john9blue wrote:A cult is a zealous group of followers of a belief. Militant atheists fit this definition. If you don't think atheism is a belief, then you need to tell me what pure agnostics believe, because they are not atheists and I hold that they are the ones who have no beliefs.
Admittedly, there are those who are so zealous about atheism that it consumes every part of their life. It's almost like they've made it their mission to ridicule anyone who isn't an atheist. I would think the vast majority of atheists just don't believe there is anything out there like a higher power. Once one makes that "belief" decision, I think they are more free to enjoy their lives and not worry about any afterlife. Most atheists don't give a sh*t about whether it's a belief or non-belief, and don't fit the "zealous" label. Personally, I get excited about family, friends, and occasionally accomplishing something at work - just like people who happen to believe in God. Does that make us all "zealous"?
Lootifer wrote:I earn well above average income for my area, i'm educated and I support left wing politics.
jbrettlip wrote:You live in New Zealand. We will call you when we need to make another Hobbit movie.
john9blue wrote:A cult is a zealous group of followers of a belief. Militant atheists fit this definition. If you don't think atheism is a belief, then you need to tell me what pure agnostics believe, because they are not atheists and I hold that they are the ones who have no beliefs.
Agnosticism/gnosticism and atheism/theism are actually a two-dimensional spectrum.
You are living proof of how easy it is to mimic an intellectual argument simply by using the same vocabulary. Come back when you know what you're talking about.
john9blue wrote:A cult is a zealous group of followers of a belief. Militant atheists fit this definition. If you don't think atheism is a belief, then you need to tell me what pure agnostics believe, because they are not atheists and I hold that they are the ones who have no beliefs.
Agnosticism/gnosticism and atheism/theism are actually a two-dimensional spectrum.
You are living proof of how easy it is to mimic an intellectual argument simply by using the same vocabulary. Come back when you know what you're talking about.
Of course they are. But many atheists will tell you that theism is a belief and atheism isn't, EVEN THOUGH they are both beliefs at the core because they are on an entirely different scale than the "knowledge" scale which dictates what is and is not a belief. I know exactly what I am talking about, and am not mimicking anybody... these are original thoughts.
Bradley, the "zealous" label is up for personal interpretation, but there ARE people who devote a significant amount of their time to their atheistic beliefs, and would be considered zealots if "atheistic" was replaced by any religion.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
john9blue wrote:A cult is a zealous group of followers of a belief. Militant atheists fit this definition. If you don't think atheism is a belief, then you need to tell me what pure agnostics believe, because they are not atheists and I hold that they are the ones who have no beliefs.
Except cults involve some form of worship, Atheists don't worship anything. Atheism is certainly a belief it consists entirely of the lack of belief in the supernatural. That's it, anything more is simply the addition of that particular atheist.
No, a cult is a group of people who follow a leader or leaders that utterly control them, in time (they don't start out seeming that way, but do end up that way). Naturally, religions can fall into that category, but so can non-religious belief systems, such as communism, Nazism, even (gasp) extreme capitalism.
Oh, and when I say "religion", I mean offshoots of just about ANY religion (but definitely NOT recognized by the mainline branches!)
john9blue wrote:A cult is a zealous group of followers of a belief. Militant atheists fit this definition. If you don't think atheism is a belief, then you need to tell me what pure agnostics believe, because they are not atheists and I hold that they are the ones who have no beliefs.
Except cults involve some form of worship, Atheists don't worship anything. Atheism is certainly a belief it consists entirely of the lack of belief in the supernatural. That's it, anything more is simply the addition of that particular atheist.
Maybe they can 'worship' a LACK of an supernatural being(s)?
I think John's point is that they a fervent in their "belief" that this is NO God/god.
Sure there are some who are more aggressive than others, this doesn't constitute a cult.
jay_a2j wrote:Well #1 is full of misleading statements.
It was Muslims not Christians who attacked on 911. Trying to use THAT as an example of why Christianity is bad is a stretch Gumby would not tolerate.
Oh PLEAASE.
It was Christians, not Muslims who slaughtered the American Indians. It was Christians, not Muslims who enslaved south Americans.... etc.
jay_a2j wrote:
and just so there is no confusion..... our war is not against flesh and blood, but against powers and principalities.
YOU are the one who is confused. You can talk ideas, but your actions are against real people.
Yet another example of a really bad representation of Christianity. Here we go again attaching a label with a PROCLAMATION. "Christians killed Indians" eh? No, people like yourself, who CLAIMED to be Christian, killed the Indians. I mean seriously PLAYER, with friends like you Jesus doesn't need enemies!
THE DEBATE IS OVER...
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
jay_a2j wrote:Well #1 is full of misleading statements.
It was Muslims not Christians who attacked on 911. Trying to use THAT as an example of why Christianity is bad is a stretch Gumby would not tolerate.
Oh PLEAASE.
It was Christians, not Muslims who slaughtered the American Indians. It was Christians, not Muslims who enslaved south Americans.... etc.
jay_a2j wrote:
and just so there is no confusion..... our war is not against flesh and blood, but against powers and principalities.
YOU are the one who is confused. You can talk ideas, but your actions are against real people.
Yet another example of a really bad representation of Christianity. Here we go again attaching a label with a PROCLAMATION. "Christians killed Indians" eh? No, people like yourself, who CLAIMED to be Christian, killed the Indians. I mean seriously PLAYER, with friends like you Jesus doesn't need enemies!
Jay, you are a despicable person. You continually say to PLAYER, what could be, the most hurtful thing to say to a person you don't know personally, and yet you claim it's you who is living in a more Christ-like manner.
jay_a2j wrote:Well #1 is full of misleading statements.
It was Muslims not Christians who attacked on 911. Trying to use THAT as an example of why Christianity is bad is a stretch Gumby would not tolerate.
Oh PLEAASE.
It was Christians, not Muslims who slaughtered the American Indians. It was Christians, not Muslims who enslaved south Americans.... etc.
jay_a2j wrote:
and just so there is no confusion..... our war is not against flesh and blood, but against powers and principalities.
YOU are the one who is confused. You can talk ideas, but your actions are against real people.
Yet another example of a really bad representation of Christianity. Here we go again attaching a label with a PROCLAMATION. "Christians killed Indians" eh? No, people like yourself, who CLAIMED to be Christian, killed the Indians. I mean seriously PLAYER, with friends like you Jesus doesn't need enemies!
Jay, you are a despicable person. You continually say to PLAYER, what could be, the most hurtful thing to say to a person you don't know personally, and yet you claim it's you who is living in a more Christ-like manner.
THOSE TWO THINGS ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
Sorry if I take offense at people misrepresenting my faith.
THE DEBATE IS OVER...
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
jay_a2j wrote:Yet another example of a really bad representation of Christianity. Here we go again attaching a label with a PROCLAMATION. "Christians killed Indians" eh? No, people like yourself, who CLAIMED to be Christian, killed the Indians. I mean seriously PLAYER, with friends like you Jesus doesn't need enemies!
And it's so misleading. Protestants killed Indians, especially after they discovered that they had already been baptized as damn papists.
Just saw an ad on Facebook asking if God existed, and linking to a Hitchens speech. I hear atheists have bus sign campaigns too. They're trying to convert people to their beliefs like any other cult...
Also cults don't require the worship of a being, just an idea. And some being more aggressive than others doesn't mean anything. That happens in every other cult.
I'm trying to drive this point home because it's so vehemently denied by those whom it applies to.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
john9blue wrote:Just saw an ad on Facebook asking if God existed, and linking to a Hitchens speech. I hear atheists have bus sign campaigns too. They're trying to convert people to their beliefs like any other cult...
Also cults don't require the worship of a being, just an idea. And some being more aggressive than others doesn't mean anything. That happens in every other cult.
I'm trying to drive this point home because it's so vehemently denied by those whom it applies to.
believe what you will, you are simply wrong. Atheism is not a system of beliefs, it is a belief singular. If that equates a cult then you have a very liberal definition of the term.
Some atheists think the world would be a better place if fewer people were religious or simply want to promote awareness about Atheists. Which isn't unreasonable considering some of the things done in the name of religion or said about atheists.
john9blue wrote:A cult is a zealous group of followers of a belief. Militant atheists fit this definition. If you don't think atheism is a belief, then you need to tell me what pure agnostics believe, because they are not atheists and I hold that they are the ones who have no beliefs.
For some reason I just can't stop giggling.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
john9blue wrote:Bradley, the "zealous" label is up for personal interpretation, but there ARE people who devote a significant amount of their time to their atheistic beliefs, and would be considered zealots if "atheistic" was replaced by any religion.
For sure there are people like that. My thoughts were more directed towards your labeling of atheists as being a cult because they are zealous. People get excited about politics, religion, or whatever. Does that make them "zealous"? And if your answer to that is yes then does being excited or zealous about something necessarily mean that they're a cult? That would imply that only atheists have the truth and that other people need atheist interpretations of the world in order to arrive at that truth.
I would say that most atheists just want to be left alone to live their lives, free of being hassled about doctrines and such. They don't care about other people converting to atheism. Yeah, the bus signs or whatever are stupid.
Lootifer wrote:I earn well above average income for my area, i'm educated and I support left wing politics.
jbrettlip wrote:You live in New Zealand. We will call you when we need to make another Hobbit movie.
PLAYER57832 wrote:
His first (unnumbered) point is pretty good, and should have warranted a number of it's own.
Pre- 1. Celebrating the death of somebody you disagreed with pretty much makes you a dick. Note, this is QUITE different from celebrating the death of someone who actually killed your loved ones. Still, while that is fully understandable and reasonable, I am not sure it is a "high ideal".
Pretty much self-explanatory. Anyone who disagrees, well, is a dick.
While the point that "celebrating" anyone's death is wrong is a good one, I think the disagree with-angle is just silly. It's not simple disagreement here.
I mean, I agree that celebration over death is wrong, but to me it's more celebrating the death of a murderer than someone with a different opinion than you.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
john9blue wrote:A cult is a zealous group of followers of a belief. Militant atheists fit this definition. If you don't think atheism is a belief, then you need to tell me what pure agnostics believe, because they are not atheists and I hold that they are the ones who have no beliefs.
For some reason I just can't stop giggling.
lol, because we've been through this a million times already?
and yeah, if someone is harming millions then their death may well be cause for celebration. but i personally don't think that applies here.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
john9blue wrote:A cult is a zealous group of followers of a belief. Militant atheists fit this definition. If you don't think atheism is a belief, then you need to tell me what pure agnostics believe, because they are not atheists and I hold that they are the ones who have no beliefs.
For some reason I just can't stop giggling.
lol, because we've been through this a million times already?
I'm pretty sure that last time you claimed everything was a belief. Like, thinking that gravity is real is also a belief.
and yeah, if someone is harming millions then their death may well be cause for celebration. but i personally don't think that applies here.
Obviously. It's just that you can make a pretty good case that Falwell (for example) caused a lot of suffering. That's way too vague and there's probably good that he did too and all that, so you can't really judge it entirely. But it's at least in some way understandable that there is celebration.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
john9blue wrote:A cult is a zealous group of followers of a belief. Militant atheists fit this definition. If you don't think atheism is a belief, then you need to tell me what pure agnostics believe, because they are not atheists and I hold that they are the ones who have no beliefs.
For some reason I just can't stop giggling.
lol, because we've been through this a million times already?
I'm pretty sure that last time you claimed everything was a belief. Like, thinking that gravity is real is also a belief.
PLAYER57832 wrote:
His first (unnumbered) point is pretty good, and should have warranted a number of it's own.
Pre- 1. Celebrating the death of somebody you disagreed with pretty much makes you a dick. Note, this is QUITE different from celebrating the death of someone who actually killed your loved ones. Still, while that is fully understandable and reasonable, I am not sure it is a "high ideal".
Pretty much self-explanatory. Anyone who disagrees, well, is a dick.
While the point that "celebrating" anyone's death is wrong is a good one, I think the disagree with-angle is just silly. It's not simple disagreement here.
I mean, I agree that celebration over death is wrong, but to me it's more celebrating the death of a murderer than someone with a different opinion than you.
No, I was talking about people who only disagree. I think everyone feels relief when a mass murder dies. And, as I said, I am certainly not going to condemn someone for cheering when the guy who killed their loved one dies. However, the problem is that too often there is little distinction made. A lot of people hate Al Qaeda because of 9-11, with justification. Yet, a lot in Al Qaeda sincerely believe that the US is out to kill off all Muslims. So, while I am not going to condemn anyone for cheering when a mass murderer dies, I am not sure that feeling helps anything. That is all.
#1
I seriously don't see how atheism (of either Mao or Stalin) has resulted in atrocities and wholesale slaughter. I mean, it's hardly like people went about shouting "For atheism!" or "In the name of godlessness!". I actually fail to see how a simple lack of belief in a supernatural creator-being could result in anything like that by itself.
#2
Makes sense.
#3
The guy should have stopped after the headline. In all, this part is nearly horrifying to me. Maybe it's because I've studied philosophy, but the whole thing appears so patently stupid I don't know where to begin. The depiction of the thought process of an atheist in the 2nd paragraph is... acceptable I suppose, but after that the guy hits a division by zero and goes off all established charts. There are lots of good ways to justify morality, even normative morality, that do not rely on a supreme law-maker. I doubt this guy has even heard of one of them before.
#4
I can agree with this.
#5
As with #4.
#6 & #7 & #8
So what?
#9
As with #3, morality can be defended by things other than a supernatural law-maker or by dogma. Why he even introduces genetics in either instance is beyond me. Maybe he's into popular science magazines with colourful pictures or something and hasn't yet realized that an argument for how a disposition towards morality might be evolutionarily useful does not mean morality actually is an evolved genetic trait that can be switched on and off.
#10
Stop after the headline, at the very latest after the 2nd paragraph, and you're fine.
Ignore the rest. It's irrelevant to the originally stated intention, I understand why it's there, but it's malplaced in the context.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
jay_a2j wrote:Yet another example of a really bad representation of Christianity. Here we go again attaching a label with a PROCLAMATION. "Christians killed Indians" eh? No, people like yourself, who CLAIMED to be Christian, killed the Indians. I mean seriously PLAYER, with friends like you Jesus doesn't need enemies!
And it's so misleading. Protestants killed Indians, especially after they discovered that they had already been baptized as damn papists.
I take it you were being sarcastic?
In north America a lot of Protestants did kill Native Americans, but the Roman Catholics did some nasty work down south and out west, particularly in CA. (ever see The Mission?)
jay_a2j wrote:Well #1 is full of misleading statements.
It was Muslims not Christians who attacked on 911. Trying to use THAT as an example of why Christianity is bad is a stretch Gumby would not tolerate.
Oh PLEAASE.
It was Christians, not Muslims who slaughtered the American Indians. It was Christians, not Muslims who enslaved south Americans.... etc.
jay_a2j wrote:
and just so there is no confusion..... our war is not against flesh and blood, but against powers and principalities.
YOU are the one who is confused. You can talk ideas, but your actions are against real people.
Yet another example of a really bad representation of Christianity. Here we go again attaching a label with a PROCLAMATION. "Christians killed Indians" eh? No, people like yourself, who CLAIMED to be Christian, killed the Indians. I mean seriously PLAYER, with friends like you Jesus doesn't need enemies!
By what logic do you claim that "people like me" killed the native Americans? I suggest you study up on the actions and words of the pharisees and sadducees, as well as Jesus response, before you start claiming superiority.
Oh, and try studying American history as well.. the real stuff.
john9blue wrote:A cult is a zealous group of followers of a belief. Militant atheists fit this definition. If you don't think atheism is a belief, then you need to tell me what pure agnostics believe, because they are not atheists and I hold that they are the ones who have no beliefs.
For some reason I just can't stop giggling.
lol, because we've been through this a million times already?
I'm pretty sure that last time you claimed everything was a belief. Like, thinking that gravity is real is also a belief.
I sense that you have failed to comprehend the article.
Maybe you should look up "emergent" in both a dictionary of philosophy and in one of theoretical physics.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
jay_a2j wrote:Well #1 is full of misleading statements.
It was Muslims not Christians who attacked on 911. Trying to use THAT as an example of why Christianity is bad is a stretch Gumby would not tolerate.
Oh PLEAASE.
It was Christians, not Muslims who slaughtered the American Indians. It was Christians, not Muslims who enslaved south Americans.... etc.
jay_a2j wrote:
and just so there is no confusion..... our war is not against flesh and blood, but against powers and principalities.
YOU are the one who is confused. You can talk ideas, but your actions are against real people.
Yet another example of a really bad representation of Christianity. Here we go again attaching a label with a PROCLAMATION. "Christians killed Indians" eh? No, people like yourself, who CLAIMED to be Christian, killed the Indians. I mean seriously PLAYER, with friends like you Jesus doesn't need enemies!
By what logic do you claim that "people like me" killed the native Americans? I suggest you study up on the actions and words of the pharisees and sadducees, as well as Jesus response, before you start claiming superiority.
Oh, and try studying American history as well.. the real stuff.
by what logic do you begin talking in these forums? i suggest you go and do 50 years exhaustive research into the refrigeration cycle, and its impact on comic timing, before returning to start again.
it's like i'm being killed by a horde of native american christian indians even by browsing through this message. c'mon denizens, spruce it up a little!
jay_a2j wrote:Well #1 is full of misleading statements.
It was Muslims not Christians who attacked on 911. Trying to use THAT as an example of why Christianity is bad is a stretch Gumby would not tolerate.
Oh PLEAASE.
It was Christians, not Muslims who slaughtered the American Indians. It was Christians, not Muslims who enslaved south Americans.... etc.
jay_a2j wrote:
and just so there is no confusion..... our war is not against flesh and blood, but against powers and principalities.
YOU are the one who is confused. You can talk ideas, but your actions are against real people.
Yet another example of a really bad representation of Christianity. Here we go again attaching a label with a PROCLAMATION. "Christians killed Indians" eh? No, people like yourself, who CLAIMED to be Christian, killed the Indians. I mean seriously PLAYER, with friends like you Jesus doesn't need enemies!
By what logic do you claim that "people like me" killed the native Americans? I suggest you study up on the actions and words of the pharisees and sadducees, as well as Jesus response, before you start claiming superiority.
Oh, and try studying American history as well.. the real stuff.
Just go spend your 30 silver coins already.
THE DEBATE IS OVER...
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
