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.
Those kinds of actions do not keep the faith more logical. It sounds like you are dealing with illogical behavior.
Yuppers, for sure. I am also talking about when people start doing things because of their atheism. They start being illogical in how they have to defend, present, preserve a less reliable claim based on atheism. They start looking as wrong as religion to me.
I think, due to what you you say, when atheist start treating atheism as the guideline we tend to start moving into less healthy ways of forming beliefs. To me, like you say, when we start doing "morals of atheism" we start looking religious.
And, as a point of fact, I don't even mind treating like a religion because we are human, its a property of being human. I just think that using any statement of belief about god as a weapon is "wrong". Not "objectively wrong", but wrong for us.
You are right. Arach is doing what he done from the start - producing a check list of things that confirm his bias (it's the method he tries to use for 'traits of God', too) and ticking them off no matter what we say. I called it his 'duck -hunt'.
However, never mind him.
Nipped for space ...
If what you said is true you wouldn't use the phrase that its ok to believe things but don't get in your way or slow you down. If what you said is true you wouldn't have to get so defensive when atheist question atheist. You wouldn't have to say things like believing in things that science is studying "gets us nowhere".
You actually wouldn't say "Its just confirmation bias", you could clearly point out where me calling you out for the things I listed above is less valid than participating (Believing on blind faith) in your tactics. You know and I know why you will not openly do that.
"Again, my actions in the past were really more of a protection from the obligations of religion and not a protection from believing in "fairytales". (I like fairytales by the way.) If there isn't a god, then I don't have to do what religion says. Many times religious folks will counter this with "but it is moral obligations" or "that is morally wrong" or "you want to do whatever you want." That statement was always odd to me because people were doing whatever they wanted that had no connection to religion."
I like fairytales too, or rather fantasy and sci - fi. (some have said that sci - fi is really 'sci -fantasy'. I wouldn't disagree with that. But it's the point about moral obligations that I noted. It's like you noted that people are following a moral code with or without religion and it wasn't dependent on religion.
I posted an atheist experience video where the morality question came up (with an immediate leap to 'slavery in the Bible' well. It is a biggie atheist apologetic) and the callers rather got herded into a corner after they'd showed that they were following a human moral code while still giving lip -service to the diktat of the Bible. That's what we'd call logical dissonance. It's one of the things that make me argue that we actually follow human moral codes and always have but religion tries to pretend that we get it from religion.
If what you said is true you wouldn't use the phrase that its ok to believe things but don't get in your way or slow you down. If what you said is true you wouldn't have to get so defensive when atheist question atheist. You wouldn't have to say things like believing in things that science is studying "gets us nowhere".
You actually wouldn't say "Its just confirmation bias", you could clearly point out where me calling you out for the things I listed above is less valid than participating (Believing on blind faith) in your tactics. You know and I know why you will not openly do that.
Don't tell me what I would or wouldn't say. I say what you Did say, and it wasn't true then and isn't true now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
I agree with this 100%
You religious stuff is spot on.
I wish I could appreciate that, but it's too much cherry -picking what you like and slapping away what you don't.
I have met and subdued all your so-called experts with knowledge that surpassed their understanding of their supposed area of expertise. You have no standing or qualification to pass judgment on anything I present from science since you do not have any training or knowledge about it. Your arrogance in thinking you can evaluate the winner of any debate between me and your so-called experts is ludicrous on its face..
Don't tell me what I would or wouldn't say. I say what you Did say, and it wasn't true then and isn't true now.
I wish I could appreciate that, but it's too much cherry -picking what you like and slapping away what you don't.
Your first sentence is nonsense. Trans, if what I said wasn't true you could face me down in the open. The fact that you knowingly denied it just proves me right trans. And you know it.
Own how you are choosing to fight religion and tell people. I might even say that although I don't agree I get it. Just like I do with mystic and gld and others. They are completely open and honest and explain their position. You know, like "where doesn't it get when we form a belief on what science studies."
Or explain why talking about a "plausible position" is enabling in stead of talking about what the person said in terms of strength of evidence? Compare your strength of evidence to their plausible position's evidence. Its enabling, its understanding.
I am fine with you not respecting me. In fact, it tells me I am on the right tract when I think telling 1/2 truths, disallowing some evidence, and stop some beliefs with some strength of evidence is wrong.
Yes, I cherry pick. I listen to what the persons and evaluate the evidence they are using and the line of logic. The ones that match, I say match. The ones that don't math, don't match. I do not use the they are theist as my my standard to measure the claim.
I have met and subdued all your so-called experts with knowledge that surpassed their understanding of their supposed area of expertise. You have no standing or qualification to pass judgment on anything I present from science since you do not have any training or knowledge about it. Your arrogance in thinking you can evaluate the winner of any debate between me and your so-called experts is ludicrous on its face..
What s funny, if he did, his conclusion, on this subject, would be reliable. Just saying "your worng" and "I lack belief", usually based on gaps (basically a faith in no god of gaps) or my favorite ... I don't believe you." ... is exactly what some religions do.
When we question atheist that treat atheism as the "guiding light in a material world" rational people just do not have to sit down and heel" when they say so. But they do make good cannon fodder.
You are right. Arach is doing what he done from the start - producing a check list of things that confirm his bias (it's the method he tries to use for 'traits of God', too) and ticking them off no matter what we say. I called it his 'duck -hunt'.
However, never mind him.
I wanted to comment on your post above:
"Again, my actions in the past were really more of a protection from the obligations of religion and not a protection from believing in "fairytales". (I like fairytales by the way.) If there isn't a god, then I don't have to do what religion says. Many times religious folks will counter this with "but it is moral obligations" or "that is morally wrong" or "you want to do whatever you want." That statement was always odd to me because people were doing whatever they wanted that had no connection to religion."
I like fairytales too, or rather fantasy and sci - fi. (some have said that sci - fi is really 'sci -fantasy'. I wouldn't disagree with that. But it's the point about moral obligations that I noted. It's like you noted that people are following a moral code with or without religion and it wasn't dependent on religion.
I posted an atheist experience video where the morality question came up (with an immediate leap to 'slavery in the Bible' well. It is a biggie atheist apologetic) and the callers rather got herded into a corner after they'd showed that they were following a human moral code while still giving lip -service to the diktat of the Bible. That's what we'd call logical dissonance. It's one of the things that make me argue that we actually follow human moral codes and always have but religion tries to pretend that we get it from religion.
I know I run the risk of appearing as a religious apologist...
However, maybe people claim morality comes from religion because they need a source. From their perspective, morality cannot come from within ourselves, and not because we are incapable of knowing or doing right from wrong. Rather it is because we know better than to be a single source of knowledge of morality, which would indicate no need for socialization, no need to learn from others or no need to consider the thoughts and feelings of others.
Adopting a religion and its god is a form of socialization even if one wants a relationship with just their God and no one else. Therefore, their God is an additional source.
Atheists turn to other sources for morality. Personally, I consider myself a source because it is in my nature to create boundaries of right and wrong. I respect the boundaries of others because I don't want to live alone.
Yuppers, for sure. I am also talking about when people start doing things because of their atheism. They start being illogical in how they have to defend, present, preserve a less reliable claim based on atheism. They start looking as wrong as religion to me.
I think, due to what you you say, when atheist start treating atheism as the guideline we tend to start moving into less healthy ways of forming beliefs. To me, like you say, when we start doing "morals of atheism" we start looking religious.
And, as a point of fact, I don't even mind treating like a religion because we are human, its a property of being human. I just think that using any statement of belief about god as a weapon is "wrong". Not "objectively wrong", but wrong for us.
I don't find your perspective difficult to understand, Arach. I think it is my fault that I have not been completely forthcoming about my approach to the subject. When I was a child, words, especially my own, were used against me. I was afraid to share my opinion. I would often lie and tell people what they wanted to hear.
At some point, a decision was made to not view words as weapons even if the other side intends to use them that way. For example, being called immoral was devastating to me as a youngster. So when I went by the moral code of others, what I found is that they didn't really follow their own. But a decision was made to not call them immoral. Inconsistent was more like it.
When we seek to understand and not stunt others is when the gaps close. IMO. I am stupid simple. Do the best we can with what we have. end of story.
I had good parents. Not perfect, in fact far from it. My upbringing would considered "PTSD". Anything, at anytime, from anywhere could hit me and my younger brother. In side and outside of the home. Every minute, everyday, for the first 15 years of my life. But I could always run to my mom and dad for safety.
I was non believer from third grade in a private catholic school for 12 years. My parents always told not to worry, help those that needed it and defend those that can't defend themselves and you will be fine.
Loud noises startle me. People not making eye contact as they move around room draw my attention. People moving quickly towards me get my attention. "religion", well, debating a strong theist is like running a hot knife through butter to me. Its not even challenging.
For me ... There aint no deities ... stand up to oppression ... stop hiding behind "I don't have say anything" and tell us what "you " think is a good base for a BELIEF. not "you" as in elyn, just a general "you" as in all of us. Help each other understand.
How we fight makes a difference to me. There will be causalities in this war so I feel it really matters how we fight. "enable" us to form rational beliefs. Help those that need the "life line" by giving them something that floats.
I refuse to put my foot on their heads and push them under or not lend a helping hand when we can.
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.
well. It is a biggie atheist apologetic) and the callers rather got herded into a corner after they'd showed that they were following a human moral code while still giving lip -service to the diktat of the Bible. That's what we'd call logical dissonance. It's one of the things that make me argue that we actually follow human moral codes and always have but religion tries to pretend that we get it from religion.
