Another mature response is when someone points out that we are behaving in an overly-emotional and irrational way, is to admit our fault, apologize, and move on trying to curb our emotionalism.
POLL: What is the World's Most Evil Religion?
- Thread starter candletrader
- Start date
Another mature response is when someone points out that we are behaving in an overly-emotional and irrational way, is to admit our fault, apologize, and move on trying to curb our emotionalism.
Actually it is you who is quite confused.
The author perfectly defined atheism and agnosticism.
These are well understood philosophical definitions
which are also upheld by atheistic institutions such
as American Atheists.
For you to stand there and assert that the majority of
atheists and philosophers are wrong about these definitions and
that YOURS are correct is completely ridiculous.
Even the latin roots DIRECTLY contradict your silly notions!!
The fact is... you were born an ATHEIST. Get over it.
You hate to admit this so much, that you are completely
incapable of even conceding the tiniest of points.
It is GLARINGLY obvious and verifiable by anyone that
the definitions are specific, well recognized by philosophers
and further more agreed upon by ATHEISTS who have
the right to precisely define what they believe.
I, an atheist, agree with these very consistent definitions
as the majority of other atheists do, and it gels with all
the philosophical texts on atheism which I have read.
YOU ARE SIMPLY WRONG ON THIS 777.
Its SOOOOOOOOOO CLEAR.
The facts fly in the face of your weak argument.
But you are now proving you cannot even concede
the most OBVIOUS of points which you have clearly lost.
There is no point in debating with a brick wall.
If you wont even agree to this very well accepted and
precise definition of atheism, then we simply cannot even
communicate because you are NOT SPEAKING ENGLISH
You are instead INVENTING new meanings for these words
in a lame attempt to hang on to your destroyed position.
This simply could not be any more clear.
Your wrong. End of story. Its been proven beyond any doubt,
and this is not merely my opinion. It has been proven
precisely and concisely.
If you continue to claim that ALL THESE atheists are wrong
about ***THEIR VERY OWN DEFINITION OF THEMSELVES***
then you simply look like a complete idiot.
Be my guest. Or... concede. The choice is yours.
peace
axeman
The author perfectly defined atheism and agnosticism.
These are well understood philosophical definitions
which are also upheld by atheistic institutions such
as American Atheists.
For you to stand there and assert that the majority of
atheists and philosophers are wrong about these definitions and
that YOURS are correct is completely ridiculous.
Even the latin roots DIRECTLY contradict your silly notions!!
The fact is... you were born an ATHEIST. Get over it.
You hate to admit this so much, that you are completely
incapable of even conceding the tiniest of points.
It is GLARINGLY obvious and verifiable by anyone that
the definitions are specific, well recognized by philosophers
and further more agreed upon by ATHEISTS who have
the right to precisely define what they believe.
I, an atheist, agree with these very consistent definitions
as the majority of other atheists do, and it gels with all
the philosophical texts on atheism which I have read.
YOU ARE SIMPLY WRONG ON THIS 777.
Its SOOOOOOOOOO CLEAR.
The facts fly in the face of your weak argument.
But you are now proving you cannot even concede
the most OBVIOUS of points which you have clearly lost.
There is no point in debating with a brick wall.
If you wont even agree to this very well accepted and
precise definition of atheism, then we simply cannot even
communicate because you are NOT SPEAKING ENGLISH
You are instead INVENTING new meanings for these words
in a lame attempt to hang on to your destroyed position.
This simply could not be any more clear.
Your wrong. End of story. Its been proven beyond any doubt,
and this is not merely my opinion. It has been proven
precisely and concisely.
If you continue to claim that ALL THESE atheists are wrong
about ***THEIR VERY OWN DEFINITION OF THEMSELVES***
then you simply look like a complete idiot.
Be my guest. Or... concede. The choice is yours.
peace
axeman
Quote from axeman:
Actually it is you who is quite confused.
The author perfectly defined atheism and agnosticism.
These are well understood philosophical definitions
which are also upheld by atheistic institutions such
as American Atheists.
For you to stand there and assert that the majority of
atheists and philosophers are wrong about these definitions and
that YOURS are correct is completely ridiculous.
Even the latin roots DIRECTLY contradict your silly notions!!
The fact is... you were born an ATHEIST. Get over it.
You hate to admit this so much, that you are completely
incapable of even conceding the tiniest of points.
It is GLARINGLY obvious and verifiable by anyone that
the definitions are specific, well recognized by philosophers
and further more agreed upon by ATHEISTS who have
the right to precisely define what they believe.
I, an atheist, agree with these very consistent definitions
as the majority of other atheists do, and it gels with all
the philosophical texts on atheism which I have read.
YOU ARE SIMPLY WRONG ON THIS 777.
Its SOOOOOOOOOO CLEAR.
The facts fly in the face of your weak argument.
But you are now proving you cannot even concede
the most OBVIOUS of points which you have clearly lost.
There is no point in debating with a brick wall.
If you wont even agree to this very well accepted and
precise definition of atheism, then we simply cannot even
communicate because you are NOT SPEAKING ENGLISH
You are instead INVENTING new meanings for these words
in a lame attempt to hang on to your destroyed position.
This simply could not be any more clear.
Your wrong. End of story. Its been proven beyond any doubt,
and this is not merely my opinion. It has been proven
precisely and concisely.
If you continue to claim that ALL THESE atheists are wrong
about ***THEIR VERY OWN DEFINITION OF THEMSELVES***
then you simply look like a complete idiot.
Be my guest. Or... concede. The choice is yours.
peace
axeman
Nope, I was not born atheist according to your definition as stated previously and thoroughly explained.
You are stating only your opinion that all people are born atheists, that is not an accepted fact, any more than a computer is an atheist because it exists without belief in God.
What is funny, is that rather than challenge my reasoning in the last post, your appeal is to authority, which we both know is a fallacy of logical argumentation.
There is sufficient disagreement among the philosophical community about the nature of belief, and what constitutes knowledge.
"...further more agreed upon by ATHEISTS who have
the right to precisely define what they believe."
Of course they have the right to define their belief systems, which further proves my point that atheism is a belief system....you just said it yourself that they have the right to precisely define what they believe.....THEY HAVE A BELIEF SYSTEM that there is a state of non belief in God, but that is their belief, not a proof. That you fail to see the simple truth of this reflects a state of denial and or confusion about the human condition.
People are not born with a belief system of no God, and you have not proved otherwise. Just because you say it is so, doesn't make it so. No belief in God would mean no understanding or concept of God, and the term God would be meaningless in such a discussion. A belief system is based in beliefs, and to form a belief of no God would impossible unless one had a concept of God a priori.
Having no belief system is not the same as a belief system in non God. Can't you understand this very simple concept?
A computer has no belief system, it is impossible for a computer to have a belief system of non God. No sane person would call a computer an atheist.
http://www.onelook.com/?w=belief&ls=a
Belief as an English word has been used in various ways. In religious contexts it means "faith, " whereas in philosophy, cognitive psychology, and most ordinary contexts, "belief" means something broader: something like "accept as true." (Analytic philosophers actually sometimes distinguish belief from acceptance, however.) Accounts of belief also depend on the object of belief.
Belief means to acceptance of something as true, but in philosophy acceptance of something as true is not synonymous with a truth independent of beliefs.
Even to say that people are born with no knowledge of God is in effect stating by definition (not a proof) what knowledge of God is. You can't prove that God is not known to all men innately. Belief in God may well be a basic part of our elemental nature and makeup, but the learned behavior is to doubt belief in God. Atheism is a learned condition, not innate.
You are making statements and definitions without objective proof to support them, and that is common to everyone who practices belief systems.
Atheists practice their own form of religion, very similar to the manner in which many theists practice their respective religions.
Neither side is objective, as objectivity is not possible, and has been logically proven to be impossible due to the influence of man's subjectivity being necessarily involved in the process of observation, and reasoning to conclusion. A computer could be objective only because it is impossible for a computer to consciously and willing hold to beliefs.
Non belief of God is a conclusion, not an a priori condition that can be proven.
Non belief is directly related to the concept of what a proof or positive belief of God would constitute.
It is impossible to understand the term non-belief without understanding the concept of belief. What happens is we first experience belief, and then we imagine non belief thorugh the concept of the negation of belief resulting in non belief.
People are born with either no capacity for belief, or they are born with the capacity for belief. Who would argue that man is not born with the capacity for belief. It is hard wired into our personalities. Show me one human being who is conscious and high functioning who is devoid of beliefs. Until such time that the concept of God comes into their awareness, they can neither have a condition of belief or non belief concerning the existence of God, unless either state exists a priori.
You are suggesting that a lack of belief in God is the ground state, yet where is the proof of that statement?
Belief or non belief are mental states that come into play a posteriori.
You continue to fail to present arguments and do nothing but reason from conclusion and definition, as you simply define terms and state that these terms should be accepted without question.
I have no problem saying I practice a belief system of my choosing, why do you continue to deny that you practice your own belief system of your own choosing?
Wooo hoooo! More super sized fonts!
All this emotional yelling from 777..... weeeeeeeeee!
Again.... you offer nothing more than your own silly
meanings to well established words.
You dodged everything I said by claiming an appeal to
authority, but this is in fact not the case.
You now show that you dont understand the appeal
to authority fallacy. Appealing to authority is NOT always
fallacious if the authority is a valid expert on the subject.
You would know this if you had actually studied the
appeal to authority fallacy. The more precise name
of this fallacy is the "appeal to inappropriate/irrelevant/questionable authority",
which is less misleading.
According to one document on this fallacy:
Explanation:
Not every reliance upon the testimony of authority figures is fallacious. We often rely upon such testimony, and we can do so for very good reason. Their talent, training and experience put them in a position to evaluate and report on evidence not readily available to everyone else. But we must keep in mind that for such an appeal to be justified, certain standards must be met:
1. The authority is an expert in the area of knowledge under consideration.
2. The statement of the authority concerns his or her area of mastery.
3. There is agreement among experts in the area of knowledge under consideration.
So you see... my appeal was perfectly valid.
In this case, Atheist organizations and philosophers ARE
the appropriate people to clearly define what the
word ATHEISM means, and it CONTRADICTS your definition.
YOU are NOT the appropriate person to define what atheism IS.
Far from it.
Atheism is NOT a belief according to the experts in this field,
and my definition is correct because they are the very people who
DEFINE what atheism IS.
You do NOT have the authority to override the WELL KNOWN
and ACCEPTED philosophical definition of atheism and
AGNOSTICISM because you feel like it.
Now once again.... atheism is the LACK of theism.
It is NOT a belief system.
When you were born, you did not HAVE any theism in you.
You are therefore an atheist, and a FAILED atheist at that
In fact, ANY entity which is INCAPABLE of believing in
god is technically an ATHEIST, even a plant
Sorry 777.... but your argument is nonexistent.
Your a failed atheist. Live with it.
peace
axeman
All this emotional yelling from 777..... weeeeeeeeee!
Again.... you offer nothing more than your own silly
meanings to well established words.
You dodged everything I said by claiming an appeal to
authority, but this is in fact not the case.
You now show that you dont understand the appeal
to authority fallacy. Appealing to authority is NOT always
fallacious if the authority is a valid expert on the subject.
You would know this if you had actually studied the
appeal to authority fallacy. The more precise name
of this fallacy is the "appeal to inappropriate/irrelevant/questionable authority",
which is less misleading.
According to one document on this fallacy:
Explanation:
Not every reliance upon the testimony of authority figures is fallacious. We often rely upon such testimony, and we can do so for very good reason. Their talent, training and experience put them in a position to evaluate and report on evidence not readily available to everyone else. But we must keep in mind that for such an appeal to be justified, certain standards must be met:
1. The authority is an expert in the area of knowledge under consideration.
2. The statement of the authority concerns his or her area of mastery.
3. There is agreement among experts in the area of knowledge under consideration.
So you see... my appeal was perfectly valid.
In this case, Atheist organizations and philosophers ARE
the appropriate people to clearly define what the
word ATHEISM means, and it CONTRADICTS your definition.
YOU are NOT the appropriate person to define what atheism IS.
Far from it.
Atheism is NOT a belief according to the experts in this field,
and my definition is correct because they are the very people who
DEFINE what atheism IS.
You do NOT have the authority to override the WELL KNOWN
and ACCEPTED philosophical definition of atheism and
AGNOSTICISM because you feel like it.
Now once again.... atheism is the LACK of theism.
It is NOT a belief system.
When you were born, you did not HAVE any theism in you.
You are therefore an atheist, and a FAILED atheist at that
In fact, ANY entity which is INCAPABLE of believing in
god is technically an ATHEIST, even a plant
Sorry 777.... but your argument is nonexistent.
Your a failed atheist. Live with it.
peace
axeman
Following your logic that only atheist have the proper definition of atheism, then only theist have the proper definition of theism.
There may be clubs and groups of atheists who like to write their own definitions of their beliefs, but have a belief of non belief is forever a belief.
When you were born, you did not HAVE any theism in you.
You are therefore an atheist, and a FAILED atheist at that
In fact, ANY entity which is INCAPABLE of believing in
god is technically an ATHEIST, even a plant
A plant is an atheist. That is as absurd.
Oh, and you continue to avoid countering my arguments, but simply sit back on definition of and from "authority."
It is logically impossible to have a concept of God and at the same time have a position of non belief in the concept of God that has been accepted. It can be rejected as non valid and real, it can be accepted as valid and real, or one can make a conscious and active decision to neither reject or accept the concept as valid and real for. In every case though, a mental process that involves belief systems takes place. A choice and a decision is made. It involves the belief process to come to a conclusion, thus belief is involved even in the process of non belief.
I disagree that incapacity of belief in God of any entity is necessarily the proper definition of an atheist.
Again, ask any reasonable man if a plant is an atheist, and they will think you mad, as capacity of belief in necessary to claim active non belief, or even conscious passive non belief. Where there is choice, there is consciousness.
Suggesting that entities without consciousness sufficient to chose a belief system are "practicing atheism" is non sensible.
An atheist, by all reasonable understanding is a person who practices the belief of atheism, and unless you know something I don't know, or most people don't know, plants do not practice atheism.
The concept of atheism can exist without anyone practicing atheism, but an atheist does not exist as an atheist until that atheist practices atheism. It is the practice of atheism that makes one an atheist, not the other way around. Atheism is a practice of the atheist, in the same way theism is the practice of the theist, communism is the practice of the communist, elitism is the practice of the elitist, etc.
In case you didn't know this, most people don't believe their house plants practice atheism.
I suspect that if you go around telling everyone that your lawn practices atheism because your lawn is an atheist, they might just think you are a bit loony.
There may be clubs and groups of atheists who like to write their own definitions of their beliefs, but have a belief of non belief is forever a belief.
When you were born, you did not HAVE any theism in you.
You are therefore an atheist, and a FAILED atheist at that
In fact, ANY entity which is INCAPABLE of believing in
god is technically an ATHEIST, even a plant
A plant is an atheist. That is as absurd.
Oh, and you continue to avoid countering my arguments, but simply sit back on definition of and from "authority."
It is logically impossible to have a concept of God and at the same time have a position of non belief in the concept of God that has been accepted. It can be rejected as non valid and real, it can be accepted as valid and real, or one can make a conscious and active decision to neither reject or accept the concept as valid and real for. In every case though, a mental process that involves belief systems takes place. A choice and a decision is made. It involves the belief process to come to a conclusion, thus belief is involved even in the process of non belief.
I disagree that incapacity of belief in God of any entity is necessarily the proper definition of an atheist.
Again, ask any reasonable man if a plant is an atheist, and they will think you mad, as capacity of belief in necessary to claim active non belief, or even conscious passive non belief. Where there is choice, there is consciousness.
Suggesting that entities without consciousness sufficient to chose a belief system are "practicing atheism" is non sensible.
An atheist, by all reasonable understanding is a person who practices the belief of atheism, and unless you know something I don't know, or most people don't know, plants do not practice atheism.
The concept of atheism can exist without anyone practicing atheism, but an atheist does not exist as an atheist until that atheist practices atheism. It is the practice of atheism that makes one an atheist, not the other way around. Atheism is a practice of the atheist, in the same way theism is the practice of the theist, communism is the practice of the communist, elitism is the practice of the elitist, etc.
