Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
At least your posts are not deleted. You have atheist privilege!
I accept all the bad of Christianity, no problems.
You don’t actually. You seem to say that the crusades were beneficial without acknowledging the problems.
Quote:
The issue is that intolerant atheists
That is a tautology. Of course intolerant atheists have untenable positions, that is because they are intolerant. I can say that intolerant Christians are unreasonable too, but once again we should be focusing on the intolerance, not the religious belief.
Quote:
hink 100% of Christianity is not correct. When I tell the Atheists the Catholic Church founded 140 universities in medieval times they refuse to accept that as fact and say Atheists could have done it. Or they make the ridiculous assertion that all those medieval great people were closet atheists. All the great universities on the world are rooted in Christianity. Harvard used to be a divinity school.
I think you are overstating this point. I certainly accept that many major universities were founded as religious organizations. But your thread got shut down as religious proselytization In the atheist sub. If you want to talk about this go to R&S.
Quote:
Let's be clear: Atheist have created very little in world history. And the few things they created did not work out very well.
Atheism has been discriminated against for centuries, and religious indoctrination, via religious schools, has been endemic. There haven’t been many atheists, and we really do not know the depths of historical figures faith.
So what? That does not mean that all advances were a result of religion.
Most advances were done by men. Does that mean women are incapable? Most advances were done by people with 10 toes. Does that mean that people with 9 tors are incapable?
You are mistaking correlation for causation.
Last edited by mensaguy; 04-24-2019 at 06:58 PM..
Reason: Spelling error caught in the language filter.
At least your posts are not deleted. You have atheist privilege!
I accept all the bad of Christianity, no problems. The issue is that intolerant atheists think 100% of Christianity is not correct. When I tell the Atheists the Catholic Church founded 140 universities in medieval times they refuse to accept that as fact and say Atheists could have done it. Or they make the ridiculous assertion that all those medieval great people were closet atheists. All the great universities on the world are rooted in Christianity. Harvard used to be a divinity school.
Let's be clear: Atheist have created very little in world history. And the few things they created did not work out very well.
Since you chose to post this in public, I'll answer in public. Once.
You are posting in the Atheism and Agnosticism sub-forum of the Religion and Spirituality forum. There are rules. You chose to break those rules, several times, by making political remarks, which are clearly against the rules.
There is no atheist privilege. I suppose you could say there is rule conformity privilege.
There is no way to know what the true innermost religious feelings might have been in regards to some historical figures. If they were not believers, they could not say so, often on penalty of death. Blasphemy was often a capital crime.
You seem to be hung up on the founding of schools several centuries ago.
Now, if you don't want to discuss issues related to Atheism and Agnosticism, as required by the owner of this business, you should feel no compulsion to post in this forum.
Your messiah dies, painfully and that's "Good"?
No one knows what day, actually.
Your messiah goes to Heaven, and that's supposed to be good?
If he is the son of God, where else would he go?
No doubt, historical Jesus (assuming he really existed) wanted to live, and
wouldn't he be shocked to know that the world celebrates when he went to
Heaven?
Originally, it was a pagan holiday, of course.
I hear that a lot, but have never seen any supporting argument other that amateur philology. Easter is set by the Jewish lunar calendar as the first Sunday after the Paschal full moon. I don't see how they can argue that Passover is a "pagan" festival.
There are some associated rituals that are clearly pagan. The Last Supper is a reenactment of the "eating the god" ritual that was ubiquitous in the ancient world. We know that event was on Friday night or Saturday because it was the Passover. That would have meant Jesus' arrest on Sunday at the soonest, Trial on Monday, death on Monday or Tuesday, and resurrection on Thursday or Friday. Hey, church fathers didn't have to be able to count on their fingers.
The resurrection itself is the Osiris story, hauled out of Egypt by the Pharisees and popularized by Pharisee Paul, but without a date on either the solar or lunar calendar or an assigned day of the week. Easter itself is original with christianity, though with borrowed ornaments.
