o_O.Q said:
JWeinCom said:
Ugh. Insomnia. Might as well respond.
ah so the fact that he attacked the church, was condemned by the pope, participated in a movement that put forth phrases such as "the time of the cross has gone now", etc etc etc does not dispute that he was christian?
Hitler attacked many people who disagreed with him, but as far as I know, and as far as you've shown, there was no concerted effort to attack the church. Hitler attacked atheist groups as well. I'd wager that it would be hard to find any group of which Hitler did not attack at least some part.
"The time of the cross has gone now". Hmmm... interesting that you ignore the part about god in that poem. At any rate, that was a hymn put forth by the clergy. And there is no evidence that Hitler ever heard it, endorsed it, etc. As controlling as Hitler was, he did not control every hymn in every Church. At best, you've proved someone in the movement worshipped the sun, and even that claim is sketchy. If you want to claim your interpreation of a hymn that Hitler may or may not have ever heard or agreed with is stronger evidence than Hitler saying "I am a catholic" I would have to disagree.
and i thought you were saying that you never said hitler was christian later in your post?
" I never said Hitler was a Christian."
Ummmm.... yeah? I don't get your point. I never did say that Hitler was a Christian. And my offer for 1000 if you find that I did still stands.
supporting atheism which you are doing means that directly or by proxy you are attacking religions because in case you do not understand ( as you have demonstrated earlier btw) atheism is not a neutral position
I don't know what you mean by neutral position. If you mean neutral position in terms of agnostic (there may or may not be a god) I agree that atheism is not neutral in that sense. It is a position where the believer does not believe there is a god or gods or godesses.
you keep convincing me more and more that you do not understand what your own movement is about which doesn't surprise me because most don't as can be said about most followers adhering to concepts that were created by other people
First off, I didn't attack theists at any point. Regardless of whether or not I believe in my movement (that I didn't know I was a part of) is irrelevant. You made a factual claim about something I did, and you cannot demonstrate that I did it. You are a liar.
And I really don't know what atheism movement you're talking about. There are certainly atheists involved in many different movements, but I'm afraid I'm not aware of any centralized atheist movement. Who defined this movement? You? If so why do you feel qualified to define it? Do you have some expertise? Please state your credentials, or show some kind of evidence.
the two movements atheism and theism are antithetical to each other
I don't know what you mean by movement. I know there is no centralized atheist movement, and there is definitely no theist movement. There is the secularist movement. There is the Islamic movement. The Christian movement. Etc. Surely, you can't be both a theist and an atheist, but that doesn't mean theists are obligated to discourage atheism of vice versa.
religion hopes to destroy atheism so that everyone can be saved under the glory of god and live under certain tenants that are identified in the bible which some people find oppressive such as the condemnation of homosexuality
Wow. You've added yet another scoop to your steaming pile of fail. You apparently don't know what religion is. Religion hopes to destroy atheism so that everyone can live under certain tenants of the bible? Which religion? Does Islam want us to live under the bible? Judaism? Roman Paganism? Hinduism? Buddhism? Do satanists want us to live according to the bible? Does every religion condemn homosexuality? Do wiccans condemn homosexuality? Greek pagans? Pantheists? Rastafarians? Pastafarians?
I know many people who are theists and are religious, and do not condemn homosexuality. The only person here who is attacking theists is you.
You also don't know what a tenant is. A tenant is someone who occupies an apartment.
You keep trying to lump ten different terms into one and eliminate any nuance. You just lumped ALL religions into Christianity and you've lumped ALL unconventional religious beliefs or non-beliefs into atheism. Do you get why I'm having trouble understanding you? Forget defining atheism, you don't even seem to know what religions is. Yet, you feel qualified to speak on this subject. And please, try to spin this to make it seem like something less than a stunning display of stupidity.
Do you realize the difference between a set and members of a set? Christianity is a religion. That does not mean Christianity and religion are the same thing. Some humanists are atheists. That does not mean all humanists are atheists. Some atheists may worship the sun. That does not mean all atheists worship the sun. Do yourself a favor, and stop using generalizations. I mean, generalizations can be a useful tool when used appropriately. You seem incapable of doing so, so you're best off not trying.
"Our data shows that secular societies score higher on every measure of societal health than comparable religious societies.
Like communist russia? lol
When we do these kinds of studies, we have to do so in a way where we can isolate religion as a factor. So we would want to compare countries that are similar in most aspects besides religion. You are cherry picking examples, and I could do the same. For example, if I compared a secular society like Sweden to a religious society like Syria, obvi
ously the secular society would come out looking a lot better.
On the other hand, a comparison between a country like Canada and the US makes more sense as they, while not identical, are both modern westernized country. When westernized countries are compared, more secular societies come out ahead. I believe this holds true when comparing countries in other areas. Israel, the least religious country in the middle east, is also the most stable with the highest quality of life (although I can't confidently say that's solely due to religion).
It's called isolating variables, so I guess we can add "research and statistics" to the things you're ignorant of.
do you by any chance understand what symbology means? or is that too abstract for you to understand? they clearly were not referring to the christian god "the time of the cross has gone now" so what does that tell you? does it not perhaps suggest that there is a esoteric meaning?
You seem to think I can't think abstractly, but I assure you I am quite capable when the time is right. But, when you're trying to discuss ideas, you need to define basic terms, which you seem incapable of doing.
As for the hymn, to be honest, I don't have the grounding in that kind of poetry to interpret it, and I'm not going to claim I do. What I do know, is that it was a hymn that was created in the clergy, which gives me the impression it was referring to god as in Yahweh. I don't know enough about the culture to say what the cross represents. It could represent Jesus, it could represent the Church, or it could represent simply the time of Jesus' life. I'm not claiming to be an expert on this, but I don't think you are either. Neither the source you found, or the source I found claimed this to be a poem supporting atheism. There is no logical way to interpret this as support of atheism. And again, if you're going to define Hitler's beliefs by a poem he might or might not have heard, then you need to learn how to research.
says the man that proclaims that we should reject dictionary definitions to gain definitions of movements from adherents themselves... because people are never disengenuous about the purposes of movements lol
This is an honest question, and I honestly mean no disrespect, but have you been to college? Have you done any academic work? I'm one class away from my master's degree in education, and my bachelors degree is in English. Out of all the work I've read and wrote, do you know how many times a scholarly work has referred to a dictionary definition? Absolutely 0. When defining a movement they will almost always refer to either people within the movement, or prominent critics who have demonstrated expertise on the subject. Because movements, concepts, and ideas are often complicated and hard to define. If I tried to quote webster's dictionary in a scholarly paper, I'd have gotten an F (ok maybe not an F, but at least a stern correction from the professor).
A dictionary is a reference tool. It is for you to get a basic understanding of a concept you are unfamiliar with. If you want to discuss any subject in an advanced manner, you need to use other sources. If you think that the dictionary is a good source to define a complex movement then I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. If you're going to argue a subject you should know more than the dictionary.
These sources describe why dictionaries are not reliable as primary sources. And of course, wikipedia is not a reliable source, but it's a good description and has good links to support it.
You really seem to not know how a dictionary works or what it is used for. A dictionary is meant for people who don't know a word to get a good approximation of what it means. Do you really expect a dictionary to completely define something like atheism or Christianity thoroughly and completely in 5 or 6 lines? Do you really think you know more about atheism than people like Christopher Hitchens, Bertrand Russell, or Richard Dawkins because you've read 12 words about it in a dictionary? And a dictionary is NOT the word police. There is no authority behind a dictionary. If I had the money, I could create a dictionary that says "idiot: A person who thinks dictionaries are infallible". Nobody is going to stop you if you have the money to publish it. There is no dictionary committee making sure every dictionary is right. Some dictionaries are more respected than others, but none can claim to be an absolute authority.
Also did you know that there are subject specific dictionary? If I looked up gravity in the OED I might get an entirely definition than if I looked it up in a physics dictionary. Dictionaries give you the lay term which is often inappropriate under different circumstances.
Dictionaries are also notoriously bad at keeping up with definitions. You seem to think that the idea of a concept from 2000 BC should still apply, but it does not. Concepts evolve and change. Did you know that dictionaries are updated all the time? That the definition you're looking on it can be changed? So even dictionary editors don't think their definitions are perfect. And if it will be changed, it's because the editors did legitimate research. If I was talking about my computer, would you think of a giant 1970s computer? No, you'd think of a modern computer. Even if they have the same origin, they are immensely different. Same thing with words. Language is fluid and evolving.
When you act as though the dictionary is an authoritative source, you are embarrassing yourself. If all you know about atheism is what you read in a dictionary, then you are just showing how pathetically little you know about atheism. I hate to play the, I have a college degree card, but ummm yeah, I have a college degree in English. This means that I've spent a great deal of time learning about the English language and its usage, and that a university (SUNY New Paltz. Not Harvard, but a fairly legit school) said "this guy knows enough about the English language and research that we're willing to vouch for him. Another university (Brooklyn College. Again not like Ivy League or anything, but a legitimate college) said, this guy has proven he knows enough about research that we're going to vouch for him. My point is that I know both how the English language works and how to do research.
So, if you keep harping on the dictionary, you're just embarasing yourself. If what you know about atheism comes from the 12 words in Oxford's English dictionary, then you are not equipped to discuss it. You're really embarrassing yourself here.
I have a challenge for you. Say this "I believe that dictionary definitions are always correct and the best source of information on a topic." Please please please say that so I can laugh at the stupidity. If you're not willing to say it, then I'll take that as an admission that you are, like you are about so many other things, wrong and dictionary definitions are not a great source of information.
And in any scholarly work YES THEY DO USE PRIMARY SOURCES. I would say 99% of the time, the statements of adherents of a religion or movements are used to define it. Unless you have some sort of logical reason to dismiss what adherents say, we use that definition. Because, and here's a point you seem really confused on, generally, a person is the best source of information on what that person believes.
So, if you have a reason why we shouldn't trust the definition provided by every prominent atheist (and in the dictionary that you cling to so you don't have to do more than one page of research), then say it. If not, then I think we should take Christopher Hitchen's word over yours. Of course, if you want to JUDGE the movement, THEN you use secondary sources.
You for some batshit crazy reason feel that you should be trusted to define atheism, humanism, theism, deism, humanism, and even my thoughts (lol, how stupid is that?) yet you can't even clearly define religion, as you've proven. What a joke.
If you think that a 12 word definition is all the research you need to make a case about any movement then lolololololololol. If you still think that dictionaries are a reliable source for research, please allow me to make a topic about it. I'll present my case as to who should define movements, you could present yours, and then everyone can laugh at you because what you're saying is insanely idiotic. And if you're not confident enough in this claim to throw it out the community, then you should probably shut up about it.
my first post in this thread covers this... there is actually loads of evidence that suggests that jesus was a symbolic representation of the sun... whether that is right or not at this point i'm not sure
Then how can you use worship of the sun as evidence for atheism if it could also be for Christianity? How can it be both? (I think it's neither.) Is Christianity atheism? I seriously have no idea what you're even trying to say at this point.
i never dismissed any dictionary definition... if my memory serves me correctly... you did
Yes I did, and hopefully you understand why. But IF you do accept dictionary definitions (you shouldn't) then you'd have to agree with the one presented in OED which just so happens to be the definition I gave. So do you accept the OED definition or not?
If you accept the OED definition than you are contradicting yourself when you say things like atheists by definition want to destroy theism. If you don't agree with it, then you are dismissing dictionary definitions. So you're either lying or contradicting yourself. You can choose which.
"Hitler was very clearly not a humanist, and we have no evidence to suggest he was an atheist. In any public statement Hitler ever made, he adhered to Christianity. "
lol so he adhered to christian principles?... what do we call people like that? oh i know! they are called christians!
How can you misquote me when the quote is right there? It was like, an inch away. You just had to move your eyes slightly upwards. Either you're lazy, you can't read, or you're a pathological liar. Like, seriously, you went through the effort to get the quote and post it, and then you still somehow managed to get it wrong. This level of ineptitude is simply astounding. Do you think you're going to get away with manipulating my words when the quote is there for any intelligent person to read?
I did not say he adhered to Christian principles, I said he adhered to Christianity. Adhered, in this instance, means (from Websters, cause this IS an occasion that the dictionary is useful) to give support or maintain loyalty. And he supported Christianity in any public statement. I also made sure to include that word public to indicate the possibility that he may have believed something differently in private. So, if you take that to mean, "Hitler was a Christian" then you are clearly not qualified to comment on anyone's reading comprehension.
and this is why i criticised your comprehension because you clearly have a problem if you can conflate "association" with "adherence"
I've asked you more than five times to state clearly what you believe Hitlers ideas to be, and you refused. If I'm not clear on this, then that's your fault. Considering how often you conflate terms, you can hardly blame me for my confusion.
and here again you demonstrate that egregious lack of comprehension - you are describing absolutism not generalisation
generalisation means that you do accept that there are exceptions to a majority not that " all members of a particular group are the same"
Very funny that someone with a degree in English is being lectured by someone who cannot use sentences. Please use them. To make it easier to follow you. And also, I'm genuinely curious to see if you can.
First off, you are not generalizing, you are using absolutism. Like when you said "all humanists are atheists". That's an absolute statement, (you did admit it was stupid but then went back to defending it).
In the example I was talking about, you said that I must think a certain way because I'm an atheist, despite having no evidence of such, and despite me claiming the contrary. So, I don't see that you're allowing exceptions. When you say I have to believe in every tenet of atheism (whatever that means) that is absolutism).
And generaliztions and absolutism both lead to discrimination. If I say "well Neil Degrasse Tyson is pretty smart, but most black people are stupid", then am I not discriminating? Any intelligent person in a debate recognizes that overgeneralizations are a logical fallacy and that generalizations are to be avoided as much as possible.
if your thinking goes against the very tenant of the group you claim to be a part of then you are not a part of that group
as i said the very purpose of atheism is the destruction of theism... that's why its theism with an "a" in front of it
it is an antithetical movement
Again you cannot define terms clearly. Atheism could refer to a movement, but it could also refer to a personal belief. They are not the same thing. I am not, as of now, a member of any atheist movement. I may be in the future, but I'm kind of lazy.
And again, where are the tenants of this movement? Is there a list somewhere? Did the mighty atheismo hand them down on stone tablets? I know they're not in the dictionary, so where did you pull them from?
And, the "a" prefix in front of a word is not for antiethical. It means without. If a person is asexual, that means they don't have any sexuality to speak of (or they don't have sexual organs). That doesn't mean they actively go around stopping people from fucking.
Of course, atheism can be considered antiethical to theism in the sense that they are incompatible. However, that does not mean an atheist has to be opposed to other people being theists.
Of course, there IS a prefix that means against That prefix is anti. That's why I explained antitheism to you.
I did actually find some sight listing the "tenets of atheism" actually a Christian apologetic site, (I think you quoted it earlier) but it's a pretty good description.
"Some Basic Tenets of Atheism
Presuppositions are important to us all. We look at the world through them. The atheist has a set of presuppositions, too. As I said, there is no definitive atheist organization that defines the absolutes of atheism, but there are basic principles that atheists, as a whole, tend to adopt. I've tried to list some of them below. Pease note, however, that not all atheists accept all of these tenets. The only absolute common one to which they hold is that they do not believe in a God or gods.
- There is no God or devil.
- There is no supernatural realm.
- Miracles cannot occur.
- There is no such thing as sin as a violation of God's will.
- Generally, the universe is materialistic and measurable.
- Man is material.
- Generally, evolution is considered a scientific fact.
- Ethics and morals are relative.
For the Christian, atheism clashes with many aspects of our faith. Some atheists openly attack Christianity--citing apparent contradictions in the Bible, perceived philosophical difficulties related to God, and what they consider as logical evidences against God's existence. But the atheists' criticisms are not without very good answers as you will see in the coming papers."
I don't agree with everything he says, but at least this guy is smart enough to know what it is he's arguing against.
Btw this is yet another source that cofirms my definition of atheism. And this time it's being defined by someone opposed to atheism.
And what does it mean to destroy theism? How is it possible to destroy an abstract idea? Do I do it with a hammer or something? You can say someone is trying to destroy religion, destroy a particular religion, or destroy theists, but anyone trying to destroy theism would me wasting their time. Cause unless you're a nazi with psychic powers, it'd be impossible.
with regards to my earlier claims about evolution playing a part in nazi ideology the term "racial hygiene" should provide more than enough evidence
I don't recall bringing up Nazis ideas of evolution again, but either way, I don't care. Many atheists believe in evolution. Some don't. Some theists believe in evolution. It is irrelevant to Hitler's religion. If I said Hitler was a creationist, then it may be relevant, but I didn't say that.
and yes you do worship the sun... the vast majority of the population do in various ways anyway so don't feel bad about it
A
nd this betrays the level of stupidity in your comments. You somehow feel that you are qualified to make a claim about what I believe with no evidence (and this is absolutism not a generalization since you made an absolute statement about my beliefs) and not only that, but you feel that you can make claims about the vast majority of the population. Please show me the massive amount of anthropological studies you've done to back up that statement.
do i really have to go for quotes from atheists claiming just that seriously? are you really that dishonest?
Eureka!!! I think you finally understand. YES! YES YOU DO HAVE TO DO RESEARCH AND PRESENT EVIDENCE FOR A CLAIM! Please, find me an example of any prominent and respected atheist who defines atheism as "the assertion that there is no god". Because I have done a lot of research on atheism, and even the most hardcore atheists do not define it that way. (although some atheists may also be antitheists and believe firmly there is no god).
Christopher Hitchens- We don't say on non-truth claims or faith claims that we know when we don't.....atheists do not say that we know there is no god. We say to the contrary, no argument and no evidence has ever been deduced that we consider to be persuasive......The same with the afterlife. Of course we don't say that we know there isn't one. We say that we don't know anyone who can bring any reason to think that there is.
Richard Dawkins: “I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low,”
You see, this is the basis of discussion (or more accurately debate). You have a difference of opinions, and sides produce evidence to support their position.
So again yes you do need evidence to support your claim. Why do you think you wouldn't?
By the way, you also need evidence to show that I've been dishonest, but you've already shown that you're a liar (and I do have evidence), and you don't seem to think that's a problem.
Btw, if you want to use my conversation with Killinger to show that I am being dishonest in my stance of theism, please look up to the difference between secularism and antitheism.
And that's really the crux of it. Do you have any credentials to show that you have any knowledge of atheism? If not, have you provided any source to back up your opinion (say dictionary again if you want to make another display of stupidity)? Have you shown that you have any credentials regarding research (I do btw)? Can you show credentials to show you have any expertise about the English language? (I do.)
Do you have something to show expertise in theology? Humanism? Nazi germany? Paganism? World religions?
Because for most of those things, I am not an expert, which is why I've supported everything I've said with evidence and you have not once been able to point out a factual error. (Btw try not to get papercuts when you make sweet love to your copy of Websters).
The only thing you're an expert on is on how not to prove a point and how not to be coherent. :)
I'll leave you with a quote, and the hope that you'll at least have the common sense to stay down rather than humiliate yourself further.
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
|
before i address the rest of that i want to point this out again
what do you make of that? to me it means quite clearly that he was an evolutionist which if you understand history was the furthest state a person could reach from theism in that era
Evolution is not atheism. I don't need to make anything out of it, as it's irrelevant to the topic.
i posted these ideas he possessed earlier and i'll admit it wasn't as clearly defined but i don't see how anyone could reasonably claim that he was a christian considering all of these facts and that the most likely conclusion is that he was indeed an atheist
Because being a Christian does not prevent people from believing in evolution.
well again i don't think you understand the two movements then... i think anyone that is being honest will admit that the two movements have the end goal of destroying each other and in my opinion its clear that the church is losing and will eventually be destroyed at least in the sense that all of the core practices and beliefs will be changed
No. I simply don't accept that, so unless you have some evidence...
yes which was a mistake although i find it hard to believe that you didn't understand that but whatever
" Israel, the least religious country in the middle east, is also the most stable with the highest quality of life "
possibly because they aren't being bombed constantly... is that your best example? really? lol
Well, I would say that the fact that Syria is being bombed actually has a lot to do with religion. The bombings that have been going on have been targeting ISIS which is an explicitly religious group.
Anyway, the point of the passage in which you took this out of context is that we have to compare similar countries. If you want to dispute this example, that's fine. Compare America to Sweeden if you like.
because it generally involves comparing different ideas on a research topic which is what i did btw i listed various ideas on atheism
Any scholarly work on a topic will define the topic in the beginning, and they will never appeal to the dictionary. And no, scholarly papers do not generally involve comparing different ideas on a research topic. They might or might not depending on the field, and depending on the work. I would not say that is generally true. There are many papers devoted specifically to examining a movement or idea, for example, papers on postmodernism. If I wrote a paper about postmodernism, which I had done, or wished to invoke the idea of postmodernism in a paper, and I used the dictionary definition, I'd have been laughed out of school.
And yes you listed various ideas, but presenting nonsensical ideas does not help your case.
such as when i detailed how it arose from sun worship
Speaking of nonsensical ideas here we are. You have claimed that atheism is somehow a logical extension of worshipping the sun. Worshipping the sun though would most likely be considered neo paganism. You have not explained, in a way that makes any sense, how atheism logically follows sun worship, shown a clear lineage, or provided any sort of source to back up these ideas.
but the fact remains that the default definition for a word is generally accepted to be the dictionary
Generally? Yes, but that's not because the dictionary has any authority in and of itself. It is because, mostly, words are fairly simple to define, and the dictionaries we use are up to the task. But in the event that the dictionary definition conflicts with primary sources, the primary source should always take precedent, unless there is some reason that the primary source is flawed.
oh and you have a degree in english? that's impressive i guess
Yeah I do. And I don't mean that to brag or to put you down, but just to say that I have a good idea of how the academic process works, and how research is done.
it is obviously nuanced, the astrological allegories that are used in the bible seem to stem from the old atheistic worship of the sun without the understanding that it is in fact the worship of human intellect
the meaning seems to have been corrupted into the idea that the sun is "god's son" which is why we see all of the different astrological connections in the bible
Why is worship of the sun considered atheistic? How is worshipping the sun worshipping the human intellect? You can't just throw these things out with no explanation. But the point is, if sun worship can be considered to be Christian, then it can not be used to proclaim Hitler as an atheist.
how are the two mutually exclusive? can you elaborate on that for me?
Yeah. That was a bit of me misspeaking. My point is that you're attaching a lot to atheism that is not contained within the definition, yet when I bring up anything outside the definition, with evidence, you appeal to the dictionary.
"I did not say he adhered to Christian principles, I said he adhered to Christianity."
Taking what I say out of context again. Well, not surprising. And yeah, those two things are very different. You can publicly profess Christianity and not truly believe it, or not follow it in the conventional sense, but if you adhere to its principles that's different. That's why you added the word "principles" because otherwise your argument didn't make sense.
"First off, you are not generalizing, you are using absolutism. Like when you said "all humanists are atheists". That's an absolute statement"
No, I was describing your behavior. I don't believe I was talking strictly about generalizations. You've misused both generalizations and absolutism.
well you disagree with hitler since as i posted he says that was the main reason for his movement - to facilitate the evolution of the aryan race who would rule over humanity and reclaim what they lost
Which has nothing to do with whether he was a christian, an atheist, or otherwise. And see my earlier quotes where Hitler clearly gives biblical basis for hating Jews. Honestly, I didn't read what you said. I might later if I wish, but I'm not interested in researching Hitler's views on evolution right now.
in hitler's time no christians believed in atheism as it was one of the main ideas that were rejected by the church... the only people back then that believed in evolution were atheists... that should tell a reasonable person something...
Again with the absolute statements. Can you back that up? There were no Christians who believed in evolution? Were there deists who believed in it? Theists?
I don't know particularly who believed in evolution when, and as it is irrelevant to this, I don't care to look it up. I do know that the man considered the father of modern genetics, Gregor Mendel, was a priest. I doubt very much he would disagree that species change over time, since he proved the mechanism by which they do. Mendel's work became popular in the early 1900s.
Besides it's a circular argument. Only atheists believe in evolution. Hitler believed in evolution. Hitler must therefore be an atheist. That's circular.
in this thread alone i'm sure i can find a few quotes at least of claims that there is no god or that the bible is a book of fairy tales or that religion is too archaic and restrictive and needs to go etc etc etc
Quotes by who? Random people on this forum? What does that have to do with being against theism?
