see if others are capable of reacting in this mature manner, or if they will all simply fall into the easy trap of atheist fundamentalist reactionary intolerance, in the similar way to how Christian fundamentalists do.  Though the Christian fundamentalists are generally more polite in expressing their intolerant reactions. 

So for you other atheists out there who haven’t responded, do you feel like the site gives an accurate portrayal of atheism, from the perspective of personal morals and values?

Good god! What a steaming pile of passive aggressive manipulation and pop Psychology bullshit! You build some boxes, put labels on them, place cheese in one of them and then tell people if they want to join your great cheese party of the year all they have to follow your rules.  Rats in a maze.

[ Edited: 04 December 2008 03:57 PM by GAD]
 Signature 

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

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 December 2008 07:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1221
Joined  2008-07-20
Immediate Suppression - 04 December 2008 04:22 AM
Immediate Suppression - 03 December 2008 11:15 PM

Nothing in my original post implied that I thought any of it was true, I simply and accurately stated that it “portrays atheism in a different light.”

The defensiveness and anger I have seen from other people, such as teutcher, makes me wonder if they are reacting because they feel like what some of the site says about personal morals and values of atheists might be true in their case.

Wow, what a weasel!
In one post, IS says that 1. he hasn’t implied that the web page was true, but that 2. he wonders if I am reacting in “defensiveness and anger” because of the truth of the web site.

IS, stop being so fucking wimpy.  Stop saying, maybe Teuchter is an atheist because he is morally depraved, so that you can hide behind “I didn’t say he was morally depraved, I said MAYBE he was morally depraved.”  Whatever you were trying to imply, come out and say it.  Nobody is going to physically assault you.  We don’t even know, or care, who you are or where you live.

If you have something to say (other than everyone should be nice to you) say it!  If you don’t, turn off your computer, and get out of the house. (No, going to the hobby shop isn’t really getting out of the house.)  Meet some people.  Take up bad habits.  Drink vodka.  Smoke cigarettes.  Talk to the bus driver while the vehicle is in motion.  Go wild!

We’re worried about you, buddy.  We think you’re decompensating.

Plus, you’ve gotten really boring.

[ Edited: 04 December 2008 07:23 PM by sam harris is a neocon idiot]
 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: 04 December 2008 07:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27
teuchter - 05 December 2008 12:20 AM

We’re worried about you, buddy.  We think you’re decompensating.

You know, teuchter, I may have to argue with you here. There’s a time to try to pull someone back from the brink, and there’s a time to let nature take its course, natural selection and all.

I’ve seen a hypothesis that IS is a chatbot. I tend to think that IS is the sock puppet of a particular god-botherer who may have half a dozen or more other user names here. Somebody else (was it Beam?) wondered if it was Roger Pearse. Maybe it’s GDon. Maybe GDon is the sock puppet of somebody else. It doesn’t matter. They’re pretty much all on the same wavelength. See my post on “Ambassadors of Woo”.

I don’t worry much about any one of them suddenly decompensating. Given their statistical frequency in the population, those they are likely to shoot at are going to be faith-heads themselves. Decrease the surplus population.

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 December 2008 09:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1221
Joined  2008-07-20
Salt Creek - 05 December 2008 12:49 AM
teuchter - 05 December 2008 12:20 AM

We’re worried about you, buddy.  We think you’re decompensating.

You know, teuchter, I may have to argue with you here. There’s a time to try to pull someone back from the brink, and there’s a time to let nature take its course, natural selection and all.

Thanks for pulling me back from the brink; I’ve been talking to this guy too much.  You know what Nietzche says:

[ Edited: 04 December 2008 09:29 PM by sam harris is a neocon idiot]
 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: 04 December 2008 09:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  651
Joined  2006-12-08
Immediate Suppression - 02 December 2008 07:18 PM

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?

I think your conservapedia page, what little I read of it before getting bored, portrays atheism just about as accurately as religion is portrayed by many here on this site.  Which is to say, it’s a pretty mind-bending excercise in convincing oneself of the merits of one’s own ideology.

 Signature 

Do-gooding is like treating hemophilia—the real cure is to let hemophiliacs bleed to death, before they breed more hemophiliacs. -Robert Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 December 2008 09:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27
Antisocialdarwinist - 05 December 2008 02:25 AM

Which is to say, it’s a pretty mind-bending excercise in convincing oneself of the merits of one’s own ideology.

Well, sure. If all you have is an ideology, everything looks like a merit/demerit.

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 December 2008 12:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1632
Joined  2006-09-23
Immediate Suppression - 02 December 2008 07:18 PM

In doing my research for some of the projects I am working on in this forum,

You’re working on projects in this forum?  Why?

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?

How is it a portrayal of atheism at all?  It seems to consist most of apologetics—arguments in favor of theism.

For instance:

Atheism and Questions of Origins

Creationist scientists state that the first law of thermodynamics and the second law of thermodynamics argue against an eternal universe or a universe created by natural processes and argue for a universe created by God.[59][60][61] A majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism since World War II have had the worldview of atheism.[62][63] Creation scientists assert that the theory of evolution is an inadequate explanation for the variety of life forms on earth.[64] In addition, the current naturalistic explanations for the origin of life are inadequate. The theory of evolution has had a number of negative social effects.

Basically, this says that most of those who understand that evolution is true are atheists, but that evolution can’t be true and that creationism is the only way to avoid negative social effects.

Is this an honest portrayal of atheism?  No.  It doesn’t appear to have anything to do with atheism.  Same with the rest of the article.

 Signature 

“I will tell you with the utmost impudence that I esteem much more his Person, than his Works.”

  (Dryden, St. Euremont’s Essays, 1692.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 December 2008 12:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1632
Joined  2006-09-23
Jefe - 02 December 2008 08:56 PM

Furthermore, don’t waste my time by trying to get me to read conservapedia.

It’s interesting how cleverly they’ve mimicked Wikipedia.  Although some of the sidebars are, well, ruining the effect.

ATHEISM

The belief that there was nothing
and nothing happened to nothing
and the nothing magically
exploded for no reason, creating
everything and then a bunch of
everything magically rearranged
itself for no reason what so ever
into self-replicating bits which
then turned into dinosaurs.

Makes perfect sense.

You won’t see something like that on Wikipedia.

 Signature 

“I will tell you with the utmost impudence that I esteem much more his Person, than his Works.”

  (Dryden, St. Euremont’s Essays, 1692.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 December 2008 02:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2492
Joined  2008-04-05

‘nothing magically
exploded for no reason’

Thats about the dumbest statement imaginable. If anything explodes it is for a reason. It’s called physics and the properties thereof.

It’s beyond ridiculous to try and reason and discuss with such nonsense here.

IS is exceedingly childish and ignorant. We should no longer afford him the dignity from our replies.

Seriously, whats the use?

 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: 06 December 2008 02:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1891
Joined  2007-12-19
McCreason - 06 December 2008 07:18 PM

It’s beyond ridiculous to try and reason and discuss with such nonsense here.

IS is exceedingly childish and ignorant. We should no longer afford him the dignity from our replies.

Seriously, whats the use?

Yep! It makes a person fundamentally speechless.

 Signature 

“This is it. You are it.”


- Jos. Campbell

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 3
3
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed