deciusmaximus: Atheism is despite all of the stock denials a BELIEF SYSTEM.

Atheism is not a belief," atheists often say, "it's just a lack of belief in a God." Today it came up in this form:

And, in addition, I would point out that atheism is not my ideology. It simply refers to my not subscribing to a particular belief (theism). It makes no more sense to treat my being an atheist as my ideology than it does to treat your being a non-Muslim as yours.

What I AM is a humanist.

This is disingenuous at best. To say that atheism is just "not subscribing to a particular belief" is to deny everything that atheism entails (requires as part of its package).

Atheism entails that the universe is impersonal and amoral.

Atheism entails that there is no ultimate good (though some atheists like yourself will allow for contingent, local, or particular goods).

Likewise and with the same kind of condition attached, atheism entails that there is no ultimate meaning, no ultimate morality, no ultimate beauty, no ultimate purpose for anything.

Atheism entails that the end of physical life is the end of existence.

Atheism entails that all human experience is neuronal/electrical/chemical; and though some atheists have proposed ways to rise above that (some kind of epiphenomenalism, for example), they have never been able to explain it.

Atheism entails the same specifically for human consciousness and rationality.

Atheism entails that if any sense of meaning or purpose is to be found in human life, it is found in the contingent and accidental experience of humans-for even the existence of humans is contingent and accidental.

Atheism entails that what I do today will not matter for very long, a few generations at most.

Atheism entails that every religion is wrong.

Atheism entails that the universe will one day be empty.

Atheism entails that humans and animals and plants and bacteria and rats and pigs and dogs and boys (google the last four) are ontologically the same thing.

Atheism entails that if one chooses humanism as one's form of atheism, that choice is made for entirely contingent reasons, probably related to one's nation and culture of birth and upbringing, and that there is no better reason than that to choose humanism as one's ideology, since atheism provides no reason to choose humans as having any particular value.

D. Ellis.

Atheism can be a trait shared by secular humanists, nihilists, epicureans, stoics, objectivists, existentialists, materialists, etc. All those things which atheism "entails" are descriptions or characteristics of other belief systems which happen to also have the quality of lacking a belief in a supernatural being, some even diametrically opposed to one another in what they value most highly (if they value anything at all).

abb3w: bunner: Back on ignore with ya, kids.
bunner: I laugh even more derisively! Moo ha ha. Ph33r my 1337 derisiveness!

Oh, I almost forgot abb3w. The zamboro's mop up bit*h.

Probably an alt, but.. oh, Jesus,.. who cares? See what I did there? : )

Bye abb3ew. You can go back to posturing in front of the mirror, now. No, nobody much actually cares. *click*

nooowayman: nooowayman: thunderbird8804: nooowayman: thunderbird8804: nooowayman: thunderbird8804: nooowayman: I'm sorry atheists. I'm almost one myself but this is just farking retarded.

Next up: raping little boys.

How the hell are you almost an atheist? What, do you profess belief in a god, but only on Sundays?

Well that one is pretty obvious. I'm extremely apathetic about the entire endeavor and seriously doubt it's existence.

Which would make me an atheist by militant atheist standards.

I prefer the term apatheist, but solely because I don't want to be associated with either group.

There's something you and a couple of other people here seem to be missing, so allow me to shed some light for you. The word atheist means, "Without belief in a god", that's it. Why does it mean that, and not anything more? Because that is the one and only thing that can truly be said of ALL atheists. It is the only basal characteristic, it has nothing to do with militancy, or how you feel about the word or what it implies, and everything to do with accuracy. So if you do not, or cannot profess belief in a god, then you are an atheist, in the same way and for the same reason that a 2 dimensional shape with four sides all of equal length and four 90° angles is a square, by definition.

And you can be apathetic about the whole thing, that's fine. But when engaged in a discussion we owe it to ourselves and everyone else involved in the discussion to be accurate in our terms.

/And for the love of god, stop using the word militant, when you mean contentious

Heard it all. Let me repeat myself. We don't give a fark and don't want to be associated with you.

Alright, and let me repeat myself, your wants are inconsequential to what I'm saying. I'm doing nothing more than telling you to stop misusing terms, because that adds needless confusion to the discussion at hand, the discussion that you decided to participate in. You should, at the very least, give that small courtesy to the people you're talking with, and should expect them to reciprocate in kind.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. I called myself an "apathist." I never once mentioned agnostic. But you lumped me in with them anyways.

Get over yourself.

