1 of 2
1
Atheism
Posted: 25 October 2010 10:19 PM   [ Ignore ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  10
Joined  2010-10-25

Atheism, if not a cult, is at least a religion.

Atheism requires belief, the belief that there is no Creator despite a lack of evidence to the contrary.

Atheism requires proselytising, lest contrary beliefs challenge them.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 October 2010 10:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  501
Joined  2005-02-22

Fresh chum. Anyone want to take a bite? Yes, it’s beans again.


Mr. Daddy, despite a lack of evidence to the contrary, I trust you to be reasonable. Shouldn’t you ask an atheist for a definition of atheism?

 Signature 

Delude responsibly.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 October 2010 04:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24

See: Russell’s Teapot, dude.

My version is a spacecraft in orbit around Neptune that looks just like a football, containing a tiny species of aliens who are individually influencing all human minds. If you really believe you have to have evidence to reject an assertion, that means you must now believe this spaceship and this alien species exist.

The thing is, the alien species in the football ship model is an order more reasonable than a god that’s defined incoherently, because neither my alien species nor my football ship defies nature or the fundamental standards of reasoning (i.e. logic, which is merely the codification of how reality works according to verifiable and perpetually repeated observations). Gods do.

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 October 2010 06:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  10
Joined  2010-10-25

You have failed to disprove the evidence of a creator, therefore, you are a cult, with beliefs you promote to those you consider ignorant.

You are no better than the common Christian, or a Muslim, less the head-hacking.

[ Edited: 27 October 2010 07:16 PM by axeldaddy]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 October 2010 09:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  501
Joined  2005-02-22

You have failed to disprove the evidence of a creator, therefore, you are a cult, with beliefs you promote to those you consider ignorant.


With a mind like yours, who needs head-hacking.

 Signature 

Delude responsibly.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2010 06:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  10
Joined  2010-10-25
Nhoj Morley - 28 October 2010 01:23 AM

You have failed to disprove the evidence of a creator, therefore, you are a cult, with beliefs you promote to those you consider ignorant.


With a mind like yours, who needs head-hacking.

Well said!

LOL

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 November 2010 06:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1539
Joined  2006-12-04
axeldaddy - 26 October 2010 02:19 AM

Atheism, if not a cult, is at least a religion.

What supernatural being do we worship, pray to, believe has all the answers?

Atheism requires belief, the belief that there is no Creator despite a lack of evidence to the contrary.

Wrong. Atheism makes no claim that “there is no creator.” I simply reject your claims based on insufficient evidence. Should you present evidence, we’re open to it. This is different from holding a cherished, unchanging, thoughtless, belief in something. The noise from atheists that you most likely hear and mistranslate is backlash from having religion shoved down our throats.

Atheism requires proselytising, lest contrary beliefs challenge them.

That really doesn’t even make sense.

 Signature 

“The hands that help are better far than the lips that pray.”
          — Robert G. Ingersoll

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2010 05:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  15
Joined  2010-10-30

This is not for axeldaddy, as my keyboard doesn’t have the diamond-tipped drill bit attachment I would need to aid in the delivery of the following message…

So for everyone else…
Atheist just means ‘Not a Theist’ or ‘I don’t have any religion’. Adding anything else is beyond the actual definition. That’s why Harris hates to even use the word. He says it does nothing to define who you are-though I think he’s wrong simply because most of the world is theist so it does, oddly enough, say something meaningful about you.

Anyway… its insane to think that ‘no religion’ is its own religion. And we hear this crap all the time.

Also, for help in arguing with the demented…its helpful I think to make note of the fact that all people are born atheist by this exact definition since we can’t believe in any religion when we’re born (‘cuz babies are technically dumb as axeldaddies) and have to get a religion shoved into their heads when they’re older to ever have one(though we know the religious brain-washers start on day one just to make sure it starts soaking in ASAP).

The atheist just says ‘Your evidence is not good enough to fall for these crazy claims.’ If an atheist says anything else its beyond the scope of being an atheist and usually delves into actual beliefs in the scientific method, logic/reason, evidence, reasons to be anti-theist, etc…

Oh… and the difference between a cult and a religion as the old joke goes… is just the number of its members.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 November 2010 07:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  10
Joined  2010-10-25
Aaron - 01 November 2010 10:52 PM
axeldaddy - 26 October 2010 02:19 AM

Atheism requires proselytising, lest contrary beliefs challenge them.

That really doesn’t even make sense.

Why should an anti-theist be concerned about theists?

Why are atheists not completely and utterly indifferent, if not logically ambivalent, yet remain stubbornly opposed to the concept of a creator?

Why do atheists automatically reject the concept of a superior intellect who may have created their very existence?

This is why I accuse you of being a religion, if not a cult. You proselytize as if you have something to prove. Why is that important to you?

I am not religious. I subscribe to no religion. I take the insult as being compared to a babe as a compliment. wink

By the way, I believe that most atheists, anti-theists, are more accurately described as anti-religionists, and I agree with most of you more than you realize. For example; I believe an atheist is capable of equal or greater morality than a common self-proclaimed Christian.

You can call me names, but I appreciate the challenges more. I may surprise you with my disdain for modern American Christianity.

[ Edited: 07 November 2010 07:20 PM by axeldaddy]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 April 2011 07:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Newbie
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  2
Joined  2008-06-28

There is no official “atheism’ that requires or suggests proselytising. So your assertion that

Atheism requires proselytising

is incorrect.
Some atheists care to share their ideas and some don’t. Some are more ‘preachy’ than others. Though Sam Harris, whose web site you are on, is not at all ‘preachy’, Someone may share their atheist ideas from a desire to change others minds which would resemble what religion does. However an atheist (at least most of the ones I know) are a lot less likely to insist they are right and they definitely won’t fall back on ancient texts for justification.
The comments you have received may be a bit sharp because you are asking very basic points that have been rebutted on Page 1 of any atheist forum, try http://www.happyatheistforum.com or richarddawkins.net for example. Either you are playing dumb or you skipped the introduction to atheism. There are a lot of Christians out there who want to have a discussion so they can share their faith. Go ahead share what you believe and why! It would be a lot more interesting than the very basic points you made, which do not even match the reality of discussion in this forum.
If you want to start an argument about these most basic points without appearing like a person who has no original ideas or someone just looking for an argument, I suggest you present some common atheist rebuttals to your points and discuss them.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 April 2011 10:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  21
Joined  2011-04-03
axeldaddy - 27 October 2010 10:53 PM

You have failed to disprove the evidence of a creator, therefore, you are a cult, with beliefs you promote to those you consider ignorant.

You are no better than the common Christian, or a Muslim, less the head-hacking.

Do you collect stamps?

 Signature 

Causality is nothing but an assumption about the non-reducibility of a model that correlates two or more events of physical reality.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 April 2011 10:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24

Is there some indication here to yous that there’s any reason at all to expect that some kind of meaningful dialog with axeldaddy is remotely likely?

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 April 2011 10:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  21
Joined  2011-04-03
SkepticX - 06 April 2011 02:25 PM

Is there some indication here to yous that there’s any reason at all to expect that some kind of meaningful dialog with axeldaddy is remotely likely?

Are you sure that fora are somehow aimed at meaningful dialogues?

 Signature 

Causality is nothing but an assumption about the non-reducibility of a model that correlates two or more events of physical reality.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 April 2011 11:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24
Dark Energy - 06 April 2011 02:41 PM
SkepticX - 06 April 2011 02:25 PM

Is there some indication here to yous that there’s any reason at all to expect that some kind of meaningful dialog with axeldaddy is remotely likely?

Are you sure that fora are somehow aimed at meaningful dialogues?

Nope. Depends upon the individual.

I’m just curious what people find of value or any worth at all in engaging such forum “participants”. I suspect many just aren’t really thinking about this, and I know some (perhaps many/most) who do so have motives they don’t seem to have examined. But then others are just playing kinda like kids poking ant hills with sticks.

I have no problem with any of that—just tend to encourage awareness and conscientious behavior.

Yup.

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 April 2011 11:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  21
Joined  2011-04-03
SkepticX - 06 April 2011 03:05 PM

Nope. Depends upon the individual.

I’m just curious what people find of value or any worth at all in engaging such forum “participants”. I suspect many just aren’t really thinking about this, and I know some (perhaps many/most) who do so have motives they don’t seem to have examined. But then others are just playing kinda like kids poking ant hills with sticks.

I have no problem with any of that—just tend to encourage awareness and conscientious behavior.

Yup.

I like your metaphor of the ant hill. It’s spot on. For me, I believe in the benefit of the doubt as regarded to first contact with alien vessel.

 Signature 

Causality is nothing but an assumption about the non-reducibility of a model that correlates two or more events of physical reality.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 April 2011 12:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24
Dark Energy - 06 April 2011 03:12 PM

I like your metaphor of the ant hill. It’s spot on. For me, I believe in the benefit of the doubt as regarded to first contact with alien vessel.


I’m very big on the benefit of the doubt as well. In fact I often criticize those who instead impose the burden of doubt upon others. But there has to be a reasonable doubt upon which to base its benefit. I’m even pretty generous about that, I think, but I also think we’re well beyond that point with our buddy axeldaddy here. And I don’t think many of those chiming (if any) are at all likely to think otherwise.

But poke away man! I can’t say I don’t understand that appeal ... quite well.

The only other thing regarding anthill poking for which I’d advocate mindfulness is that we get the forum we feed (referring to the alleged old Indian proverb about the dogs/wolves/squaws). If too much of this ant hill poking goes on it can seriously color a forum. I don’t think that’s much of a danger here, at least not as yet, but it’s just something else to be aware of.

Well ... there it is.

I’m done.

Sorry for the interruption.

Carry on ...

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed