o_O.Q said:
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.
|
