|
new atheists are kind of like fresh out of the closet gays in that they have all these pent up feelings that they're finally getting out for the first time in their life and they tend to be real in your face, but then most chill out after a while some though....
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 20:01 |
|
|
Agag posted:An interesting wrinkle of contemporary fedora atheism is the odd machismo with which they declare themselves sociopaths. "I decide what is moral and what is amoral, according to me! You are weak if you do less." sociopathy is the inability to feel empathy. if you require someone to tell you murdering is wrong, then it is you who are the sociopath. it's clear that agag is a sociopath. look how he uses 'larger than yourself' to mean a handful of oligarchic-dictated social mores thousands of years old that can't possibly proscribe you any little rules for solving modern ethical dilemmas like abortion, cloning, software piracy, nuclear war, human created climate change, artificial intelligence, animal rights or even human rights another interesting thing about christians is they actually believe that their book is the only book extant. if you aren't reading the bible, as agag has implied here, you're just making it up yourself. there are no non-bible sources of information or analysis. they would literally prefer to look at one thing and be told what to do than research, consider opposing viewpoints and then make up their mind. this is because in their past even extremely religious people who merely disagreed with one moron's interpretation of their even then hopelessly obsolete and unhelpful garbage were called 'heretics' and hunted down and murdered, a practice they continue to this day. this means that the surviving doctrine has evolved, ironically enough, to be the one advocating the least tolerance to critical thought, to be most protecting of single authority figures and clearly, it shows. look at how this clearly insane retard attacks simple writers like hitchens and dawkins like they're some kind of popes, like they have any meaning at all to anyone, like atheism as a well-described philosophy doesn't dates back to the ancient greeks, far, far before even judaism was even a thing like it just popped up as recently as Harry Potter. it's not their fault, they're trained to ignore history otherwise they would see the mountains of evidence that contradicts every meaningful historical statement the bible makes the joke is, every christian chooses their own morality and doctrine anyway, otherwise they would all be in agreement, and they aren't, they're a constantly fracturing mess of warring factions. many believe gays should get married, many believe they should get stoned to death, and they all just cherry pick from that ancient scrawl to justify their own beliefs. beyond the existence of god literally anything is up for splintering on, at an ever increasing rate. that's not sane, that's not the indicators of a universal truth that is being discovered, that's the sign of sad idiots trying to fit the modern world into an ancient vase and shattering it i mean i'm not even an athiest but holy poo poo look at this guy
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
chaosbreather posted:sociopathy is the inability to feel empathy. if you require someone to tell you murdering is wrong, then it is you who are the sociopath. it's clear that agag is a sociopath. yep. religion is not a source of morality, it is a conduit for it, it is a medium by which we elevate our values and ideas to something more than our personal feelings. anyone who says otherwise is being dishonest and, I would argue, missing the point of religion. I mean according to agag wahabbists are heretics. how does he know that? how does he know that they aren't the "right" muslims? he doesn't; there is no such thing as a "proper" muslim as opposed to a "heretical" muslim, this is a label he applies to them to designate their version of islam as abjectly opposed to his own. and that's fine. but he doesn't do that because allah himself (or muhammad, or jabril, or what have you) instructed him to, he does it because wahabbi islam violates agag's own sense of morality, which he is apparently either oblivious to or in denial of. or maybe he really is a sociopath and has no sense of right and wrong outside of whatever his imam tells him, but I doubt it since sociopaths usually hate being told what to do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 06:10
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:"but if they dont stone people to death for adultery then they arent even good christians!!! they just pick and choose!! ugh how illogical that criticism is usually applied specifically to fundamentalists who simultaneously argue that the parts of their book they like are important because the book is the infallible word of god, while also ignoring the parts of the infallible word of god that they don't like it applies equally well to fundamentalists who argue that secular morality doesn't exist, because it obviously does, because secular morality is the means by which religious people choose to ignore the parts of their holy books instructing them to murder people
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 06:13
|
|
"
|
Agag posted:Atheism is a positive claim (the non-existence of God or gods) f No, it isn't. Atheism is the lack of positive belief in the existence of gods. it isn't an assertion of the negative, it's a rejection of the affirmative. it's possible for any particular atheist to be a gnostic atheist, that is, an atheist who makes a positive knowledge claim, but that isn't entailed in the definition of atheist. of course even for atheists who do make positive knowledge claims (I myself have never met one, but sure, I'm willing to suppose that they exist, even outside of this conversation) that still would not make their atheism a religious ideology. it would simply be a lack of religious ideology, based on a positive knowledge claim for which no evidence exists. Agag posted:Upon what would this hypothetical "atheist morality" be based? First of all, the question is malformed; atheist morality is not hypothetical, it demonstrably exists, and secular morality, which would be a more precise term for what we're talking about, exists even among the religious. as has already been pointed out, nearly every religious person following a religious ideology that entails morality rejects at least part of it, and they don't necessarily do so on religious grounds. for example, the bible claims that the earth is motionless and that the sky is solid and that the sun rotates around the earth, but most christians do not believe this. of course you have outliers like carl baugh (evangelical preacher who believes in geocentrism) and boko haram (who want to outlaw the teaching of geosphericity as the quran teaches that the earth is flat) but most religious persons do not believe there is a moral imperative to pretend to believe in absurdities. then you have prohibitions on the consumption of shellfish, the imperative to murder innocent people who don't conform to their beliefs, etc., which christians dismiss out of hand, often on vaguely religious-sounding reasons (a common rational I hear is that Jesus abolished these laws, but there's never any detailed explanation for why they believe this, nor is there an explanation for how they distinguish between old testament texts that no longer apply and those that do apply other than whether they like them or not). then you have situations that simply are not addressed by religious texts of any kind, for which anyone, religious or not, must draw upon their own judgment and conscience to make a decision. and, well, there's one answer. for some people no further reasoning is needed than whatever feels right. beyond that, there's philosophy. utilitarianism would probably be the most common philosophical answer. evidently this isn't a good enough basis for morality for you, but that doesn't change the fact that it exists. TacticalUrbanHomo fucked around with this message at 06:47 on Aug 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 06:37
|
|
|
chaosbreather posted:sociopathy is the inability to feel empathy. if you require someone to tell you murdering is wrong, then it is you who are the sociopath. it's clear that agag is a sociopath. The inability to see beyond one's own ideology is a limitation common to fedora atheists. To the Bill Maher fan, referring to religious texts and "ancient myths from written by stupid browns" is a crippling rhetorical device. The eternal freshman screaming "I reject your premises forever." I suppose everybody finds their own ceiling. Though I must confess I find this belief in morality being natural and inborn, without any external reference point, as much of a faith position as any pilgrim genuflecting in front of an old saint's bones. Why, you're insane and a retard not to naturally agree with whatever my cargo cult ethics happen to be this week. Stupid child, reading old brown people's books looking for answers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
Science ain't an exact science with these clowns but, they're getting better.
Blahsmack fucked around with this message at 06:43 on Aug 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Gs9XfzPpuI
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 06:41
|
|
|
Agag posted:belief in morality being natural and inborn, without any external reference point, as much of a faith position Basic morality aids social creature group fitness and survival.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
TacticalUrbanHomo posted:No, it isn't. Atheism is the lack of positive belief in the existence of gods. it isn't an assertion of the negative, it's a rejection of the affirmative. This is a new rhetorical stance taken by atheists who have realized the epistemic limitations of their ideology. Its a fall back position for those who admit they lack the conviction to actually say God or gods don't exist, but are also unwilling to take the skeptical stance of agnostics because then they couldn't be part of the same club. TacticalUrbanHomo posted:that criticism is usually applied specifically to fundamentalists who simultaneously argue that the parts of their book they like are important because the book is the infallible word of god, while also ignoring the parts of the infallible word of god that they don't like Of course your statements don't apply to religions without "revealed" texts, and then not to those who hold the position that said texts are divinely inspired rather than divinely authored. But of course atheists don't acquaint themselves with theology, so they mistakenly believe that every critique they present is withering and original. And we've already been over the murderousness of atheists, who are the most murderous religious group in history. So assuming you happen to believe that murder is wrong, this is another indication of the essential amorality of atheism as an ideology.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
The Protagonist posted:Basic morality aids social creature group fitness and survival. We've been over this sort of "evolutionary morality" already. Now if you'll excuse me I'm off to cleanse the gene pool of the mentally ill and redheads, to aid group fitness and survival. Hope your children don't have a peanut allergy, there's no reason to threaten group fitness just because little Jaylen can't handle a legume.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 06:47
|
|
|
I have met a number of atheists who love the idea of science enough to let it define them, yet think other things like GMOs are bad or that recycling makes a difference lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
Agag posted:This is a new rhetorical stance taken by atheists who have realized the epistemic limitations of their ideology. Its a fall back position for those who admit they lack the conviction to actually say God or gods don't exist, but are also unwilling to take the skeptical stance of agnostics because then they couldn't be part of the same club. that isn't actually a refutation of the position, sorry. Agag posted:Of course your statements don't apply to religions without "revealed" texts, and then not to those who hold the position that said texts are divinely inspired rather than divinely authored. But of course atheists don't acquaint themselves with theology, so they mistakenly believe that every critique they present is withering and original. atheists aren't a religious group, and I'm not sure how you reckon that anything I believe is an indication of anything about atheism. what is the logical connection between A and B? there is none.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
Agag posted:We've been over this sort of "evolutionary morality" already. Now if you'll excuse me I'm off to cleanse the gene pool of the mentally ill and redheads, to aid group fitness and survival. Hope your children don't have a peanut allergy, there's no reason to threaten group fitness just because little Jaylen can't handle a legume. not a refutation of the role played in natural selection by the formation of social norms and mutual cooperation, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 06:50
|
|
|
TacticalUrbanHomo posted:that isn't actually a refutation of the position, sorry. Atheists believe that there is/are no God/gods. Agnostics admit the question as unknowable. Some atheists want the bravado of taking a positive position without any of the attendant responsibility. But by any measure atheism is a religious position, and to be a vocal atheist is to engage in a kind of evangelism. As almost anyone pigeonholed by a fedora atheist will attest.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
Agag posted:The inability to see beyond one's own ideology is a limitation common to fedora atheists. To the Bill Maher fan, referring to religious texts and "ancient myths from written by stupid browns" is a crippling rhetorical device. The eternal freshman screaming "I reject your premises forever." I suppose everybody finds their own ceiling. lol no external reference points. again, only the bible exists to you, doesn't it? it might shock you to know that you know reject exactly the same number of ideologies as any atheist i'm not surprised you accept the ideology of racism though, most christians are. the pride you take in your ignorance is exactly the same as the racist or the patriot
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
Agag posted:We've been over this sort of "evolutionary morality" already. Now if you'll excuse me I'm off to cleanse the gene pool of the mentally ill and redheads, to aid group fitness and survival. Hope your children don't have a peanut allergy, there's no reason to threaten group fitness just because little Jaylen can't handle a legume. This kind of cynical hyperbole isn't the rationale behind early basic familial empathy, which from your insane sociopathic example isn't an ideally efficient mechanism. Neither is natural selection for that matter. But we don't want to strive for ideal efficiency because that would cause tremendous suffering, and empathy when properly fostered, when the familial bond is properly extended, leads to a shared suffering worth avoiding for the health and mental physical wellness of the social group. Some people like taking care of people and protecting people from hazards, and protectors and caregivers are lauded and rewarded by their communities in turn. tl;dr you dum
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
TacticalUrbanHomo posted:not a refutation of the role played in natural selection by the formation of social norms and mutual cooperation, sorry. Nature red in tooth and claw doesn't explain why I should care for the elderly. Their water belongs to the tribe. Why not?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
This thread is bad!!!! Aye carumba!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 06:54
|
|
|
echronorian posted:This thread is bad!!!! Aye carumba!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 06:55
|
|
|
chaosbreather posted:lol no external reference points. again, only the bible exists to you, doesn't it? