By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Christianity is Anti-Hatred of People or Groups of People

pearljammer on 31 May 2015
padib said:

That's the feeling I got from the original quote. Clever guy who knows a lot of things and makes interesting remarks, but not the person I'd want to rely on for profound truths and overall wisdom.

Here is my point of view on the quote:

"monotheisms and polytheisms are complicit in this quiet and irrational authoritarianism: they proclaim us, in Fulke Greville's unforgettable line, "Created sick — Commanded to be well."

I don't consider it irrational personally, we see a lot of imperfection in human nature, it's pretty known that humans are self-destructive. Without even going to the personal level, at the macro level, looking at the health of the environment and the amount of wars we already see an issue.

But the very idea that we were created sick only to have to atone and seek forgiveness. It`s akin to us genetically predisposing a child to be short and unatheltic and then commanding them to be a pro athlete.

We were alledgedly made this way and then commanded to be otherwise. Sounds irrational to me.

"There's no moral value in the vicarious gesture [atonement] anyway"

Actually, there is. The word sacrifice is basically abandoning something that is part of me to offer to someone else. It is inherently altruistic. The sacrifice of my innocent life for the atonement of a guilty person is perhaps the greatest known altruistic action in existence.  It becomes necessary to appreciate the quintessence of that altruism, especially when we are familiar with the fallibility of our own selves. If I can make a mistake, I hope my neighbor will help build me back up rather than tear me apart. As children especially we are prone to fail, to let our emotions decide for us. We can become monsters and then realize how far we went. The person who can understand that we are fallible can help pick up the pieces when we are broken. The person who can't understand that will tear their neighbor apart. Despite how much he expects morally of humanity, humanity isn't capable of meeting his standard and needs forgiveness because we can all be much worse than we want to be, even if we don't know it.

His point here is that it absolves people of personal responsibility. Jesus cannot assume my crimes for I am the one who committed them. There is no moral value in doing so. If your friend has killed someone and you decide to take his place in death as you believe he deserves another chance, does your sacrifice negate his moral crime? Altruistic? Sure. Well meaning? Yes.  Brave? Definitely. Do any of those truths translate to a sacrifice of innocent life being able to absolve other moral atrocites? No. Those people are responsible. No other can assume their crime.

"the second is so relativistic and "nonjudgmental" that it would not allow the prosecution of Charles Manson. Our few notions of justice have had to evolve despite these absurd codes of ultra vindictiveness and ultracompassion."

I'm canadian and don't believe in the death penalty.

Same on both counts

I believe that in certain native cultures, when a wrong was committed in a community the guilty party was asked to serve the affected people in order to understand his mistake.

People  like Charles Manson exist in a world where people put less importance on family and working together, both christian values.

So do you not think these types of people exist in environments such as you describe? On another note, importance of family and working together are not simply just christian values but rather unviversal ones. Both society and the self obviously benefit when these are present.

Rather secular values imho tend to underappreciate family and general respect for those around you (Christopher Hitchens being a good example of insolence rooted in rebellion and lack of respect for the beliefs of others).

I can't buy into this as it grossly misrepresents what secularism is about. Perhaps your experiences paint your view, but one of the main tenets(I struggle to use this word) is to be pluralistic in every facet of society. That very idea promotes respect and tolerance of others and tolerance.  I`m actually unsure of what he said that could be considered disrespectful. I know you`re an open-minded individual and and are preapared for discourse on whatever issue, so I don`t think it`s what he`s saying but rather how he`s saying it?

This ultracompassion is actually what is needed in our society to avoid cases like Charles Manson from even existing.

I can`t even pretend to know what could prevent something like Charles Manson.

This part of the quote, though still related, is less about the original point. I should have edited it out at the beginning, sorry. If you'd prefer to drop this one, I'd fully agree.

"Judaism has some advantages over Christianity in that, for example, it does not proselytise — except among Jews — and it does not make the cretinous mistake of saying that the Messiah has already made his appearance."

Of course he will bash Christianity, that's the cool thing to do because Christianity lets itself vulnerable by virtue of its outreaching nature, which he demeans here. His judgement of Christianity for proclaiming a messiah is imho childish, so no comment and he immediately loses my respect.

To be fair, he bashes Islam as much or more than he does Christianity. Ah, 'cretinous,' that answers the question above about how he said it. I concede that.

To me, his only valid concerns are:

"However, along with Islam and Christianity, it does insist that some turgid and contradictory and sometimes evil and mad texts, obviously written by fairly unexceptional humans, are in fact the word of god. "

"here are only two texts, both of them extreme and mutually contradictory. The Old Testament injunction is the one to exact an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth (it occurs in a passage of perfectly demented detail about the exact rules governing mutual ox-goring; you should look it up in its context Exodus 21). The second is from the Gospels and says that only those without sin should cast the first stone. The first is a moral basis for capital punishment and other barbarities;"

As for this:

"I think that the indispensable condition of any intellectual liberty is the realisation that there is no such thing."

I just completely disagree. Creation itself boggles my mind, so a few concerns as to the validity of some of the Old Testament laws will not shake that anytime soon.

I can appreciate that. But if you question the validity of a few passages in a text, shouldn't the entire thing be suspect?

On a seperate, but similar, note, I rather like his assured stance on things. It permits less skirting. Though I don't have it in me, as I am generally a middle of the road kind of person, I admire that firm, poised position. In reference, I like the last part of this quote:

"In my middle years I looked at the synagogue as a place to go for weddings, funerals and bar (bat) mitzvahs. The general liturgy made little sense to me. I went about my life, not seeking a god but not avoiding one either. As an atheist it was and is clear to me that if there were convincing (not self-serving) evidence for the existence of a god, any god, then I would be convinced and would no longer be an atheist. I make a rational choice to reject the theistic choice based on evidence rather than take the coward’s way out and claim to be an agnostic"

That might give some basis on why he may, at times, come off as crass and overly bold.

About this:

"The one unforgivable sin is to be boring"

About 5 years ago I moved to Fredericton. Throughout my 3 years there I had a few roommates, having moved almost 4 times in the span of the first year, and then having a new roomate in my last appartment after one moved out of town. In total I had about 10 roommates. Some were fun, some were awesome, some were nice, some were jerks, some were absolutely boring, and some were depressing.

I had these two army buffs living with me in my 2nd place, and they were mean. They made my life miserable by setting traps in the cupboards, putting locks on the tv, shooting me with a b-b gun, playing with a sharp knife around me while giving me stares, and other ridiculous things I really didn't deserve. Of all my roomies they weren't the most boring.

There was another roommate I had. I soon learned that he was very atheist. Our relationship was going fine until I made the mistake of telling him I was a creationist. It's as if our relationship changed completely from that moment on. Not only that, but he was very much an a-hole who cared little about those around him. If I was kind to do the dishes, instead of appreciating it, he would say that if I want to do it it's my thing. If you guessed that he never did the dishes you guessed right. He also did not interact at all with me and John (the awesome roomie) despite being really cool in the interview and me knowing him from boxing class. When he left, I gave him a lot of stuff for free, and he didn't even thank me. I had also helped him move into the appartment and for that I really mostly got a cold shoulder all year long.

Though I don't want to judge him, he really was my worst roomie. Not mean enough to be one of the army jerks, but just having no appreciation for others that he really was the most boring of all my roommates. That's who Christopher Hutchens reminds me of.

The boring thing is a reference to his mother. It's something she always told him not to be. Meant to be lighthearted and is so subjective that it has no universal meaning here anyway.

"Time spent arguing with the faithful is, oddly enough, almost never wasted"

At least that!

 



Around the Network
o_O.Q on 31 May 2015
JWeinCom said:
o_O.Q said:


so tell buddy if we take the adherents collectively what word could we use to identify them... group perhaps?

Haha. It seems that I'm not the only one who can't follow your arguments.  You can't either. To quote you (because I have this weird thing about not making shit up).

"are christian humanists the same as humanists? no the definitions show that they are two distinct groups"

You said they are distinct groups, but now you want to call them one group (take the adherents collevtively). congratulations on completely contradicting yourself.  Bravo.  Just... bravo.

But of course humanism isn't a group.  It's an abstract concept.  If you hadn't ripped my poor quote kicking and screaming from its context, it would be quite clear what I was saying, which is that secular humanists and religious humanists are part of the larger humanist group.

humanists are generally atheistic which is why the definitions only make reference towards those who fit that description:"

Even that's a bad generalization (I honestly don't know how many humanists would or would not identify as atheists.  I would actually imagine a larger number would call themselves theists simply because there are far more theists in the world), but you're closer at least.  The dictionaries do not in any way imply that all humanists are atheists, and they absolutely do not conflate humanism with atheism.   And that means that when you said all humanists are atheists, you were defying the mighty dictionary.  You're also now changing your definition, which is another nono in your book. 

You've contradicted yourself twice in the last few sentences.  And I've got the quotes to back it up.  That's that magical "evidence" thing I've been talking about.  I back my shit up, cause I'm nice like that.

have you ever heard of generalisations before? 

Yes, I've heard of generalisations before.  But, I try not to use them in any sort of debate or argument, because I know how logic works.  Why would you be making generalizations in an argument?  That's a logical fallacy. This is logic 101 stuff here. Not only that, but making a generalization about a whole group of people is downright offensive (to them at least).

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/sweeping-generalisation/


" i don't think that they are the same but i do think that humanism is fundamentally atheistic and therefore all humanists are also atheists"

You said ALL humanists are atheists, and you were pretty clear that you really meant all.  Now you're trying to slink away from it like a dog who just laid a turd on the carpet.  And calling that argument a smelly turd would be insulting to turds everywhere.  There's no rationalization for it, that statement was downright wrong. 

"Now, please find one instance of me giving any definition of atheism besides "not believing in a god" "a lack of belief in gods or deities" or another way of saying the same thing.  If you're accusing me of something I didn't say"

 

oh stop that bullshit this came about because you accused me of presenting the wrong definition which i then disproved by presenting definitions from various dictionaries

which amuses me since as i said previously how can you expect to carry on a discussion about atheism when you have demonstrated repeatedly that you do not even understand the meaning of the word yourself

If you want me to stop that bullshit, provide evidence.  :)  I either said it, or I didn't, and it should be easy to prove me wrong if I am.

Have you gone to college? Or high school?  Or a decent elementary school?  Try to write a paper with using dictionary definitions as your primary source.  See how that works for you.  Any teacher at above a third grade level would ask for real evidence.

I have presented several reputable sources that define atheism.  Webster is not an authoritative source.  It's a reference tool.

Plus, even if I was wrong about the definition, which I'm not, that still doesn't change the fact that my definition has been absolutely consistent throughout this.  Whether I was Right or wrong, you are lying about me changing the definition.  So, since you cannot find anything to back up your claim, I am owed an apology. 

lol so therefore you are more qualified to give the definitions of words than dictionaries?

No, but for the case of this word, I provided several sources that are more qualified. 

but you are arrogant enough to claim that you are more of an athourity on defining words than dictionaries usurping their primary role

So, ultimately, your argument is "but the dictionary said so!" Like I said, I've shown several reputable sources of atheism which all contradict what you presented.  But hey, since you love dictriding Webster so much,

Dictionary.com

2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Webster

2
a :  a disbelief in the existence of deity

Oxford English Dictionary

Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

This is the definition I have given several times, and it is in your precious dictionaries.

Hmmm... So both the definition you're proposing and the one I'm proposing show up in dictionary.com and Websters.  Only mine shows up under atheism in Oxford (my dictionary of choice btw).  So how could we resolve this dispute?

I know!  How about we look up what other resources have to say about it!  Brilliant!  And lucky you, I've already done that!  And the sources all back up my point of view!

So, no I did not try to usurp the mighty dictionary, and yes, my definition is valid as it IS in the dictionary AND it is in line with reputable sources.  I'm hoping now that I have the backing of the mighty dictionary, hopefully this line of stupidity will end. 

And if you still think I'm wrong, you can find some evidence. :) 


and what about white supremacists? should we perhaps not call them racists or bigots or whatever because they choose to place themselves under the umbrella of white nationalism? do you have an inkling now as to how ridiculously stupid that argument is now? do you perhaps understand now why we use unbiased sources for definitions?

Yes, I understand quite well why we used unbiased sources.  You apparently don't.

There are situations when you want to use an unbiased source.  (By the way, this is absolutely hysterical coming from someone who used creation.com to try and show Hitler's views on Darwinism, but logical consistency is clearly not your forte.) 

But if you want to give a lesson on writing, (strange for someone who can't use sentences, but I digress) let's talk about primary and secondary sources.  Primary sources are things that are said by a person, group, or organization, and these are undoubtedly the best way to find out what a person believes of thinks.  That's why I keep asking you to quote me instead of making up shit I never said.  Because I, or artifacts I produced, are the best way to determine what I have said or what I believe.  And atheists are the best source to find out what atheists believe.

By the way, this is also why I presented quotes from Hitler and laws in Nazi Germany to support my point of view, instead of the mostly unsourced stuff you gave.

Now suppose you want someone to evaluate what I've said.  THEN you would want a secondary unbiased source (which btw I would love because I would like to know if you're as incoherent and logically inconsistent as I think, or if it's just me.  Seriously, if anyone is actually reading at this point feel free to chime in or PM me.  I'm curious what an unbiased source wout think).  So, if I wanted to know if the Aryan Brotherhood is biggoted or racist, I should probably look for an unbiased source.  But, if I wanted to know what they believe, then I should probably look to a primary source, for example by asking the Aryan Brotherhood or looking at their literature.  Because, you know, they know the most about what they believe.  Cause they believe it.

lol anyway i'm done here... with regards to the main issue of hitler being an atheist i posted various articles that deal with where his ideology developed

from

And even if those sources were worth anything, they're not, none of them said anything about Hitler being an atheist.  I'm not sure why you will not answer my questions with a simple yes or no. 

I can read the articles , and even if they were worth reading, that wouldn't tell me what YOU think.  People can read the same articles and reach different conclusions. 

I'm not trying to be a jackass (at other parts I am, but not here) but I have no idea what your point of view is.  I have asked you several times to clarify it.  It wouldn't be hard.  All you'd have to say is "I think Hitler was a(n) _____________.  It is very telling that you won't even write down your opinion in a clear statement.  At least the weasling away from them is amusing. You have a bright future in politics.

if you are interested then you can look into what i posted and if you are not then continue attacking theists for being blind followers without considering perhaps that we all have been mislead by varying degrees even the high and mighty atheists of the world

Well, if you're done here, then I at least give you credit for ending it the way you started.  With dishonesty, adhominen attacks, and again resorting to pathetic strawment attacks on me.  I have not at any point (at least not in this discussion) attacked theists at all.  I have not said anything about theists being blind followers (I don't think I have in any other topics and I am 100% sure I didn't in this one).  So that's another apology I'm owed.  By the way, I'm a big fan of edible arrangements, so if you want to send your apology in the form of fruit, that'd be lovely.  You are of course welcome to back up any of these claims you made about me with quotes, but every time I've given you that opportunity you've failed to do so.  I don't know if you're a pathological liar, if you're only hearing what you want, the education system failed you, if English is not your primary language, if you are too young to formulate a coherent argument, or if you just realise you have no legit arguments and need to resort to strawman attacks, but the only one who has made any sort of attack on any group of people is you. 

You've claimed atheists worship man, which I find offensive (I certainly don't worship man.  If anything, I worship women, and even then, only the pretty ones).  You've claimed atheists claim there is no god, which many atheists would take issue with (probably wouldn't be too upset, but would tell you you're wrong).  You've claimed all humanists are atheists, which a whole lot of Christians who consider themselves humanists would take issue with, and you've claimed that the Catholic church perverted (your word, and I'll be happy to quote you if need be) the teachings of Jesus.  And your claim (again without any backing) that apparently atheists have misled us is the cherry on top of your hypocrisy flavored cake. 

As for me, my position has been pretty simple.  Hitler was not an atheist.  I have provided a lot of evidence to support that position, and you have not brought forth anything to go against it.  Despite several reasonable attempts to gain clarification, and despite the fact that other people, including germans with a far better grasp on the use of nordic symbols and what they mean, have disagreed with you, you have yet to clarify your position, present evidence, or counter the evidence I've presented.. 

Since you have, despite several requests, refused to state your opinion clearly or defend it,  I'll graciously accept your concession, and hope that in the future you will look into a topic before making yourself look foolish. 


". It seems that I'm not the only one who can't follow your arguments.  You can't either. "

"You said they are distinct groups, but now you want to call them one group (take the adherents collevtively). congratulations on completely contradicting yourself.  Bravo.  Just... bravo."

lol you are losing your grip on reasoning at a quickening rate here my friend i wasn't going to reply but for your sake i am compelled to

here you show a fundamental lack of understanding of abstraction

 

i'll give an analogy - there is a group  of fruits called citrus fruits but below that we have oranges, lemons etc

here we move from more abstract to more specific do you understand now? or are you still having trouble grasping how what you posted makes no sense

 

"Even that's a bad generalization"

well its not and you saying that its not doesn't change reality unfortunately

as i said this is the reason why only atheistic humanism is mentioned in definitions because it started as an atheistic idea and eeven after all this time most of its adherents subscribe to the atheistic pov

its also why the main humanist organisations are secular

 

"You've contradicted yourself twice in the last few sentences.  And I've got the quotes to back it up. "

lol no all you've done is demonstrate a profound lack of understanding of abstraction

 

"Why would you be making generalizations in an argument?"

Well my friend if you do not understand the purpose of generlisations i unfortunately cannot help you there

 

"You said ALL humanists are atheists"

no i didn't at any time post that quote where i've done so 

 

lol i'll skip your ridiculously amusing attempts to justifiy discarding dictionary definitions for words here

 

"Yes, I understand quite well why we used unbiased sources.  You apparently don't."

while advocating that we always allow movements to define themselves? really?

"Primary sources are things that are said by a person, group, or organization, and these are undoubtedly the best way to find out what a person believes of thinks. "

 

"But, if I wanted to know what they believe, then I should probably look to a primary source, for example by asking the Aryan Brotherhood or looking at their literature. "

ah yes because people are always honest about what they believe with regards to conveying their ideas to outsiders... very good advice sir

the aryan guy isn't just going to say something about preserving his racial heritage while ommitting all of the negative aspects much like the rebranding you posted

these groups all realise that in order to grow their numbers and influence that they have to make their ideas as palatable to outsiders as possible

the average person would look at a statement like "there is no god" and say well that's fucking retarded ( although i'm sure that eventually atheistic ideas are going to become more and more common and influencial and not because of "rationality" )

 

as for the original argument stop being so damn lazy and do some research with the intent this time to actually get to the root instead of taking the path of least resistance with confirmation bias



o_O.Q on 31 May 2015
HonestGamer said:
World would be heaven without religions.


tell that to the people who lived under atheistic regimes in the past

its amazing how people believe that the faults of humans which cause them to harm other humans would just evaporate of we discarded religion

atheists are no more altruistic than theists maybe even less so since a defeatest mindset like "people are stupid" seems to be something i see mostly from atheists



LMU Uncle Alfred on 31 May 2015

Simplicity should have been next to godliness.



Lube Me Up

S.T.A.G.E. on 31 May 2015
o_O.Q said:
HonestGamer said:
World would be heaven without religions.


tell that to the people who lived under atheistic regimes in the past

its amazing how people believe that the faults of humans which cause them to harm other humans would just evaporate of we discarded religion

atheists are no more altruistic than theists maybe even less so since a defeatest mindset like "people are stupid" seems to be something i see mostly from atheists

Explain these athiestic regimes. Athiesms is actually in a minority of thought in the world, but it is growing because people are starting to think. Funny enough its in the countries with higher education levels. In civilized countries moral dogma has been trumped by sweeping laws across nation. Plus humans have a better understanding of morals today with or without religion because of the evolution of nations compared to a two thousand year old thinking. Its funny that we have religions that depict a jealous god whose words are perfect but yet still makes a new covenant because he loves us. ;)

Religion is apart of human history and after thousands of years, wars and truth seeking.....

They've all fallen for reasons that are not beyond our understanding.



Around the Network
o_O.Q on 31 May 2015
S.T.A.G.E. said:
o_O.Q said:


tell that to the people who lived under atheistic regimes in the past

its amazing how people believe that the faults of humans which cause them to harm other humans would just evaporate of we discarded religion

atheists are no more altruistic than theists maybe even less so since a defeatest mindset like "people are stupid" seems to be something i see mostly from atheists

Explain these athiestic regimes. Athiesms is actually in a minority of thought in the world, but it is growing because people are starting to think. Funny enough its in the countries with higher education levels.

 

well since it'll offend some people i won't mention hitler i'll instead mention the leaders of communist russian for example

 

"Athiesms is actually in a minority of thought in the world, but it is growing because people are starting to think."

yes people are accepting paradigms of thought that are critical of religion that does not mean though that they in the wider sense are as critical as they should be

there are several things going on in the world today that if people were as you said really starting to think should cause profound reactions

 

for example i made this thread the other day : http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=203299&page=1#2

 

and so far i've had one reply... so while evidence is coming forth that its very likely that the us is taking the money of its tax payers to fund conflicts in other regions we have atheists instead taking their time to call religious people stupid

 

to a thinking person which would be the more pressing issue?

 

another similar issue is the bs war on drugs... millions are spent each year to bring an end to illicit drug use

and the premise itself is ridiculous - we don't ban alcohol so it can't be about stopping people from harming themselves

secondly if anything sources for drugs are more widespread than they ever have been before

there is also loads of evidence here that this whole system was set up and manipulated in the first place to rob the tax payers of their money

 

so no ultimately i don't think people are really starting to think at all 

 

something else i have to mention is the notion that attitudes like homphobia and misogyny are caused by religion and so they will just vanish when religion is destroyed and that's nonsense

these attitudes are brought about to some degree by religion i won't deny that but they also come about because of individual interaction... for example a man being slighted in some way by a woman may become a misogynist 

 

fear of people that are different to you is inate to human beings and is not going to stop when religion is destroyed

 

"Funny enough its in the countries with higher education levels."

"education"(tertiary) at the lower levels does not engender critical thinking

it is mostly about the ability to retain and recite the presently accepted beliefs of the era... beliefs that after a few decades will probably change drastically

 

for the most part what happens is that people are critical of some ideas while refusing to question others because they are fundamental to their world view



JWeinCom on 31 May 2015
o_O.Q said:
JWeinCom said:


so tell buddy if we take the adherents collectively what word could we use to identify them... group perhaps?

Haha. It seems that I'm not the only one who can't follow your arguments.  You can't either. To quote you (because I have this weird thing about not making shit up).

"are christian humanists the same as humanists? no the definitions show that they are two distinct groups"

You said they are distinct groups, but now you want to call them one group (take the adherents collevtively). congratulations on completely contradicting yourself.  Bravo.  Just... bravo.

But of course humanism isn't a group.  It's an abstract concept.  If you hadn't ripped my poor quote kicking and screaming from its context, it would be quite clear what I was saying, which is that secular humanists and religious humanists are part of the larger humanist group.

humanists are generally atheistic which is why the definitions only make reference towards those who fit that description:"

Even that's a bad generalization (I honestly don't know how many humanists would or would not identify as atheists.  I would actually imagine a larger number would call themselves theists simply because there are far more theists in the world), but you're closer at least.  The dictionaries do not in any way imply that all humanists are atheists, and they absolutely do not conflate humanism with atheism.   And that means that when you said all humanists are atheists, you were defying the mighty dictionary.  You're also now changing your definition, which is another nono in your book. 

You've contradicted yourself twice in the last few sentences.  And I've got the quotes to back it up.  That's that magical "evidence" thing I've been talking about.  I back my shit up, cause I'm nice like that.

have you ever heard of generalisations before? 

Yes, I've heard of generalisations before.  But, I try not to use them in any sort of debate or argument, because I know how logic works.  Why would you be making generalizations in an argument?  That's a logical fallacy. This is logic 101 stuff here. Not only that, but making a generalization about a whole group of people is downright offensive (to them at least).

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/sweeping-generalisation/


" i don't think that they are the same but i do think that humanism is fundamentally atheistic and therefore all humanists are also atheists"

You said ALL humanists are atheists, and you were pretty clear that you really meant all.  Now you're trying to slink away from it like a dog who just laid a turd on the carpet.  And calling that argument a smelly turd would be insulting to turds everywhere.  There's no rationalization for it, that statement was downright wrong. 

"Now, please find one instance of me giving any definition of atheism besides "not believing in a god" "a lack of belief in gods or deities" or another way of saying the same thing.  If you're accusing me of something I didn't say"

 

oh stop that bullshit this came about because you accused me of presenting the wrong definition which i then disproved by presenting definitions from various dictionaries

which amuses me since as i said previously how can you expect to carry on a discussion about atheism when you have demonstrated repeatedly that you do not even understand the meaning of the word yourself

If you want me to stop that bullshit, provide evidence.  :)  I either said it, or I didn't, and it should be easy to prove me wrong if I am.

Have you gone to college? Or high school?  Or a decent elementary school?  Try to write a paper with using dictionary definitions as your primary source.  See how that works for you.  Any teacher at above a third grade level would ask for real evidence.

I have presented several reputable sources that define atheism.  Webster is not an authoritative source.  It's a reference tool.

Plus, even if I was wrong about the definition, which I'm not, that still doesn't change the fact that my definition has been absolutely consistent throughout this.  Whether I was Right or wrong, you are lying about me changing the definition.  So, since you cannot find anything to back up your claim, I am owed an apology. 

lol so therefore you are more qualified to give the definitions of words than dictionaries?

No, but for the case of this word, I provided several sources that are more qualified. 

but you are arrogant enough to claim that you are more of an athourity on defining words than dictionaries usurping their primary role

So, ultimately, your argument is "but the dictionary said so!" Like I said, I've shown several reputable sources of atheism which all contradict what you presented.  But hey, since you love dictriding Webster so much,

Dictionary.com

2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Webster

2
a :  a disbelief in the existence of deity

Oxford English Dictionary

Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

This is the definition I have given several times, and it is in your precious dictionaries.

Hmmm... So both the definition you're proposing and the one I'm proposing show up in dictionary.com and Websters.  Only mine shows up under atheism in Oxford (my dictionary of choice btw).  So how could we resolve this dispute?

I know!  How about we look up what other resources have to say about it!  Brilliant!  And lucky you, I've already done that!  And the sources all back up my point of view!

So, no I did not try to usurp the mighty dictionary, and yes, my definition is valid as it IS in the dictionary AND it is in line with reputable sources.  I'm hoping now that I have the backing of the mighty dictionary, hopefully this line of stupidity will end. 

And if you still think I'm wrong, you can find some evidence. :) 


and what about white supremacists? should we perhaps not call them racists or bigots or whatever because they choose to place themselves under the umbrella of white nationalism? do you have an inkling now as to how ridiculously stupid that argument is now? do you perhaps understand now why we use unbiased sources for definitions?

Yes, I understand quite well why we used unbiased sources.  You apparently don't.

There are situations when you want to use an unbiased source.  (By the way, this is absolutely hysterical coming from someone who used creation.com to try and show Hitler's views on Darwinism, but logical consistency is clearly not your forte.) 

But if you want to give a lesson on writing, (strange for someone who can't use sentences, but I digress) let's talk about primary and secondary sources.  Primary sources are things that are said by a person, group, or organization, and these are undoubtedly the best way to find out what a person believes of thinks.  That's why I keep asking you to quote me instead of making up shit I never said.  Because I, or artifacts I produced, are the best way to determine what I have said or what I believe.  And atheists are the best source to find out what atheists believe.

By the way, this is also why I presented quotes from Hitler and laws in Nazi Germany to support my point of view, instead of the mostly unsourced stuff you gave.

Now suppose you want someone to evaluate what I've said.  THEN you would want a secondary unbiased source (which btw I would love because I would like to know if you're as incoherent and logically inconsistent as I think, or if it's just me.  Seriously, if anyone is actually reading at this point feel free to chime in or PM me.  I'm curious what an unbiased source wout think).  So, if I wanted to know if the Aryan Brotherhood is biggoted or racist, I should probably look for an unbiased source.  But, if I wanted to know what they believe, then I should probably look to a primary source, for example by asking the Aryan Brotherhood or looking at their literature.  Because, you know, they know the most about what they believe.  Cause they believe it.

lol anyway i'm done here... with regards to the main issue of hitler being an atheist i posted various articles that deal with where his ideology developed

from

And even if those sources were worth anything, they're not, none of them said anything about Hitler being an atheist.  I'm not sure why you will not answer my questions with a simple yes or no. 

I can read the articles , and even if they were worth reading, that wouldn't tell me what YOU think.  People can read the same articles and reach different conclusions. 

I'm not trying to be a jackass (at other parts I am, but not here) but I have no idea what your point of view is.  I have asked you several times to clarify it.  It wouldn't be hard.  All you'd have to say is "I think Hitler was a(n) _____________.  It is very telling that you won't even write down your opinion in a clear statement.  At least the weasling away from them is amusing. You have a bright future in politics.

if you are interested then you can look into what i posted and if you are not then continue attacking theists for being blind followers without considering perhaps that we all have been mislead by varying degrees even the high and mighty atheists of the world

Well, if you're done here, then I at least give you credit for ending it the way you started.  With dishonesty, adhominen attacks, and again resorting to pathetic strawment attacks on me.  I have not at any point (at least not in this discussion) attacked theists at all.  I have not said anything about theists being blind followers (I don't think I have in any other topics and I am 100% sure I didn't in this one).  So that's another apology I'm owed.  By the way, I'm a big fan of edible arrangements, so if you want to send your apology in the form of fruit, that'd be lovely.  You are of course welcome to back up any of these claims you made about me with quotes, but every time I've given you that opportunity you've failed to do so.  I don't know if you're a pathological liar, if you're only hearing what you want, the education system failed you, if English is not your primary language, if you are too young to formulate a coherent argument, or if you just realise you have no legit arguments and need to resort to strawman attacks, but the only one who has made any sort of attack on any group of people is you. 

You've claimed atheists worship man, which I find offensive (I certainly don't worship man.  If anything, I worship women, and even then, only the pretty ones).  You've claimed atheists claim there is no god, which many atheists would take issue with (probably wouldn't be too upset, but would tell you you're wrong).  You've claimed all humanists are atheists, which a whole lot of Christians who consider themselves humanists would take issue with, and you've claimed that the Catholic church perverted (your word, and I'll be happy to quote you if need be) the teachings of Jesus.  And your claim (again without any backing) that apparently atheists have misled us is the cherry on top of your hypocrisy flavored cake. 

As for me, my position has been pretty simple.  Hitler was not an atheist.  I have provided a lot of evidence to support that position, and you have not brought forth anything to go against it.  Despite several reasonable attempts to gain clarification, and despite the fact that other people, including germans with a far better grasp on the use of nordic symbols and what they mean, have disagreed with you, you have yet to clarify your position, present evidence, or counter the evidence I've presented.. 

Since you have, despite several requests, refused to state your opinion clearly or defend it,  I'll graciously accept your concession, and hope that in the future you will look into a topic before making yourself look foolish. 


". It seems that I'm not the only one who can't follow your arguments.  You can't either. "

"You said they are distinct groups, but now you want to call them one group (take the adherents collevtively). congratulations on completely contradicting yourself.  Bravo.  Just... bravo."

lol you are losing your grip on reasoning at a quickening rate here my friend i wasn't going to reply but for your sake i am compelled to

here you show a fundamental lack of understanding of abstraction

 

i'll give an analogy - there is a group  of fruits called citrus fruits but below that we have oranges, lemons etc

here we move from more abstract to more specific do you understand now? or are you still having trouble grasping how what you posted makes no sense

 

"Even that's a bad generalization"

well its not and you saying that its not doesn't change reality unfortunately

as i said this is the reason why only atheistic humanism is mentioned in definitions because it started as an atheistic idea and eeven after all this time most of its adherents subscribe to the atheistic pov

its also why the main humanist organisations are secular

 

lol no all you've done is demonstrate a profound lack of understanding of abstraction

 

"Why would you be making generalizations in an argument?"

Well my friend if you do not understand the purpose of generlisations i unfortunately cannot help you there

 

"You said ALL humanists are atheists"

no i didn't at any time post that quote where i've done so 

 

lol i'll skip your ridiculously amusing attempts to justifiy discarding dictionary definitions for words here

 

"Yes, I understand quite well why we used unbiased sources.  You apparently don't."

while advocating that we always allow movements to define themselves? really?

"Primary sources are things that are said by a person, group, or organization, and these are undoubtedly the best way to find out what a person believes of thinks. "

 

"But, if I wanted to know what they believe, then I should probably look to a primary source, for example by asking the Aryan Brotherhood or looking at their literature. "

ah yes because people are always honest about what they believe with regards to conveying their ideas to outsiders... very good advice sir

the aryan guy isn't just going to say something about preserving his racial heritage while ommitting all of the negative aspects much like the rebranding you posted

these groups all realise that in order to grow their numbers and influence that they have to make their ideas as palatable to outsiders as possible

the average person would look at a statement like "there is no god" and say well that's fucking retarded ( although i'm sure that eventually atheistic ideas are going to become more and more common and influencial and not because of "rationality" )

 

as for the original argument stop being so damn lazy and do some research with the intent this time to actually get to the root instead of taking the path of least resistance with confirmation bias

 

i'll give an analogy - there is a group  of fruits called citrus fruits but below that we have oranges, lemons etc

here we move from more abstract to more specific do you understand now? or are you still having trouble grasping how what you posted makes no sense

Which is what I said when I said they are subsets of the same groups, and you criticised it.  W/e though.  Not worth discussing.

well its not and you saying that its not doesn't change reality unfortunately

You said all humanists are atheists.  Please explain how that is not a bad generalization.

as i said this is the reason why only atheistic humanism is mentioned in definitions because it started as an atheistic idea and eeven after all this time most of its adherents subscribe to the atheistic pov

its also why the main humanist organisations are secular

Atheistic humanism was not mentioned in any definition.  Secular humanis was mentioned in some.  Secular and atheist are not the same thing. 

lol no all you've done is demonstrate a profound lack of understanding of abstraction

Nah man.  You don't get to say something blatantly false then say "it's a generalization".  That's what you've done this whole time.  You've somehow abstracted things to the point where huanism paganism atheism and antitheism are the same thing.  We don't use generalizations in debate, and the link I gave you on logical fallacies explains why.

 

"You said ALL humanists are atheists"

no i didn't at any time post that quote where i've done so

Absolutely good sir!  Because you see, I don't make up bullshit, and I don't lie about what people have or haven't said.  You apparently not only lie about what I said, but about what you said as well.

o_O.Q said:

" And if you think atheism is the same as humanism, and you think Hitler was an atheist, then you think he was also a humanist.  And that's bat shit crazy."

 i don't think that they are the same but i do think that humanism is fundamentally atheistic and therefore all humanists are also atheists

however all atheist are not humanists

"therefore (sic) all humanists are also atheists"

There.  You said it.  A direct quote :).  I guess maybe it was so stupid that you couldn't imagine you'd actually said it, but you did.  All humanists are also atheists.  And that ties in to what I said before about your generalization being incredibly stupid. 

Now, do yourself a favor instead of digging yourself deeper into your pile of bullshit.  Just admit you said it, admit it was wrong, and move on.  We all say stupid shit sometimes, and I've done so on many occasions.  I'm not going to hold that against you.  The constant dishonesty though is a bad trait that you should drop.

lol i'll skip your ridiculously amusing attempts to justifiy discarding dictionary definitions for words here

Yeah.  I mean, I'd probably skip it too if I had no argument to back me up.  But, at least do me this courtesy.  If we shouldn't discard dictionary definitions, that you just discarded the ones I presented from Oxford and Webster?

Dictionary.com

2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Webster

2
a :  a disbelief in the existence of deity

Oxford English Dictionary

Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

So if we can't discard a dictionary definitions, then I guess this definition has to be viewed as correct, and then you agree with me that "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." Is the correct definition of atheism.  Thank you for your agreement.


while advocating that we always allow movements to define themselves? really?

Yeah, unless you can think of a compelling reason why a primary source shouldn't be trusted, then you should.  Is there a good reason not to accept the definition provided by atheists and the Oxford English dictionary?

ah yes because people are always honest about what they believe with regards to conveying their ideas to outsiders... very good advice sir

the aryan guy isn't just going to say something about preserving his racial heritage while ommitting all of the negative aspects much like the rebranding you postedT

Don't want to get into a whole thing about the Aryan Brotherhood is a gang that has been quite honest about what you would probably consider the negative aspects of the Aryan people. 

But that's not the point.  The point is atheists.  Is there a reason that we should not take the atheist definition of atheism, which is also listed in the dictionary?  

these groups all realise that in order to grow their numbers and influence that they have to make their ideas as palatable to outsiders as possible

the average person would look at a statement like "there is no god" and say well that's fucking retarded ( although i'm sure that eventually atheistic ideas are going to become more and more common and influencial and not because of "rationality" )

If the position is so retarded, why do you suppose atheists believe it?  Do you think atheists are fucking retarded?  Do you have any reason to suggest that all of the atheist organizations and Oxford English dictionary are lying?

If you want to ignore the dictionary definition and the atheist definition, fine.  Present a compelling reason (meaning evidence) that atheists are being dishonest.  If not, then you owe me, and the atheist community at large, another apology.

By the way, I noticed you did not correct yourself or apologize for accusing me of attacking  all theists are blind followers.  Nor have you been able to provide an instance where I did.  If you claimed that I said something I did not say, please back it up with some evidence.  If you cannot, then you lied, intentionally or not, and misrepresented me.  As a simple matter of human decency (thou shalt not bear false witness btw) you should apologize to a person in that situation.


as for the

original argument stop being so damn lazy and do some research with the intent this time to actually get to the root instead of taking the path of least resistance with confirmation bias

How about if you make a claim you back it up?  I've provided you with evidence from multiple sources, none of which you'd been able to contradict.  I have done the research and presented it.  By your own admission (and I can quote this as well if need be), you could not contradict the quotes I've provided regarding Hitler's beliefs, nor can you dispute that the laws of Nazi Gerany forbade any speech besmirching Jesus.

Meanwhile, you not only refuse to present one piece of evidence that has said anything about Hitler being an atheist, and you will not even, despite 7 previous attempts, clearly define your position.  The only reason I can think of for your complete unwillingness to clarify your opinion is that you realize that you cannot defend it. 

Now, you have the right to be as wrong as you like in your head.  However, if you present something in a public forum such as this one, you are responsible for defending it.  If you can't, just admit you can't.  It's fine.  I've also made claims I couldn't defend.  And when called on it, I simply said, "oh I can't defend that" and moved on.




S.T.A.G.E. on 31 May 2015
o_O.Q said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
o_O.Q said:


tell that to the people who lived under atheistic regimes in the past

its amazing how people believe that the faults of humans which cause them to harm other humans would just evaporate of we discarded religion

atheists are no more altruistic than theists maybe even less so since a defeatest mindset like "people are stupid" seems to be something i see mostly from atheists

Explain these athiestic regimes. Athiesms is actually in a minority of thought in the world, but it is growing because people are starting to think. Funny enough its in the countries with higher education levels.

 

well since it'll offend some people i won't mention hitler i'll instead mention the leaders of communist russian for example

 

"Athiesms is actually in a minority of thought in the world, but it is growing because people are starting to think."

yes people are accepting paradigms of thought that are critical of religion that does not mean though that they in the wider sense are as critical as they should be

there are several things going on in the world today that if people were as you said really starting to think should cause profound reactions

 

for example i made this thread the other day : http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=203299&page=1#2

 

and so far i've had one reply... so while evidence is coming forth that its very likely that the us is taking the money of its tax payers to fund conflicts in other regions we have atheists instead taking their time to call religious people stupid

 

to a thinking person which would be the more pressing issue?

 

another similar issue is the bs war on drugs... millions are spent each year to bring an end to illicit drug use

and the premise itself is ridiculous - we don't ban alcohol so it can't be about stopping people from harming themselves

secondly if anything sources for drugs are more widespread than they ever have been before

there is also loads of evidence here that this whole system was set up and manipulated in the first place to rob the tax payers of their money

 

so no ultimately i don't think people are really starting to think at all 

 

something else i have to mention is the notion that attitudes like homphobia and misogyny are caused by religion and so they will just vanish when religion is destroyed and that's nonsense

these attitudes are brought about to some degree by religion i won't deny that but they also come about because of individual interaction... for example a man being slighted in some way by a woman may become a misogynist 

 

fear of people that are different to you is inate to human beings and is not going to stop when religion is destroyed

 

"Funny enough its in the countries with higher education levels."

"education"(tertiary) at the lower levels does not engender critical thinking

it is mostly about the ability to retain and recite the presently accepted beliefs of the era... beliefs that after a few decades will probably change drastically

 

for the most part what happens is that people are critical of some ideas while refusing to question others because they are fundamental to their world view


One would've thought that all of the praying during the black death would've helped people understand. Hmmmm....education is great. It helps us understand things more. Religion has years of history of paranoia and causing deaths because of superstition. Id rather take downa maniac with a cause than a religious person who is waiting for the end.  I'll read your post in a bit on the other page. I am playing the Witcher because I work a lot and dont have much time these days.



o_O.Q on 31 May 2015
JWeinCom said:

 

i'll give an analogy - there is a group  of fruits called citrus fruits but below that we have oranges, lemons etc

here we move from more abstract to more specific do you understand now? or are you still having trouble grasping how what you posted makes no sense

Which is what I said when I said they are subsets of the same groups, and you criticised it.  W/e though.  Not worth discussing.

well its not and you saying that its not doesn't change reality unfortunately

You said all humanists are atheists.  Please explain how that is not a bad generalization.

as i said this is the reason why only atheistic humanism is mentioned in definitions because it started as an atheistic idea and eeven after all this time most of its adherents subscribe to the atheistic pov

its also why the main humanist organisations are secular

Atheistic humanism was not mentioned in any definition.  Secular humanis was mentioned in some.  Secular and atheist are not the same thing. 

lol no all you've done is demonstrate a profound lack of understanding of abstraction

Nah man.  You don't get to say something blatantly false then say "it's a generalization".  That's what you've done this whole time.  You've somehow abstracted things to the point where huanism paganism atheism and antitheism are the same thing.  We don't use generalizations in debate, and the link I gave you on logical fallacies explains why.

 

"You said ALL humanists are atheists"

no i didn't at any time post that quote where i've done so

Absolutely good sir!  Because you see, I don't make up bullshit, and I don't lie about what people have or haven't said.  You apparently not only lie about what I said, but about what you said as well.

o_O.Q said:

" And if you think atheism is the same as humanism, and you think Hitler was an atheist, then you think he was also a humanist.  And that's bat shit crazy."

 i don't think that they are the same but i do think that humanism is fundamentally atheistic and therefore all humanists are also atheists

however all atheist are not humanists

"therefore (sic) all humanists are also atheists"

There.  You said it.  A direct quote :).  I guess maybe it was so stupid that you couldn't imagine you'd actually said it, but you did.  All humanists are also atheists.  And that ties in to what I said before about your generalization being incredibly stupid. 

Now, do yourself a favor instead of digging yourself deeper into your pile of bullshit.  Just admit you said it, admit it was wrong, and move on.  We all say stupid shit sometimes, and I've done so on many occasions.  I'm not going to hold that against you.  The constant dishonesty though is a bad trait that you should drop.

lol i'll skip your ridiculously amusing attempts to justifiy discarding dictionary definitions for words here

Yeah.  I mean, I'd probably skip it too if I had no argument to back me up.  But, at least do me this courtesy.  If we shouldn't discard dictionary definitions, that you just discarded the ones I presented from Oxford and Webster?

Dictionary.com

2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Webster

2
a :  a disbelief in the existence of deity

Oxford English Dictionary

Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

So if we can't discard a dictionary definitions, then I guess this definition has to be viewed as correct, and then you agree with me that "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." Is the correct definition of atheism.  Thank you for your agreement.


while advocating that we always allow movements to define themselves? really?

Yeah, unless you can think of a compelling reason why a primary source shouldn't be trusted, then you should.  Is there a good reason not to accept the definition provided by atheists and the Oxford English dictionary?

ah yes because people are always honest about what they believe with regards to conveying their ideas to outsiders... very good advice sir

the aryan guy isn't just going to say something about preserving his racial heritage while ommitting all of the negative aspects much like the rebranding you postedT

Don't want to get into a whole thing about the Aryan Brotherhood is a gang that has been quite honest about what you would probably consider the negative aspects of the Aryan people. 

But that's not the point.  The point is atheists.  Is there a reason that we should not take the atheist definition of atheism, which is also listed in the dictionary?  

these groups all realise that in order to grow their numbers and influence that they have to make their ideas as palatable to outsiders as possible

the average person would look at a statement like "there is no god" and say well that's fucking retarded ( although i'm sure that eventually atheistic ideas are going to become more and more common and influencial and not because of "rationality" )

If the position is so retarded, why do you suppose atheists believe it?  Do you think atheists are fucking retarded?  Do you have any reason to suggest that all of the atheist organizations and Oxford English dictionary are lying?

If you want to ignore the dictionary definition and the atheist definition, fine.  Present a compelling reason (meaning evidence) that atheists are being dishonest.  If not, then you owe me, and the atheist community at large, another apology.

By the way, I noticed you did not correct yourself or apologize for accusing me of attacking  all theists are blind followers.  Nor have you been able to provide an instance where I did.  If you claimed that I said something I did not say, please back it up with some evidence.  If you cannot, then you lied, intentionally or not, and misrepresented me.  As a simple matter of human decency (thou shalt not bear false witness btw) you should apologize to a person in that situation.


as for the

original argument stop being so damn lazy and do some research with the intent this time to actually get to the root instead of taking the path of least resistance with confirmation bias

How about if you make a claim you back it up?  I've provided you with evidence from multiple sources, none of which you'd been able to contradict.  I have done the research and presented it.  By your own admission (and I can quote this as well if need be), you could not contradict the quotes I've provided regarding Hitler's beliefs, nor can you dispute that the laws of Nazi Gerany forbade any speech besmirching Jesus.

Meanwhile, you not only refuse to present one piece of evidence that has said anything about Hitler being an atheist, and you will not even, despite 7 previous attempts, clearly define your position.  The only reason I can think of for your complete willingness to clarify your opinion is that you realize that you cannot defend it. 

Now, you have the right to be as wrong as you like in your head.  However, if you present something in a public forum such as this one, you are responsible for defending it.  If you can't, just admit you can't.  It's fine.  I've also made claims I couldn't defend.  And when called on it, I simply said, "oh I can't defend that" and moved on.

Edit:  But at least now when talking about atheistic regimes you went for the Russia example instead of Nazi Germany, so apparently you are learning, even if you won't admit to being wrong.  :) 

 

"W/e though.  Not worth discussing."

 

yes because you realised that you were wrong it was worth discussing though when you brought it up

"You said they are distinct groups, but now you want to call them one group (take the adherents collevtively). congratulations on completely contradicting yourself."

i was explaining how this is not contradictory do you get it now?

 

"Atheistic humanism was not mentioned in any definition."

 a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values;especially :  a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason

"a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism"

 

""therefore (sic) all humanists are also atheists"

There.  You said it.  A direct quote :).  "

 

all right fair enough  i was thinking of its origins but i will gladly admit that i was wrong to post that

 

"lol i'll skip your ridiculously amusing attempts to justifiy discarding dictionary definitions for words here

Yeah.  I mean, I'd probably skip it too if I had no argument to back me up."

 

yeah no argument like that being the primary purpose that we use dictionaries lol please stop 

 

"Yeah, unless you can think of a compelling reason why a primary source shouldn't be trusted, then you should."

 

and i presented one ( which to anyone with a modicum of common sense should be apparent )with an example for this particular context

 

"If the position is so retarded"

your reading comprehension is slipping again i didn't say that it was; i said to the average person it is

"the average person would look at a statement like "there is no god" and say well that's fucking retarded"

 

"By the way, I noticed you did not correct yourself or apologize for accusing me of attacking  all theists are blind followers.  "

 

and i have no intention to do so... i personally don't see how you can support atheism and be offended by that since that is pretty much the most pervasive idea in the movement

which makes me wonder if you are simply attempting to be dishonest here but whatever

 

"  By your own admission (and I can quote this as well if need be), you could not contradict the quotes I've provided regarding Hitler's beliefs"

 

i posted various articles that are in direct opposition to your claims that christianity was the motivation behind his movement and that it was instead motivated by an older pagan religion if you choose to dismiss then that's your prerogative

as i conceded yes he appears to be associated with christianity in various ways but as i said there is also various evidence that the movement was inspired by an older religion


"But at least now when talking about atheistic regimes you went for the Russia example instead of Nazi Germany"

 

no i still stand by what i said but the overall point is that atheism makes people no more moral or causes less suffering than any other ideology which seems to be a belief that is pervasive among atheists



JWeinCom on 31 May 2015
o_O.Q said:
JWeinCom said:

 

i'll give an analogy - there is a group  of fruits called citrus fruits but below that we have oranges, lemons etc

here we move from more abstract to more specific do you understand now? or are you still having trouble grasping how what you posted makes no sense

Which is what I said when I said they are subsets of the same groups, and you criticised it.  W/e though.  Not worth discussing.

well its not and you saying that its not doesn't change reality unfortunately

You said all humanists are atheists.  Please explain how that is not a bad generalization.

as i said this is the reason why only atheistic humanism is mentioned in definitions because it started as an atheistic idea and eeven after all this time most of its adherents subscribe to the atheistic pov

its also why the main humanist organisations are secular

Atheistic humanism was not mentioned in any definition.  Secular humanis was mentioned in some.  Secular and atheist are not the same thing. 

lol no all you've done is demonstrate a profound lack of understanding of abstraction

Nah man.  You don't get to say something blatantly false then say "it's a generalization".  That's what you've done this whole time.  You've somehow abstracted things to the point where huanism paganism atheism and antitheism are the same thing.  We don't use generalizations in debate, and the link I gave you on logical fallacies explains why.

 

"You said ALL humanists are atheists"

no i didn't at any time post that quote where i've done so

Absolutely good sir!  Because you see, I don't make up bullshit, and I don't lie about what people have or haven't said.  You apparently not only lie about what I said, but about what you said as well.

o_O.Q said:

" And if you think atheism is the same as humanism, and you think Hitler was an atheist, then you think he was also a humanist.  And that's bat shit crazy."

 i don't think that they are the same but i do think that humanism is fundamentally atheistic and therefore all humanists are also atheists

however all atheist are not humanists

"therefore (sic) all humanists are also atheists"

There.  You said it.  A direct quote :).  I guess maybe it was so stupid that you couldn't imagine you'd actually said it, but you did.  All humanists are also atheists.  And that ties in to what I said before about your generalization being incredibly stupid. 

Now, do yourself a favor instead of digging yourself deeper into your pile of bullshit.  Just admit you said it, admit it was wrong, and move on.  We all say stupid shit sometimes, and I've done so on many occasions.  I'm not going to hold that against you.  The constant dishonesty though is a bad trait that you should drop.

lol i'll skip your ridiculously amusing attempts to justifiy discarding dictionary definitions for words here

Yeah.  I mean, I'd probably skip it too if I had no argument to back me up.  But, at least do me this courtesy.  If we shouldn't discard dictionary definitions, that you just discarded the ones I presented from Oxford and Webster?