A lot of it doesn't make sense because those people were baying at the moon crazy. Jesus was on the Mount of Olives praying because he really though that the Mount of Olives would split in half and the the Heavenly Host would issue forth to kick Roman butt. It was prophesied by Zechariah and what the Prophet said must be true. It's all written down and everything.
At least your posts are not deleted. You have atheist privilege!
I accept all the bad of Christianity, no problems. The issue is that intolerant atheists think 100% of Christianity is not correct. When I tell the Atheists the Catholic Church founded 140 universities in medieval times they refuse to accept that as fact and say Atheists could have done it. Or they make the ridiculous assertion that all those medieval great people were closet atheists. All the great universities on the world are rooted in Christianity. Harvard used to be a divinity school.
Let's be clear: Atheist have created very little in world history. And the few things they created did not work out very well.
Trouts is right. This is merely an assertion, it is not appeal to numbers, over simplification and non sequitur doesn't apply.
The bad of Christianity is as irrelevant as the good. Because the good of Christianity is what atheists could have done, just as the bad. As Religious apologists never tire of pointing out - it's what Men (not women, who are to blame for nothing) do. The argument that 'atheists have created very little in world history' is indeed ad populum, simpliciter and does not follow. Just as the argument that 'all the great scientists were Christians (some say Creationists, which in a sense, is true) is irrelevant. Back then everyone (in the West) was a Christian of sorts, or had to pretend to be, but the work was done through science, not religion.
So the good and the bad of religion or anything else was done by men, and religion was irrelevant aside for the easy excuses and the motivations to do what otherwise that what they might not have done - both the good and the bad. It is probably debatable whether -since Darwin - atheists have done and produced more in science at least (not in world history which is still driven by the Old values), because, just as it was when Religion was the ruler, it was still science that did the work, not religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
Another great one is religious freedom and anti-bigotry.
We atheists are all in favour of that. What we are not in favour of is religious privilege and intolerance of different religious views and different people. I would argue that - instinctively, these have NOT been the values of the Judeo -Christian tradition or any other. These have been values that only only emerged out of centuries of thought and argument - just like progress in science. They are the values of humanism and, since they came out of reason, rather than instinct, they are humanist values, not religious.
This is why we argue that the West is indeed based on the Christian religion, and that on the Graeco -Roman religions before it. But, Christian religious values are no longer relevant to today, or rather seeing the best of those values - the ones that you selected in your list - are those that were there before, even though they tended to be overlaid by the instinctive, traditional religious values of intolerance and division through religious domination.
That is why it's time to shed those old religious values and move onto humanism and the morals and ethics that stand up to reasoned scrutiny. if they do, then they stand up for themselves and the Bible or God is not relevant. As pointed out in the Euthyphro dilemma
attributed to Socrates, executed for denying the gods, as you will recall.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-25-2019 at 04:48 AM..
Trouts is right. This is merely an assertion, it is not appeal to numbers, over simplification and non sequitur doesn't apply.
The bad of Christianity is as irrelevant as the good. Because the good of Christianity is what atheists could have done, just as the bad. As Religious apologists never tire of pointing out - it's what Men (not women, who are to blame for nothing) do. The argument that 'atheists have created very little in world history' is indeed ad populum, simpliciter and does not follow. Just as the argument that 'all the great scientists were Christians (some say Creationists, which in a sense, is true) is irrelevant. Back then everyone (in the West) was a Christian of sorts, or had to pretend to be, but the work was done through science, not religion.
So the good and the bad of religion or anything else was done by men, and religion was irrelevant aside for the easy excuses and the motivations to do what otherwise that what they might not have done - both the good and the bad. It is probably debatable whether -since Darwin - atheists have done and produced more in science at least (not in world history which is still driven by the Old values), because, just as it was when Religion was the ruler, it was still science that did the work, not religion.
We atheists are all in favour of that. What we are not in favour of is religious privilege and intolerance of different religious views and different people. I would argue that - instinctively, these have NOT been the values of the Judeo -Christian tradition or any other. These have been values that only only emerged out of centuries of thought and argument - just like progress in science. They are the values of humanism and, since they came out of reason, rather than instinct, they are humanist values, not religious.