Oh and no apologies if you were referring to the militant comment. I stand by that. :)

Who the hell are you talking to, I never mentioned agnosticism either! And what apology? There were no apologies made by either one of us. What you were saying before was irrelevant, but this is just incredible.

deciusmaximus:
Atheism leads to a false sense of unaccountability unless it is replaced with an ethical system such as Humanism. Whenever the old system of moral restraints are suddenly thrown off it is always followed by an orgy of violence. See also the French Terror.

I'm going to have to disagree with you, here. Atheism by itself doesn't lead to "Kill everyone! AAARGH!" Lack of belief in a magical deity doesn't trip some bizarre "Kill people" trigger. Your statement is absurdly misleading. People don't kill people over lack of a belief, but because of beliefs. I'm certain in every case you listed in your handy-dandy chart there, there were other pressures involved that triggered the violence.

Furthermore, I'm going to go one step further, and state that because I'm an atheist, I'm a better citizen than YOU are. Here's why: When I do something bad, I don't blame anyone other than myself. I take full accountability of my actions. Alternatively, when I do something good, I do it because I want to, not because I'm promised some magical sky prison made of gold and ivory. I do good things because I want to, not because I have to be coerced into doing good things.

Sit in a room every Sunday with a bunch of Zombie worshiping cannibals or sit on the couch and watch sports & movies? Am I missing something here?

Faith? Yep I got that. I have absolute faith in knowing the Mets will choke during the last 2 weeks of the season and that every 4 years we have to decide between a Big Duche or a Fat Turd to sit in the Oval office and that if I don't pay my taxes the bastards'll garnish my paycheck. So I got that going for me.

God? No... except when I'm hung over then I guess for a short while I do beleive in the "Oh God of hangovers" until it goes away.

thunderbird8804: nooowayman: nooowayman: thunderbird8804: nooowayman: thunderbird8804: nooowayman: thunderbird8804: nooowayman: I'm sorry atheists. I'm almost one myself but this is just farking retarded.

Next up: raping little boys.

How the hell are you almost an atheist? What, do you profess belief in a god, but only on Sundays?

Well that one is pretty obvious. I'm extremely apathetic about the entire endeavor and seriously doubt it's existence.

Which would make me an atheist by militant atheist standards.

I prefer the term apatheist, but solely because I don't want to be associated with either group.

There's something you and a couple of other people here seem to be missing, so allow me to shed some light for you. The word atheist means, "Without belief in a god", that's it. Why does it mean that, and not anything more? Because that is the one and only thing that can truly be said of ALL atheists. It is the only basal characteristic, it has nothing to do with militancy, or how you feel about the word or what it implies, and everything to do with accuracy. So if you do not, or cannot profess belief in a god, then you are an atheist, in the same way and for the same reason that a 2 dimensional shape with four sides all of equal length and four 90° angles is a square, by definition.

And you can be apathetic about the whole thing, that's fine. But when engaged in a discussion we owe it to ourselves and everyone else involved in the discussion to be accurate in our terms.

/And for the love of god, stop using the word militant, when you mean contentious

Heard it all. Let me repeat myself. We don't give a fark and don't want to be associated with you.

Alright, and let me repeat myself, your wants are inconsequential to what I'm saying. I'm doing nothing more than telling you to stop misusing terms, because that adds needless confusion to the discussion at hand, the discussion that you decided to participate in. You should, at the very least, give that small courtesy to the people you're talking with, and should expect them to reciprocate in kind.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. I called myself an "apathist." I never once mentioned agnostic. But you lumped me in with them anyways.

Get over yourself.

Oh and no apologies if you were referring to the militant comment. I stand by that. :)

Who the hell are you talking to, I never mentioned agnosticism either! And what apology? There were no apologies made by either one of us. What you were saying before was irrelevant, but this is just incredible.

INCREDIBLE!

I'll be honest here. As a militant apathist, I'm mainly just yanking your chain. :)

De-baptisms? Seriously, WTF?

deciusmaximus: What I AM is a humanist.

Oh and humanism can be either religious or secular. The father of Northern European humanism, Desiderius Erasmus, was a priest. In the classic sense, humanism is merely a focus on humans and human existence. In the modern sense (as this quote intones) humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism and other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

In the first definition, not all humanists are atheists. In the second, not all atheists are humanists. So that blanket statement doesn't work.

Cpl.D Quote

deciusmaximus: Atheism leads to a false sense of unaccountability unless it is replaced with an ethical system such as Humanism. Whenever the old system of moral restraints are suddenly thrown off it is always followed by an orgy of violence. See also the French Terror.

I'm going to have to disagree with you, here. Atheism by itself doesn't lead to "Kill everyone! AAARGH!" Lack of belief in a magical deity doesn't trip some bizarre "Kill people" trigger. Your statement is absurdly misleading. People don't kill people over lack of a belief, but because of beliefs. I'm certain in every case you listed in your handy-dandy chart there, there were other pressures involved that triggered the violence.

Classic "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

No atheist regime would commit mass murder.

Stalinist Russia and Post Revolutionary France committed mass murder.

Stalinist Russia and Post Revolutionary France are not TRUE atheist regimes.

Xenomech: De-baptisms? Seriously, WTF?

An omnipotent old man in the sky? Yeah, right.

Biological Ali

deciusmaximus: If you are going to attempt philosophy then take a tip from the greatest of them all, Socrates, and before you start define your farking terms!

Well there's your problem. I'm not attempting "philosophy" - I'm attempting logic.

Is it possible that this person does not know that logic is a branch of philosophy? No wonder he can't form a proper syllogism. I don't mind the ignorant. I only mind them when they pretend not be.

bighasbeen

deciusmaximus: What I AM is a humanist.

That is a mis-attribution, you are not quoting me, although I do consider myself a Humanist.

The Humanism of Medieval Scholasticism and the modern Secular Humanist movement are two very different and separate things.

deciusmaximus: bighasbeen

deciusmaximus: What I AM is a humanist.

That is a mis-attribution, you are not quoting me, although I do consider myself a Humanist.

The Humanism of Medieval Scholasticism and the modern Secular Humanist movement are two very different and separate things.

I know that. That's what my post says. What I'm saying is that D. Ellis guy you posted is wrong with his generalizations. Generalizations he made to discredit atheism, obviously.

deciusmaximus: Cpl.D Quote

deciusmaximus: Atheism leads to a false sense of unaccountability unless it is replaced with an ethical system such as Humanism. Whenever the old system of moral restraints are suddenly thrown off it is always followed by an orgy of violence. See also the French Terror.

I'm going to have to disagree with you, here. Atheism by itself doesn't lead to "Kill everyone! AAARGH!" Lack of belief in a magical deity doesn't trip some bizarre "Kill people" trigger. Your statement is absurdly misleading. People don't kill people over lack of a belief, but because of beliefs. I'm certain in every case you listed in your handy-dandy chart there, there were other pressures involved that triggered the violence.

Classic "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

No atheist regime would commit mass murder.

Stalinist Russia and Post Revolutionary France committed mass murder.

Stalinist Russia and Post Revolutionary France are not TRUE atheist regimes.

I'm probably responding to a troll, but: no one is denying that either Stalinist Russia, or post revolutionary France were "officially" and dogmatically atheist. Atheism isn't what motivated the persecution. It isn't a no true scotsman fallacy to point out that secular, rather than religious, dogma was the motivating factor, and atheism was only incidental. You keep repeating the post hoc fallacy that atheism was the cause, and will likely continue to do so no matter how many times the error is pointed out to you.

Cpl.D: Furthermore, I'm going to go one step further, and state that because I'm an atheist, I'm a better citizen than YOU are.

Yeah! EVERYBODY BUT BE IS ON THEIR KNEES TO A STATUE!

I'll say one thing for atheists,

They're certainly no more immune to making utterly ridiculous assertions in the never ending quest amongst the nosepicker set for "INTERNET INTELLECTUAL SUPERIORITY^®

Don't worry... It only seems stupid if you actually read the words.

but "me", I meant.

And I'm hitting preview...

*sigh*

Repo Man

deciusmaximus: Atheism leads to a false sense of unaccountability unless it is replaced with an ethical system such as Humanism. Whenever the old system of moral restraints are suddenly thrown off it is always followed by an orgy of violence. See also the French Terror.

I'm going to have to disagree with you, here. Atheism by itself doesn't lead to "Kill everyone! AAARGH!" Lack of belief in a magical deity doesn't trip some bizarre "Kill people" trigger. Your statement is absurdly misleading. People don't kill people over lack of a belief, but because of beliefs. I'm certain in every case you listed in your handy-dandy chart there, there were other pressures involved that triggered the violence.

Deciusmaximus:Classic "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

No atheist regime would commit mass murder.

Stalinist Russia and Post Revolutionary France committed mass murder.

Stalinist Russia and Post Revolutionary France are not TRUE atheist regimes.

I'm probably responding to a troll, but: no one is denying that either Stalinist Russia, or post revolutionary France were "officially" and dogmatically atheist. Atheism isn't what motivated the persecution. It isn't a no true scotsman fallacy to point out that secular, rather than religious, dogma was the motivating factor, and atheism was only incidental.

Your bullshiat argument might be more persuasive if the regimes in question did not specifically target clergy and religious institutions for no other reason than they were religious.

If you people spent as much time formulating a cogent argument instead of calling each other trolls and alts these discussions would be much more interesting. One is not a "troll" simply because one has an opinion different from the forum hive mind. I have posted on many other forums and in no other, save 4chan, have the posters made the "troll" accusation as freely as here.

Get over it. It is counter productive, immature and a weak response in any case.

Organized atheists are pissing me off. I am an atheist but I don't identify with angsty children nor do I need group solidarity or affirmation. Pussies.

I'm gonna break this down, old school pre-internet jerkoff in his mommy's basement where he can "tee heeheez0r at the netz0r mongz" - style. You know, like when conversations took about 45 sec. and people had books, balls and the common courtesy to not say things to people through a pipe that they wouldn't say to them in person.

This is a bunch of smarmy, troll ass wankers who have based their entire sense of alleged intellectual superiority - which, is like.. trust me, just about all they have , despite it being a pose and not much else, on the fact that they do not believe in some [insert derisive term for god, here]. That's it.. that's all they got.

Here's the gist of their plight. In actual real life where you actually have to sit withing chair throwing distance of people to impress them with your dog an pony show.. NOBODY CARES. Not a f*ck, not a single f*ck, not a single solitary f*ck. So they come here. And you actually think they're proffering some sort of opportunity for discourse. And you hit the bait. And everybody thinks something interesting happens. This forum is the lotion they smear on their dicks before "special time". And if you think that's [pathetic, look at how many of you are trying to actually engage their intellectually masturbatory posturing as if it was something that should AFFECT YOUR OUTLOOK ON LIFE. This is their monthly swim meet. This is their "Look everybody! I am SO SMART" Jeopardy pretend. And this is me pissing on it from a suitable height. I gotta get SOMETHING for my fiver if this is all these clowns got.

zymosan: Atheists are almost as bad as religious people, their saving grace is they haven't yet slathered millions in the name of Atheism.

Not all atheists. The problem is you have a ton of asshole ex-Christians still pissed at Christianity. The problem with these folks, and most Christians, is they don't realize that atheism is a statment, there are no gods, not a believe, not a position opposite of religion.

An enlightened atheist (I call them that for want of a better term) does not believe in religion like they don't believe in Santa Clause, the Toot Fairy, etc... A rational mind does not go and take an ant-Santa stance, does not try and antagonize those who believe, they just accept that some folks live a different life. An enlightened atheist understands that there are some good parts of religion, some parts are even beautiful, and you can admire those parts with out subscribing to the whole.

An enlightened atheist does not care what you believe they just want you to get the hell off their lawn and leave them the fark alone.

deciusmaximus: Repo Man

deciusmaximus: Atheism leads to a false sense of unaccountability unless it is replaced with an ethical system such as Humanism. Whenever the old system of moral restraints are suddenly thrown off it is always followed by an orgy of violence. See also the French Terror.

I'm going to have to disagree with you, here. Atheism by itself doesn't lead to "Kill everyone! AAARGH!" Lack of belief in a magical deity doesn't trip some bizarre "Kill people" trigger. Your statement is absurdly misleading. People don't kill people over lack of a belief, but because of beliefs. I'm certain in every case you listed in your handy-dandy chart there, there were other pressures involved that triggered the violence.

Deciusmaximus:Classic "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

No atheist regime would commit mass murder.

Stalinist Russia and Post Revolutionary France committed mass murder.

Stalinist Russia and Post Revolutionary France are not TRUE atheist regimes.

I'm probably responding to a troll, but: no one is denying that either Stalinist Russia, or post revolutionary France were "officially" and dogmatically atheist. Atheism isn't what motivated the persecution. It isn't a no true scotsman fallacy to point out that secular, rather than religious, dogma was the motivating factor, and atheism was only incidental.

Your bullshiat argument might be more persuasive if the regimes in question did not specifically target clergy and religious institutions for no other reason than they were religious.

