[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
I find it their loss: there is a beauty to the bronze age mind, and the culture which ensued, that is lost on those who neither doubt nor believe.
I get that. You are talking about zombies, aren’t you?[/quote]
Zombies? Brain-munching glossy-eyed staring Texas Zombies?
I said I would not divulge the mystery of the red heifer.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
There’s a reason secular Arab women living in the West prefer white men. [/quote]
Bwahahahahahaha!
Don’t EVER stop posting!
Islam is what Islam does
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Maybe we lose self awareness per se, but are part of some sort of collective awareness on a different level.
However, as I prefaced this ramble with, most likely we are just worm food.
Well, then you share the destination of the murdering, raping, mattress tag removing, pedophile, plagiarist regardless. In fact, in one scenario you’d share a collective awareness with him.
Anyways, wouldn’t the death of a holographic projection be the projection of the death of the source?[/quote]
yes
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Actually Cockney atheism is the belief that there is no god. A belief that the world is as we see it, four dimensional. A belief that we have it all figured out because there is nothing beyond the four dimensions that we are aware of. In it’s own way atheism is a religious belief.
[/quote]
No it isn’t, atheism says absolutely nothing about the world other than there is no god. The rest of what you wrote is not about atheism. Many physicists believe that there are infinite dimensions. Does that mean they can’t be atheist?
Atheism is only a religious belief in that it is a belief that there is no real basis to religion.
that is where you are wrong, a scientific model is a totally different thing to a religious model. A religious model says everything was worked out thousands of years ago, don’t question, don’t challenge, just believe and follow. A scientific model says, this is our current best fit but lets keep testing round to see if we can better support for the model or if we need to change it.
There is a huge difference between the two.
[quote]
You come across as a stereotypical new age Brit who is looking for something to be indignant about. We don’t blame Lixy el al for the evils of the world, obviously there is a lot of blame for different issues to go around and it can be placed upon a lot more than just religion.
However Islam is a huge problem, because there are over a billion muslims, they have nuclear weapons, a contradictory and twisted sense of right or wrong and a deeply ingrained hatred for anyone who isn’t following god properly.
They have been attacking and killing for centuries because of this. We are under attack now. So no we don’t have to get our “own house in order” before we can complain about what they are doing to us.
So you can save British self righteous indignation for some other place where people will buy into that bollocks. [/quote]
You could change the word muslim in your rant above for the word Christian and it would be just as true.
Any time that the person who has their finger on the button talks to an imaginary friend about whether to press it or not, I worry.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
A thought, to follow yours, Sifu.
One thing I find in common among atheists is how relentlessly evangelical they are in their disbeliefs. We have seen this in other ancient threads; there is a fervor to disbelief that strangles irony, and a compulsion to convert that is suprareligious.
Note that CB, here, is understating: “I will not promise to avoid takeing (sic) pot shots at their beliefs in the same way as most religious people that I know don’t avoid telling me that I am going to hell.” Perhaps people he knows can’t tolerate the intrusion of his disbeliefs, as much as he cannot tolerate the intrusion of their beliefs.
Atheists, even fun ones life Christopher Hitchens, still have a core of anger and injury. So what? Mr. Hitchens is an example of someone who is woefully ignorant of some of his subject matter, however slick the delivery. I find it their loss: there is a beauty to the bronze age mind, and the culture which ensued, that is lost on those who neither doubt nor believe.
Oh, and I will never, in this forum, divulge the mystery of the red heifer. [/quote]
I am enthusiastic for the furthering of people challenging the tenets of religion. If you feel that is evangelical then fine. I do not typically start a conversation about religion, normally I am responding to someone’s statements about either their own or someone elses religion.
There is a common feeling in the US and the UK that you need to respect someone’s beliefs. I don’t share that feeling. Religious people have no respect for my lack of faith in their religion.
People ask me what religion I am all the time, when I answer ‘none’ the typical response is first confusion, then disbelief, then they will try to tell me why I am wrong, then they tell me that they feel sorry for me.
If your religion is so strong, then me saying I don’t believe shouldn’t matter in the slightest to you.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Any time that the person who has their finger on the button talks to an imaginary friend about whether to press it or not, I worry.[/quote]
You have a puzzling stance. You’ve described Islam as a hateful religion yourself. But, you object to any alliance with folks from other religious traditions (specifically Christianity) in pointing out fundamental problems with Islam that make modernity, tolerance, and basic human rights a challenge in much of the Islamic world.
And, which is presently fueling separatism, terrorism, and hatred of the West and it’s values, outside of the Islamic world. Including, in pockets of the the West itself.
You’ve decided that atheists alone are legitimately capable of speaking, or acting, against this. Good luck with that. That’s a hell of burden you’re insisting on carrying alone.
Your stance is that because of historical wrongs, Christians are not invited to stand with atheists to examine root problems fueling Jihad and Islamic supremacy in the here and now. Of course, this doesn’t explain why atheists even have the go ahead to speak to the issue.
After all, it was pointed out in another thread that atheistic regimes aren’t immune to mass brutality and oppression. Now, I realize that from the there you wanted to compare numbers of victims (though we never factored in population demographics past to present in order to make useful comparisons}, but what would these comparisons prove? Why do you feel the atheist alone can stand against jihad, Islamic supremacy, etc., today?
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
No it isn’t, atheism says absolutely nothing about the world other than there is no god. The rest of what you wrote is not about atheism. Many physicists believe that there are infinite dimensions. Does that mean they can’t be atheist?
Atheism is only a religious belief in that it is a belief that there is no real basis to religion.[/quote]
Are you sure you’re an atheist? I’d point toward apathetic agnosticism in your case. That is to say you accept that there may be a higher level of existence, but also accept that we are in no way capable of understanding such a plane of existence, therefore shouldn’t worry about it.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
If your religion is so strong, then me saying I don’t believe shouldn’t matter in the slightest to you.[/quote]
I happen to agree, but then the appropriate reaction to enquiry is to turn and leave, and not to challenge others’ beliefs. After all, what is the point in that? Faith is not falsifiable; that’s the whole point of faith and the nonrational. Even atheists should know that. Leave it that way.
Meanwhile, why deprive yourself of sensitive knowledge of foundations of our culture, whatever their origins? Surely you will not be tainted by…belief!
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
If your religion is so strong, then me saying I don’t believe shouldn’t matter in the slightest to you.
I happen to agree, but then the appropriate reaction to enquiry is to turn and leave, and not to challenge others’ beliefs. After all, what is the point in that? Faith is not falsifiable; that’s the whole point of faith and the nonrational. Even atheists should know that. Leave it that way.
Meanwhile, why deprive yourself of sensitive knowledge of foundations of our culture, whatever their origins? Surely you will not be tainted by…belief![/quote]
Whoa this tread got off topic.
Anyway, I stereo typically see atheists as arrogant and narrow minded folk. We have only five senses and a limited reasoning capability. Saying that, that is all we know and can be known is just very shallow based on what we can sense and reason. At very worst the most reasonable thing to be is agnostic, which allows for all possibilities and allows the possibility for God to exist or not exist.
A lot of people seem to have a beef with what God does or does not do, and because He does not behave as they feel He should, he therefore does not exist.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Erasmus wrote:
Islam is what Islam does
Abso-freaking-lutely![/quote]
A tree can only be judged by its fruit. Islam, at this moment in time, has a disproportionate amount of bad apples. It doesn’t take many bites of rotten food to be put off by it.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Any time that the person who has their finger on the button talks to an imaginary friend about whether to press it or not, I worry.
You have a puzzling stance. You’ve described Islam as a hateful religion yourself. But, you object to any alliance with folks from other religious traditions (specifically Christianity) in pointing out fundamental problems with Islam that make modernity, tolerance, and basic human rights a challenge in much of the Islamic world.
And, which is presently fueling separatism, terrorism, and hatred of the West and it’s values, outside of the Islamic world. Including, in pockets of the the West itself.
You’ve decided that atheists alone are legitimately capable of speaking, or acting, against this. Good luck with that. That’s a hell of burden you’re insisting on carrying alone.
Your stance is that because of historical wrongs, Christians are not invited to stand with atheists to examine root problems fueling Jihad and Islamic supremacy in the here and now. Of course, this doesn’t explain why atheists even have the go ahead to speak to the issue.
After all, it was pointed out in another thread that atheistic regimes aren’t immune to mass brutality and oppression. Now, I realize that from the there you wanted to compare numbers of victims (though we never factored in population demographics past to present in order to make useful comparisons}, but what would these comparisons prove? Why do you feel the atheist alone can stand against jihad, Islamic supremacy, etc., today?
[/quote]
Fair questions, firstly the factoring of totals killed by Atheists or Christians was pretty much tongue in cheek on my part. What went on under Mao and Stalin was totally insane and the numbers of dead were terrifying.
I went to the ‘Museum of Terror’ in Budapest which is basically a big art installation / museum with details of what happened under the various regimes. It put my wife and I in such a depressed mood that we ended up having a huge row (so I guess it was effective.)
I accept that there are Christians in positions of power around the world and that this is unlikely to change in the short term however it worries me when people start mixing religion with politics. When you have powerful world leaders basing their decisions on religion it worries me.
I am not saying that Christians shouldn’t be invited to the discussions about how fucked up the Middle East is, what I am saying is that they need to be extremely aware of the prejudices that they carry with them about Islam because of their religion.
If you starting attacking religious radicals with arguments about their religion then they are able to drum up support for their Holy War and moderates will side with the extremists.
If you attack them from a secular basis, pointing out how their policies are negatively affecting their people, then the moderates are more likely to agree with you.
It is very hard to have a rationale discussion once religion has been brought into the mix, religion is due to its very nature totally irrational.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
No it isn’t, atheism says absolutely nothing about the world other than there is no god. The rest of what you wrote is not about atheism. Many physicists believe that there are infinite dimensions. Does that mean they can’t be atheist?
Atheism is only a religious belief in that it is a belief that there is no real basis to religion.
Are you sure you’re an atheist? I’d point toward apathetic agnosticism in your case. That is to say you accept that there may be a higher level of existence, but also accept that we are in no way capable of understanding such a plane of existence, therefore shouldn’t worry about it.[/quote]
At base I am a scientist. Therefore I will not rule out any option but will go with the one that has the most supporting evidence.
The Universe model works fine with no god therefore I see no reason to arbitrarily add a god. There may be a god but from what I understand of the universe the chance of that being the case is so tiny that one might as well live as if there is no god. It’s kind of like a reverse Pascal’s wager.
If there is no god I have lost nothing by living as if there is no god.
If there is a god but god doesn’t actually give a flying fuck about humanity then it doesn’t matter whether I believe or not and I might as well save myself the effort of believing.
If there is a god that expects me follow his rules as laid out in the bible then he should have made a little bit more effort to prove his existence to me, he either understands that because he is all knowing, all loving etc and will forgive me, or he is a psychotic fucker and I was fucked anyway.
I don’t see the need to put a label on whether this is atheism, agnosticism or whatever, I am totally against Dawkins stupid and extremely pompous idea that we should call ourselves ‘brights’ or whatever. I just don’t believe in any god.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
If your religion is so strong, then me saying I don’t believe shouldn’t matter in the slightest to you.
I happen to agree, but then the appropriate reaction to enquiry is to turn and leave, and not to challenge others’ beliefs. After all, what is the point in that? Faith is not falsifiable; that’s the whole point of faith and the nonrational. Even atheists should know that. Leave it that way.
Meanwhile, why deprive yourself of sensitive knowledge of foundations of our culture, whatever their origins? Surely you will not be tainted by…belief![/quote]
Totally agree, that is why I love reading religious books and books about the basis of religions.
[quote]pat wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
If your religion is so strong, then me saying I don’t believe shouldn’t matter in the slightest to you.
I happen to agree, but then the appropriate reaction to enquiry is to turn and leave, and not to challenge others’ beliefs. After all, what is the point in that? Faith is not falsifiable; that’s the whole point of faith and the nonrational. Even atheists should know that. Leave it that way.
Meanwhile, why deprive yourself of sensitive knowledge of foundations of our culture, whatever their origins? Surely you will not be tainted by…belief!
Whoa this tread got off topic.
Anyway, I stereo typically see atheists as arrogant and narrow minded folk. We have only five senses and a limited reasoning capability. Saying that, that is all we know and can be known is just very shallow based on what we can sense and reason. At very worst the most reasonable thing to be is agnostic, which allows for all possibilities and allows the possibility for God to exist or not exist.
A lot of people seem to have a beef with what God does or does not do, and because He does not behave as they feel He should, he therefore does not exist. [/quote]
You seem to have a strange definition of atheism. Atheism is just not beieving in any god. Anything else that you attach to it is not atheism. Yes there are a lot of preachy intellectual types currently writing about, talking about and promoting atheism but this is due to how ingrained religion is in our society and how prejudiced most people are against people who have no faith.
To be fair there is also an element of popularism. It is a current trend and a fair few authors are seing a buck to be made out of it.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
If your religion is so strong, then me saying I don’t believe shouldn’t matter in the slightest to you.
I happen to agree, but then the appropriate reaction to enquiry is to turn and leave, and not to challenge others’ beliefs. After all, what is the point in that? Faith is not falsifiable; that’s the whole point of faith and the nonrational. Even atheists should know that. Leave it that way.
Meanwhile, why deprive yourself of sensitive knowledge of foundations of our culture, whatever their origins? Surely you will not be tainted by…belief!
Whoa this tread got off topic.
Anyway, I stereo typically see atheists as arrogant and narrow minded folk. We have only five senses and a limited reasoning capability. Saying that, that is all we know and can be known is just very shallow based on what we can sense and reason. At very worst the most reasonable thing to be is agnostic, which allows for all possibilities and allows the possibility for God to exist or not exist.
A lot of people seem to have a beef with what God does or does not do, and because He does not behave as they feel He should, he therefore does not exist.
You seem to have a strange definition of atheism. Atheism is just not beieving in any god. Anything else that you attach to it is not atheism. Yes there are a lot of preachy intellectual types currently writing about, talking about and promoting atheism but this is due to how ingrained religion is in our society and how prejudiced most people are against people who have no faith.
To be fair there is also an element of popularism. It is a current trend and a fair few authors are seing a buck to be made out of it.[/quote]
Yeah, atheism…it’s just another non-prophet organization.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
If your religion is so strong, then me saying I don’t believe shouldn’t matter in the slightest to you.
I happen to agree, but then the appropriate reaction to enquiry is to turn and leave, and not to challenge others’ beliefs. After all, what is the point in that? Faith is not falsifiable; that’s the whole point of faith and the nonrational. Even atheists should know that. Leave it that way.
Meanwhile, why deprive yourself of sensitive knowledge of foundations of our culture, whatever their origins? Surely you will not be tainted by…belief!
Whoa this tread got off topic.
Anyway, I stereo typically see atheists as arrogant and narrow minded folk. We have only five senses and a limited reasoning capability. Saying that, that is all we know and can be known is just very shallow based on what we can sense and reason. At very worst the most reasonable thing to be is agnostic, which allows for all possibilities and allows the possibility for God to exist or not exist.
A lot of people seem to have a beef with what God does or does not do, and because He does not behave as they feel He should, he therefore does not exist.
You seem to have a strange definition of atheism. Atheism is just not beieving in any god. Anything else that you attach to it is not atheism. Yes there are a lot of preachy intellectual types currently writing about, talking about and promoting atheism but this is due to how ingrained religion is in our society and how prejudiced most people are against people who have no faith.
To be fair there is also an element of popularism. It is a current trend and a fair few authors are seing a buck to be made out of it.
Yeah, atheism…it’s just another non-prophet organization.[/quote]
Cool, can I get that as a bumper sticker, it can go next to my evolving fish one.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
I am not saying that Christians shouldn’t be invited to the discussions about how fucked up the Middle East is, what I am saying is that they need to be extremely aware of the prejudices that they carry with them about Islam because of their religion.[/quote]
Wait, how is this any different with an atheist? Do muslims view the atheist as the impartial referees of the world? I really don’t think so. He, the muslim, is probably thinking “of course this Godless heathen thinks I practice Islam incorrectly (or correctly…), he thinks I’m wrong headed for even practicing a religion, period!” So, no, this just can’t be a factor.
[quote]If you starting attacking religious radicals with arguments about their religion then they are able to drum up support for their Holy War and moderates will side with the extremists.
If you attack them from a secular basis, pointing out how their policies are negatively affecting their people, then the moderates are more likely to agree with you.[/quote]
And when they say, “oh, but we must do this or that as a religious observance!.” Conversation over? Nope.
It is very hard to have a rationale discussion once religion has been brought into the mix, religion is due to its very nature totally irrational.[/quote]
So, basically, you think atheists ared welcomed by the Islamic world in making observations about how the Islamic world needs to be secularized? An atheist, preaching secularization? You don’t think the secularism preaching atheist would be looked at with the same amount of hatred? Or, that he wouldn’t be suspected of harboring his own prejudices? You’re not even one of the people of the book! Run!
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Wait, how is this any different with an atheist? Do muslims view the atheist as the impartial referees of the world? I really don’t think so. He, the muslim, is probably thinking “of course this Godless heathen thinks I practice Islam incorrectly (or correctly…), he thinks I’m wrong headed for even practicing a religion, period!” So, no, this just can’t be a factor.
[/quote]
I get what you are saying, actually to a Muslim an atheist is damned whereas a Christian is at least of the book. I just think that the whole arguemnt needs to be about the actions, not the religious basis or lack thereof.
In which case we are fucked either way! My point is that if you get two football fans in a bar, if they are fans of different teams, they will end up arguing about football. You put a football fan in a bar with someone who doesn’t follow football, they won’t argue about football.
[quote]
So, basically, you think atheists ared welcomed by the Islamic world in making observations about how the Islamic world needs to be secularized? An atheist, preaching secularization? You don’t think the secularism preaching atheist would be looked at with the same amount of hatred? Or, that he wouldn’t be suspected of harboring his own prejudices? You’re not even one of the people of the book! Run![/quote]
I think the atheist is more able to discuss the real route cause of the issues with the Muslim than the Chistian. It makes any ‘My view of God is greater than yours’ argument obsolete so you can get past those and talk about Oil, Food, Water, divisions on maps, trade etc.
Back to the original post, the report definitely could have been grabbed straight from the Onion.