In case you didn't know this, most people don't believe their house plants practice atheism.
I suspect that if you go around telling everyone that your lawn practices atheism because your lawn is an atheist, they might just think you are a bit loony.
Quote from axeman:
Wooo hoooo! More super sized fonts!
All this emotional yelling from 777..... weeeeeeeeee!
Again.... you offer nothing more than your own silly
meanings to well established words.
You dodged everything I said by claiming an appeal to
authority, but this is in fact not the case.
You now show that you dont understand the appeal
to authority fallacy. Appealing to authority is NOT always
fallacious if the authority is a valid expert on the subject.
You would know this if you had actually studied the
appeal to authority fallacy. The more precise name
of this fallacy is the "appeal to inappropriate/irrelevant/questionable authority",
which is less misleading.
According to one document on this fallacy:
Explanation:
Not every reliance upon the testimony of authority figures is fallacious. We often rely upon such testimony, and we can do so for very good reason. Their talent, training and experience put them in a position to evaluate and report on evidence not readily available to everyone else. But we must keep in mind that for such an appeal to be justified, certain standards must be met:
1. The authority is an expert in the area of knowledge under consideration.
2. The statement of the authority concerns his or her area of mastery.
3. There is agreement among experts in the area of knowledge under consideration.
So you see... my appeal was perfectly valid.
In this case, Atheist organizations and philosophers ARE
the appropriate people to clearly define what the
word ATHEISM means, and it CONTRADICTS your definition.
YOU are NOT the appropriate person to define what atheism IS.
Far from it.
Atheism is NOT a belief according to the experts in this field,
and my definition is correct because they are the very people who
DEFINE what atheism IS.
You do NOT have the authority to override the WELL KNOWN
and ACCEPTED philosophical definition of atheism and
AGNOSTICISM because you feel like it.
Now once again.... atheism is the LACK of theism.
It is NOT a belief system.
When you were born, you did not HAVE any theism in you.
You are therefore an atheist, and a FAILED atheist at that
In fact, ANY entity which is INCAPABLE of believing in
god is technically an ATHEIST, even a plant
Sorry 777.... but your argument is nonexistent.
Your a failed atheist. Live with it.
peace
axeman
No argument about that. Your statement is sadly very true. But still, while people may hate Jews, what is the reason?
I doubt that the most vocal anti-semites would say they hate Jews because their religion is "evil". They more likely would stereotype Jews as "evil" people, or a threat to them in some way as a "race" (how is this one religion somehow a race?). But I don't see how the actual RELIGION itself can be considered "evil" by anyone.
Are there evil Jewish people? Of course. But that is a different issue entirely.
NEVER has a Jew killed anyone because they refused to become a Jew. Or submit to the "supremacy" of Judaism.
To me, if a religion is "evil", it can only be that in the name of that religion, people died. Or were tortured, or enslaved, or whatever. The Inquisition comes to mind. The Crusades. 9/11, etc.
The only way a Jew could possibly kill a non Jew over religion would be by boring them to death in a debate about their beliefs.
Peace,
RS""But still, while people may hate Jews, what is the reason?""
Because we're different. Because the collectivist 'Us vs. Them' mentality appeals strongly to simple minds.
The same reason many people hate Blacks,gays, Asians, Latinos, billionaires, nymphomaniacs, circus freaks.... They ain't like us, let's hate 'em!
Because we're different. Because the collectivist 'Us vs. Them' mentality appeals strongly to simple minds.
The same reason many people hate Blacks,gays, Asians, Latinos, billionaires, nymphomaniacs, circus freaks.... They ain't like us, let's hate 'em!
Dude. I'll give you credit. When you are not yelling and name calling you are pretty intelligent. That was a fantastic response to my question.
However, have you considered..................
That there is an astounding correlation with atheism and abortion (murder of the unborn child).
Also most abortionist believe in evolution.
I'm not saying that "ALL" atheist murder the unborn but that the majority of those that do are atheist and darwinian evolutionist in their belief systems.