If you people spent as much time formulating a cogent argument instead of calling each other trolls and alts these discussions would be much more interesting. One is not a "troll" simply because one has an opinion different from the forum hive mind. I have posted on many other forums and in no other, save 4chan, have the posters made the "troll" accusation as freely as here.

Get over it. It is counter productive, immature and a weak response in any case.

"When the cheerleaders wore blue ribbons in their hair, the football team won. They should always wear blue ribbons, so the football team will always win!"

zymosan: Some Atheists are almost as bad as some religious people, their saving grace is they haven't yet slathered millions in the name of Atheism. And some are just as plain farking batshiat crazy about their "non-belief" or "absence of belief" as any other religious fundamentalist.

FTFY

Kittypie070: Oh. Hi decius. Still boppin' around with your cap and bells, huh?

why don't you add me, Gil, IDW, Imfallen_Angel and a every other Farker who has made the same comment to your imaginary "anti-atheist cabal" kittypie070.

/it's nice to see the usual atheists ardently defending something they don't believe int.

Biological Ali: In Xenomech's defense, I don't think the image was meant to be taken seriously in that way (though it is a pretty lame joke to be honest).

you're probably right. I tend not to take a lot of atheists seriously either.



but only because they give everyone good reason not to take them seriously.

Kittypie070: Oh. Hi decius. Still boppin' around with your cap and bells, huh?

Kitty is always vying for my attention. I think it is her way of hitting on me.

FloydA: Xenomech: De-baptisms? Seriously, WTF?

If you can't make your point without dishonesty, are you sure you're on the right side?


Drat, I guess that means I can't post this one anymore:

FloydA: Nearly every open attack on atheists is composed of lies and distortions or outright criminality. And still they claim that I have no morals. It gets annoying.

You know what's annoying?

Watching endless repeats of the "no matter what I say, if I index it to a lack of belief in any god, I am automatically vindicated." pose. Wah. The mean old theists are attacking me! No, that's the little movie you carry around that convinces you that somebody, somewhere gives a f*ck about what you think about anything at all.

I hope the anemic bottom feeder with the sign doesn't run into any Mexican lawn care specialists.

If somebody who needs to believe in a god is pathetic, what does that make people who desperately need to believe in the inherent value of their own lame, failed intellectual cock waving? Atheists aren't evangelists. Their narcissists. Much like a lot of ridiculous, posturing, powder blue suit wearing preachers bellowing about Jee yuh zuss!

kerpal32: why don't you add me, Gil, IDW, Imfallen_Angel and a every other Farker who has made the same comment to your imaginary "anti-atheist cabal" kittypie070.


"MMMWAHHH-HA-HAH-HAAAAAHHHHH!"

Zamboro: have never known Christians to be kind, or sympathetic, or to express anything other than hostility and disdain for atheists.

These people will take you in regardless of whether or not you're an atheists. Like the other 15% to 18% of hospitals in the U.S. run by religious groups.

You should check them out. They even have a psychiatric wing for people like you.



I've never known anyone associated with them (or any other similar organizations) to be hostile to anyone who was an atheist (or even a non-Christian) in oh, 40+ years

/knows someone who was the Mother Superior there...

GilRuiz1: "MMMWAHHH-HA-HAH-HAAAAAHHHHH!"

exactly, AND, you've got refreshments.

I mean come on, what the fark more could they want?

Kittypie070: I'm butthurt.

FTFY. I'm sorry to hear that.

Oh by the way Kerpal32 the Anti-Atheist Cabal meeting will be held at the Fortress of Solitude on Wednesday instead of Thursday this week. It turns out the the Stonecutters are having an emergency meeting to discuss Steve Gutenberg's failing career on Wednesday. We are thinking about ordering in Thai food. See ya there!

bunner: I hope the anemic bottom feeder with the sign doesn't run into any Mexican lawn care specialists.

From the San Francisco atheists' anti-Star-Jones protest:

Would the last person with a bug up their ass about some personal issue who needs to stand around waving a sign about it, please turn out the lights when he or she finally realises there's nobody left to wave the sign at?

deciusmaximus: Oh by the way Kerpal32 the Anti-Atheist Cabal meeting will be held at the Fortress of Solitude on Wednesday instead of Thursday this week. It turns out the the Stonecutters are having an emergency meeting to discuss Steve Gutenberg's failing career on Wednesday. We are thinking about ordering in Thai food. See ya there!

lmao. Sounds like a real big "bash".

/I wonder what the "opposition" will be doing.....