This is why we argue that the West is indeed based on the Christian religion, and that on the Graeco -Roman religions before it. But, Christian religious values are no longer relevant to today, or rather seeing the best of those values - the ones that you selected in your list - are those that were there before, even though they tended to be overlaid by the instinctive, traditional religious values of intolerance and division through religious domination.
That is why it's time to shed those old religious values and move onto humanism and the morals and ethics that stand up to reasoned scrutiny. if they do, then they stand up for themselves and the Bible or God is not relevant. As pointed out in the Euthyphro dilemma
attributed to Socrates, executed for denying the gods, as you will recall.
Once you let individual posters know they are up against a "we" instead of espousing general conversations, hopefully, they will get the point of what you all are demanding here on these forums. And maybe it will help to cut down on posters complaining of being ganged up for having a different opinion than the one that's marketed.
Once you let individual posters know they are up against a "we" instead of espousing general conversations, hopefully, they will get the point of what you all are demanding here on these forums. And maybe it will help to cut down on posters complaining of being ganged up for having a different opinion than the one that's marketed.
''We' is a bad habit that i have. I try to distinguish between a perceived general view held by atheists, science or rationalists. That allows me to use "I" when I want to show that an argument is what I think and I can't claim that anyone else shares that view.
I am not acting as a spokesman for others or claiming support for my views; I am putting myself in what i see as the mainstream of a particular view.
So when i say that 'we' see morality as based upon reciprocity, that the Cambrian explosion took a couple of billion years and produced really molluscs and sea -Crustaceans, not 'all kinds', and that the sheer existence of heavy elements in nature rules out a creation a few thousand years ago, this is not just my view, but a concensus view which i share.
You don’t actually. You seem to say that the crusades were beneficial without acknowledging the problems.
Of course intolerant atheists have untenable positions, that is because they are intolerant. I can say that intolerant Christians are unreasonable too, but once again we should be focusing on the intolerance, not the religious belief.
The best atheists are the ones that are tolerant and able to have a discussion rather than to throw negative insults or denigrate those people that believe in religious myths. That this forum has censorship is travesty in the name of atheism. One expects atheists to be open minded and to have high intellect.
Quote:
I think you are overstating this point. I certainly accept that many major universities were founded as religious organizations. But your thread got shut down as religious proselytization In the atheist sub. If you want to talk about this go to R&S.
Straw man! I have said at nauseam I am an agnostic so I cannot proselytize. I also freely accept the mythology in religion as made up stories. It seems most atheists cannot look past this point and see what is behind all this mythology.
Quote:
Atheism has been discriminated against for centuries, and religious indoctrination, via religious schools, has been endemic. There haven’t been many atheists, and we really do not know the depths of historical figures faith.
Looking for a position in the victimhood scale is appalling for an atheist. Whether you are a victim or not does not make your viewpoint better or worse. But, this is very telling! Throughout world history all groups in the planet needed a sacred theme to grow a community. That is why all groups in the past had passion for a deity or anything else that is similar to a deity. With the onset of atheism the sacred themes had to be secular, but the human emotions around the new sacred secular themes are no different. These new secular movements in the 20th century have not been successful or enlightened.
Quote:
So what? That does not mean that all advances were a result of religion.
Most advances were done by men. Does that mean women are incapable? Most advances were done by people with 10 toes. Does that mean that people with 9 tors are incapable?
You are mistaking correlation for causation.
I actually agree. Ultimately human achievement is individual and at the end of the day Ayn Rand is correct. However, certain groups (not all) that are unified by common values have done quite well in history. The Jews, Mormons, Japanese, etc come to mind. The opposite would be a group with no unifying themes. Something that leads to tribalism and balkanization.
We don't need to be told by you what the 'best atheists' are. Your claim to be an 'agnostic' is meaningless. Nobody knows for sure, so we are all agnostics. Those who claim to "Know" on Faith are simply deluding themselves.
Your agenda was clear from the first. Pretending to be an atheist you attacked us from the inside. However, while an atheists can usually pretend quite well as a Theist, a Theist usually gives themselves away when pretending to be an atheist. Your apologetic position for the Catholic Church became very evident.
Trying to tell us how we should post, behave or treat Christians is simply an attempt to manipulate the conversation. Within the Tos, we are not obliged to treat you or your favoured religion with any more respect that you treat atheism or indeed Islam. For which you seem to have a particular dislike.
Your final bit is Ok. "Quite Good Post". All humans have make great achievements, even if (such as in the technology of war) the actual end result was destruction. I won't post the Startrek Clip yet again but human technology has come on amazingly. But Humans still think like we did in the bronze age. We think with instinct, not reason. And we never will until the basis of social thought is reason and not instinct.
The best atheists are the ones that are tolerant and able to have a discussion rather than to throw negative insults or denigrate those people that believe in religious myths. That this forum has censorship is travesty in the name of atheism. One expects atheists to be open minded and to have high intellect.
Another tautology. You are saying that the best atheists are the best atheists. Ok. Sure. The best anything I’d the best anything.
As for the rest, none of that follows. Censorship is a governmental action, not the action of a private entity. The discussion rules on the board, which weren’t created by atheists, are universal to direct conversations so as to avoid a general muddle. There is an adjacent forum where you can talk about the founding of universities, and all the atheists here participate in R&S. Don’t whine about the difficulty of starting a thread on a different link which is separated on your screen by less than 1/2 inch.
Why should atheists be open minded and intelligent? Atheism simply means that a person doesn’t believe in a god. You are adding additional expectations that aren’t warranted.
Quote:
Straw man! I have said at nauseam I am an agnostic so qI cannot proselytize. I also freely accept the mythology in religion as made up stories. It seems most atheists cannot look past this point and see what is behind all this mythology.
So what? People who are agnostic certainly can proselytize, as agnosticism simply means lack of certainty in knowledge. When has a lack of certainty ever stoppped most people from doing anything? Plus, I would argue that actions are more important than self avowed intent. Your conversations have all of the hallmarks of a person who proselytizes, therefore they are oroselytization. Take it to R&S, most people will follow you there, and enjoy your discussion.
Quote:
Looking for a position in the victimhood scale is appalling for an atheist. Whether you are a victim or not does not make your viewpoint better or worse.
I am not trying to claim victimhood. I am stating a fact. I am not complaining, saying it was unjust, demanding a fix, or making excuses. There were few known atheists, so we cannot attribute huge gains to atheism as a result. Fact.
Quote:
But, this is very telling! Throughout world history all groups in the planet needed a sacred theme to grow a community. That is why all groups in the past had passion for a deity or anything else that is similar to a deity. With the onset of atheism the sacred themes had to be secular, but the human emotions around the new sacred secular themes are no different. These new secular movements in the 20th century have not been successful or enlightened.
Assertions without proof. Provide some evidence and we will have something to talk about.
Quote:
I actually agree. Ultimately human achievement is individual and at the end of the day Ayn Rand is correct. However, certain groups (not all) that are unified by common values have done quite well in history. The Jews, Mormons, Japanese, etc come to mind. The opposite would be a group with no unifying themes. Something that leads to tribalism and balkanization.
GOOD POST!
I am not convinced by Ayn Rand’s arguments. I think they are destructive and misguided.
The best atheists are the ones that are tolerant and able to have a discussion rather than to throw negative insults or denigrate those people that believe in religious myths. That this forum has censorship is travesty in the name of atheism. One expects atheists to be open minded and to have high intellect.
I don't know about the higher intellect part. But one would think they would be more open-minded because you may assume they aren't invested either way/ it's irrelevant to their daily lives, but that's not the case for all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) do. The argument that 'atheists have created very little in world history' is indeed ad populum, simpliciter and does not follow. Just as the argument that 'all the great scientists were Christians (some say Creationists, which in a sense, is true) is irrelevant. Back then everyone (in the West) was a Christian of sorts, or had to pretend to be, but the work was done through science, not religion. 