Dictionary.com

2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Webster

2
a :  a disbelief in the existence of deity

Oxford English Dictionary

Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

So if we can't discard a dictionary definitions, then I guess this definition has to be viewed as correct, and then you agree with me that "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." Is the correct definition of atheism.  Thank you for your agreement.


while advocating that we always allow movements to define themselves? really?

Yeah, unless you can think of a compelling reason why a primary source shouldn't be trusted, then you should.  Is there a good reason not to accept the definition provided by atheists and the Oxford English dictionary?

ah yes because people are always honest about what they believe with regards to conveying their ideas to outsiders... very good advice sir

the aryan guy isn't just going to say something about preserving his racial heritage while ommitting all of the negative aspects much like the rebranding you postedT

Don't want to get into a whole thing about the Aryan Brotherhood is a gang that has been quite honest about what you would probably consider the negative aspects of the Aryan people. 

But that's not the point.  The point is atheists.  Is there a reason that we should not take the atheist definition of atheism, which is also listed in the dictionary?  

these groups all realise that in order to grow their numbers and influence that they have to make their ideas as palatable to outsiders as possible

the average person would look at a statement like "there is no god" and say well that's fucking retarded ( although i'm sure that eventually atheistic ideas are going to become more and more common and influencial and not because of "rationality" )

If the position is so retarded, why do you suppose atheists believe it?  Do you think atheists are fucking retarded?  Do you have any reason to suggest that all of the atheist organizations and Oxford English dictionary are lying?

If you want to ignore the dictionary definition and the atheist definition, fine.  Present a compelling reason (meaning evidence) that atheists are being dishonest.  If not, then you owe me, and the atheist community at large, another apology.

By the way, I noticed you did not correct yourself or apologize for accusing me of attacking  all theists are blind followers.  Nor have you been able to provide an instance where I did.  If you claimed that I said something I did not say, please back it up with some evidence.  If you cannot, then you lied, intentionally or not, and misrepresented me.  As a simple matter of human decency (thou shalt not bear false witness btw) you should apologize to a person in that situation.


as for the

original argument stop being so damn lazy and do some research with the intent this time to actually get to the root instead of taking the path of least resistance with confirmation bias

How about if you make a claim you back it up?  I've provided you with evidence from multiple sources, none of which you'd been able to contradict.  I have done the research and presented it.  By your own admission (and I can quote this as well if need be), you could not contradict the quotes I've provided regarding Hitler's beliefs, nor can you dispute that the laws of Nazi Gerany forbade any speech besmirching Jesus.

Meanwhile, you not only refuse to present one piece of evidence that has said anything about Hitler being an atheist, and you will not even, despite 7 previous attempts, clearly define your position.  The only reason I can think of for your complete willingness to clarify your opinion is that you realize that you cannot defend it. 

Now, you have the right to be as wrong as you like in your head.  However, if you present something in a public forum such as this one, you are responsible for defending it.  If you can't, just admit you can't.  It's fine.  I've also made claims I couldn't defend.  And when called on it, I simply said, "oh I can't defend that" and moved on.

Edit:  But at least now when talking about atheistic regimes you went for the Russia example instead of Nazi Germany, so apparently you are learning, even if you won't admit to being wrong.  :) 

 

"W/e though.  Not worth discussing."

 

yes because you realised that you were wrong it was worth discussing though when you brought it up

Mkay.  I was wrong.  It happens.

"Atheistic humanism was not mentioned in any definition."

I'm not sure why we're still arguing this.  We've established that humanists are not necessarily atheists.  We could move on.

all right fair enough  i was thinking of its origins but i will gladly admit that i was wrong to post that

Ok then. 

Yeah.  I mean, I'd probably skip it too if I had no argument to back me up."

yeah no argument like that being the primary purpose that we use dictionaries lol please stop 

You know what?  You're write.  We should totally use dictionary definitions.

Webster

2

a :  a disbelief in the existence of deity

Oxford
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

All hail the dictionary.

and i presented one ( which to anyone with a modicum of common sense should be apparent )with an example for this particular context

Are you referring to Hitler, Atheists, or the Aryan Brotherhood? 

your reading comprehension is slipping again i didn't say that it was; i said to the average person it is

No, my reading coprehension is fine.  Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you because you are not writing in complete sentences or using appropriate punctuation, grammar, or capitalization.  Make sure your writing is clear before questioning my reading. :)

I think that if you say the view is fucking retarded to the average person, it is a valid inference to say you believe it's fucking retarted.  If we're having a misunderstanding, then feel free to correct me. Do you think the viewpoint is fucking retarded?

Anyway, the point was that you have no reason to mistrust the atheist and dictionary definition, or at least have not presented one.

and i have no intention to do so... i personally don't see how you can support atheism and be offended by that since that is pretty much the most pervasive idea in the movement

Nothing about atheism (go to your definitions if you like) implies that all atheists view theists as blind followers.  Some do, some do not.  But, I'm not going to get into a thing about atheists in general.  It is perhaps the pinnacle of hypocrisy that you are complaining of an imaginary unfair generalization made about theists, and are trying to justify it with an actual unfair generalization against atheists. Can't make this stuff up folks.  Read again the link I gave you on the sweeping generalization fallacy. 

 But, this is not about what atheists believe.  This is about what you claimed that I said.  You claim I personally attacked theists for being blind followers.  You did not claim that I think theists are blind followers .  You claimed that I actually attacked theists for being blind followers. Did I, or did I not?  If so, present an instance of me doing so.  If not, then you're a liar, plain and simple.  If you lied about what I said, and refuse to apologize, then you're showing yourself to be a shitty person.  Plain and simple.

So, if you don't have evidence, (which I'm sure you don't, because unlike certain people in this topic I actually know what I've said) you have the choice.  Admit you were wrong in lying about me, or admit that you are a liar.

which makes me wonder if you are simply attempting to be dishonest here but whatever

So... let me get this straight.  You claimed that I have done something which I have not done.  When I dispute that lie, I'm the dishonest one?

Wow.  I am honestly impressed that your mind was able to conceive of that level of bullshit.  It's almost an artform.

Though, I guess it fits in with the rest of the bullshit.  You've decided what atheists believe, and if they do or say anything else, it's clear that you're still right, and they're just liars.

i posted various articles that are in direct opposition to your claims that christianity was the motivation behind his movement and that it was instead motivated by an older pagan religion if you choose to dismiss then that's your prerogative

No, you didn't.  You posted one article that claimed Hitler believed in Aryan's with psychic powers and stuff like that, with no source of any kind or references to back it up. 

Further, I did not say that Christianity was the motivation for the movement.  The closest I said to that was that Hitler claims his hatred of the Jews is based on the Bible, and whether or not it's true, Hitler certainly said it.

as i conceded yes he appears to be associated with christianity in various ways but as i said there is also various evidence that the movement was inspired by an older religion

So then are you saying he wasn't an atheist?  If so, we're in agreement. 

no i still stand by what i said but the overall point is that atheism makes people no more moral or causes less suffering than any other ideology which seems to be a belief that is pervasive among atheists

Which is something I never disputed.  Not that I agree, but you are entitled to your own opinion.  What I disagreed with was the idea that Hitler was an atheist, because that is factually inaccurate based on the best evidence we have.