General Religion & Philosophy Discussion Thread (30 Viewers)

[Sheik Yerbouti]

He was an evil politician, he did not believe in any god. He used Anti-atheist statements to fight the 'other' and pro-religious statements to legitimise the Aryan tradition as a great moral and exceptional society.

The jews were the primary internal 'other' as an ethnic and economic group which was probably why ethnically jewish but converted jews were sill kind of gassed and Hitler arguably did more to the Poles than he did to the Jews. For fuck sake he only picked the Jews because cunts like HENRY FORD funded political organisations to demonise the jews.

The man was possible part Jewish, an invalid, probably a homosexual, and he was so narcissistic to make a theistic worldview ludicrous.

Other than the "did not believe in any god" part, none of what you said reflects what we define today as atheism. So why would anyone call him an atheist now and use that as an argument against atheism?

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[IrishZebra]

Other than the "did not believe in any god" part, none of what you said reflects what we define today as atheism. So why would anyone call him an atheist now and use that as an argument against atheism?

Factual definitions are constant, philosophical and sociological constructs are not. His faith or lack there of mattered very little and neither him or Stalin are very good arguments against atheism in the same way that most acts of barbarity are a matter of evil people rather than religion/nonreligion.

One would hypothesize that Hitler had a serious problem with morality perhaps a religious or secular humanist upbring would have averted the terrible things that he is responsible for.

My argument is against any ignorant use of history to push the agenda of any belief system.

Ukranian Famine, Extinction of Native Americans.

Nothing to do with religion/atheism only carried out my those purporting to espouse religious/areligious viewpoints.


Bottom line, Richard Dawkins is a fucking twat.

- - - Updated - - -

So what about Syria?

Balkans MK II, classic example of colonial empowered minority holding back sectarian war.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Factual definitions are constant, philosophical and sociological constructs are not. His faith or lack there of mattered very little and neither him or Stalin are very good arguments against atheism in the same way that most acts of barbarity are a matter of evil people rather than religion/nonreligion.

One would hypothesize that Hitler had a serious problem with morality perhaps a religious or secular humanist upbring would have averted the terrible things that he is responsible for.

My argument is against any ignorant use of history to push the agenda of any belief system.

Ukranian Famine, Extinction of Native Americans.

Nothing to do with religion/atheism only carried out my those purporting to espouse religious/areligious viewpoints.


Bottom line, Richard Dawkins is a fucking twat.

Then where the hell were you when swag posted this?

That said, I would not suggest this is entirely a joke. Let's not forget the millions Stalin killed in the name of atheism. Just another example of how it's just an "-ism" like any other, fraught with all the human frailties of people who believe in isms.

Richard Dawkins in a twat? BLASPHEMER!!!

 

[swag]

Factual definitions are constant, philosophical and sociological constructs are not. His faith or lack there of mattered very little and neither him or Stalin are very good arguments against atheism in the same way that most acts of barbarity are a matter of evil people rather than religion/nonreligion.

BLOOM! I rest my case in the people vs. "No, atheism is different from religion"

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

BLOOM! I rest my case in the people vs. "No, atheism is different from religion"

Please show me the atheist creation myth.

 

[IrishZebra]

Then where the hell were you when swag posted this?



Richard Dawkins in a twat? BLASPHEMER!!!

In his defence Communism has a clear antireligious aim but is primarily anticapitalist.

Richard Dawkins is a massive twat, he is arrogant reactionary and combative and his disciples are harder to get along with than evangelical christians.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/08/richard-dawkins-tweets-islam-muslim-nobel

- - - Updated - - -

Please show me the atheist creation myth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

There you go

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

In his defence Communism has a clear antireligious aim but is primarily anticapitalist.

Richard Dawkins is a massive twat, he is arrogant reactionary and combative and his disciples are harder to get along with than evangelical christians.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/08/richard-dawkins-tweets-islam-muslim-nobel

Anti-religion =/= non-religion.

I was just kidding with Dawkins. I don't see him as a god/prophet/messiah. He's able to make some good arguments and some bad ones, just like almost anyone.

But that is precisely the point most atheists that I know try to make: think for yourself. You don't need to accept everything Dawkins says because he's Dawkins. But I bet no religious person would ever say that about their god/prophet/messiah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

There you go

I wonder why that is not mentioned in this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths

 

[swag]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

There you go

Damn, you've gotten good at this IZ.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Damn, you've gotten good at this IZ.

I knew one of you would post that. Just goes to show the lengths you'll go to to equate atheism with religion.

 

[IrishZebra]

Anti-religion =/= non-religion.

I was just kidding with Dawkins. I don't see him as a god/prophet/messiah. He's able to make some good arguments and some bad ones, just like almost anyone.

But that is precisely the point most atheists that I know try to make: think for yourself. You don't need to accept everything Dawkins says because he's Dawkins. But I bet no religious person would ever say that about their god/prophet/messiah.



I wonder why that is not mentioned in this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths

Atheism has fast become a belief structure with norms, held beliefs and even a higher purposes that is imaginary (Universe Origin Theory). There's probably more variety in Catholics than everybodys favourite keyboard warriors.

I think for myself, I choose to believe that Human Beings exist for a specific purpose and am technically and always will be a Roman Catholic. Besides the teachings of Jesus are really quite lovely. All major moral codes stem from theology in one form or another.

Probably because massive nerds run/edit Wikipedia.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Atheism has fast become a belief structure with norms, held beliefs and even a higher purposes that is imaginary (Universe Origin Theory). There's probably more variety in Catholics than everybodys favourite keyboard warriors.

I think for myself, I choose to believe that Human Beings exist for a specific purpose and am technically and always will be a Roman Catholic. Besides the teachings of Jesus are really quite lovely. All major moral codes stem from theology in one form or another.

Probably because massive nerds run/edit Wikipedia.

To me, atheism is merely a product of thinking about the concept of god and forming a reasonable opinion. All you're saying about norms, beliefs and higher purpose seem like stuff you're just making up. This atheism you're talking about sounds mythical to me. Could it be that you're deliberately trying to associate these norms, beliefs and higher purpose in order to support your bias against atheism?

Moral codes come from humans. Just because the earliest moral codes was packaged with religion doesn't mean that religion is the source of morality.

The same nerds who authored that big bang theory page? Got ya!

 

[IrishZebra]

[COMMENT][/COMMENT]

To me, atheism is merely a product of thinking about the concept of god and forming a reasonable opinion. All you're saying about norms, beliefs and higher purpose seem like stuff you're just making up. This atheism you're talking about sounds mythical to me. Could it be that you're deliberately trying to associate these norms, beliefs and higher purpose in order to support your bias against atheism?

Moral codes come from humans. Just because the earliest moral codes was packaged with religion doesn't mean that religion is the source of morality.

The same nerds who authored that big bang theory page? Got ya!

I don't have a bias against atheism, I have a bias against know it all titheads that deride people for having faith in a god.

Moral codes are irrational, that's why they were 'packaged' with Religion Cream Sandwich 4.1

No, you really didn't. Subscription to theories that aren't 100% is not 'realistic evidence based thinking' it's blind faith because FACTS are 100% not 99% not 50 100. You can't prove anything outside of mathematics because your sample will always be too small in terms of the universe...

 

[swag]

I knew one of you would post that. Just goes to show the lengths you'll go to to equate atheism with religion.

Because it is a religion.

To me, atheism is merely a product of thinking about the concept of god and forming a reasonable opinion.

Then how does that explain agnostics?

All you're saying about norms, beliefs and higher purpose seem like stuff you're just making up. This atheism you're talking about sounds mythical to me. Could it be that you're deliberately trying to associate these norms, beliefs and higher purpose in order to support your bias against atheism?

Moral codes come from humans. Just because the earliest moral codes was packaged with religion doesn't mean that religion is the source of morality.

The same nerds who authored that big bang theory page? Got ya!

One thing that I don't get, however, is how many of the traditional religious types look at atheists as heathen with no moral codes and who can do whatever they please with no moral repercussions. It's actually kind of hypocritical -- suggesting that if it weren't for belief in a god, they would descend into murder, rape, and every form of evil.

As the basketball coach John Wooden once said, "The true test of a man’s character is what he does when no one is watching." To believe many of these religious believers at their word, their personal character is worthless and they only stay in line with moral codes because they're afraid god is watching them.

 

[IrishZebra]

Because it is a religion.



Then how does that explain agnostics?



One thing that I don't get, however, is how many of the traditional religious types look at atheists as heathen with no moral codes and who can do whatever they please with no moral repercussions. It's actually kind of hypocritical -- suggesting that if it weren't for belief in a god, they would descend into murder, rape, and every form of evil.

As the basketball coach John Wooden once said, "The true test of a man’s character is what he does when no one is watching." To believe many of these religious believers at their word, their personal character is worthless and they only stay in line with moral codes because they're afraid god is watching them.

Big moral dilemmas are pretty obvious for most people these days. It's more the subtle altruism that might require a 'faith based' moral code.

Some people deserve to be hit really hard, a lot. I like to find and excuse not to

 

[Martin]

Balkans MK II, classic example of colonial empowered minority holding back sectarian war.

I meant us. Why are "we" (or does it just look like it) going to war? Is it just for the reasons I think it is?

- - - Updated - - -

One thing that I don't get, however, is how many of the traditional religious types look at atheists as heathen with no moral codes and who can do whatever they please with no moral repercussions. It's actually kind of hypocritical -- suggesting that if it weren't for belief in a god, they would descend into murder, $#@!, and every form of evil.

As the basketball coach John Wooden once said, "The true test of a man’s character is what he does when no one is watching." To believe many of these religious believers at their word, their personal character is worthless and they only stay in line with moral codes because they're afraid god is watching them.

The king of the non-sequitur.

 

[IrishZebra]

I meant us. Why are "we" (or does it just look like it) going to war? Is it just for the reasons I think it is?

Theoretically to enforce a peremptory norm prohibiting the use of chemical weapons. What are you thinking the reasons are?

 

[Martin]

Theoretically to enforce a peremptory norm prohibiting the use of chemical weapons. What are you thinking the reasons are?

Fork over another big stash of money to the arms industry of our own countries?

 

[swag]

Big moral dilemmas are pretty obvious for most people these days. It's more the subtle altruism that might require a 'faith based' moral code.

Some people deserve to be hit really hard, a lot. I like to find and excuse not to

This is a brilliant point, IZ. I don't know what it's like in Ireland these days, but so many people here in the U.S. these days seem to define themselves in the negative rather than the positive. Meaning: they are what they don't eat, what they don't do, what they abstain from, etc., etc. People don't as often define themselves in the positive anymore: what they do and how they bring about good, and not just how they try to avoid life's evils.

 

[IrishZebra]

Fork over another big stash of money to the arms industry of our own countries?

As well as removing Russias only no FSR ally in the Middle East

 

[Martin]

As well as removing Russias only no FSR ally in the Middle East

We should meet in a cafe and talk for hours.