You claimed you mistakenly used religion instead of Christianity before, but you're doing it again here. Many theists do not believe in the new testament. Like Jews, Muslims (although that's a little more complex), Hindus, pagans, etc. There are also many theists, and Christians even, who are opposed to organized religion. Atheists can hold these positions, but that doesn't mean all or even most do. And even if most did, that has nothing to do with atheism. I mean, most atheists believe in a heliocentric model of the solar system. That doesn't make this belief part of atheism.
are you joking right now or something?
it doesn't matter that 3 atheists ( one who is dead and another who will probably be following him shortly ) claim otherwise the point is that the general atheist has the beliefs i just alluded to and wishes to wipe theism off the face of the earth
We shouldn't listen to dead people? Guess what that Jesus guy said is pretty useless, right? Apparently what a group of people living thousands of years ago who worshipped the sun is relevant to modern atheists, but a guy who died a few years ago is not. Cause fuck logic.
And these aren't just 3 random atheists. Richard Dawkin has sold in excess of 2 million books regarding atheism. Hitchens is also a best selling author on the subject. They are incredibly well respected within the atheist community, and you can do the research to bear that out. Does this mean they should define atheism? No, but it indicates that they have a great deal of support within the atheist community, and what they say has more relevance than a random person on the internet like you or I. I also gave you views from an apologist, dictionary definitions, definitions from popular atheist websites (infidels.org, iron chariots), and definitions from the American Atheists.
Why are none of these relevant? You have not backed up your claims with a single source. You've just made a statement about general atheists with no backing. What is your opinion based on? Atheist literature? Actions and statements of atheist organizations? What opponents of the atheist movement say? Random people on internet forums? Because you can't just pull a statement out of thin air and expect it to be taken seriously. What research and study have you done? What is the basis of this opinion?
examples like the post above where you try to use the words of three atheists to contradict the actions of the vast majority of atheists
Wait... what? Bringing up the opinion of prominent atheists when discussing atheism is dishonest? How could that possibly be dishonest? Did I lie about what they said? You also called be dishonest for giving my own opinion. Do you know what dishonest means?
And how exactly did you determine what a vast majority of atheists believe? Have you talked to a vast majority of atheists? How many would you say you've talked with enough to determine their beliefs? A dozen? A hundred? Have you done some sort of study? Do you have some sort of research ?
Say... you know what! I just remembered. We had a topic about why people are atheists on this board. Not too long ago.
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=202614&page=28
You can read it. Out of 28 pages of responses, do you know how many people said 100% there is no god? 4 my my count. About 38 people said they were atheists because there is no evidence to believe in a god. About as many said they were atheists because they didn't care about religion. If they don't care, I would guess they don't want to destroy thsism.
So that's hardly a vast majority. Of course, this is just one topic on one board, but unless we are just really special here on VGChartz, we should expect the results to be someone consistent with the majority.
And you should be well aware of what was said in this topic, because you posted there. You posted about atheists attacking theists in fact (and about atheists being blind followers)! And when you did, people asked you to provide evidence, which you could not do. They accused you of making baseless assertions and of being generally incomprehensible.
So it's nice to know that I'm not the only one who finds your arguments to be totally nonsensical :).
So again I ask you, where do you come up the fact that a vast majority of atheists claim that there is no god?
Dishonest means when you say something that you do not know to be true or know not to be true. Like when you say I've attacked theists. That's dishonesty. What I did was called providing evidence.
if you don't believe that's dishonest well i can't help you because i don't honestly think you believe the point you are trying to push i mean how could you? are you blind?
Are you high? How on Earth can providing what prominent atheists think when talking about atheism being even remotely dishonest? If all of the sources I've provided are not evidence, then what would you consider relevant evidence?
degrees especially degrees in subjects like english aren't as rare as you appear to believe my friend
Please do not call me your friend. That would be being dishonest :). And I don't bring up a degree to say I am some sort of amazingly smart person. I bring it up to show that I have documents to show that I know how to research, and that I possess at least adequete reading comprehension (a subject which I will very soon be licensed to teach). You have shown that you do not know what research entails and what evidence is.
|
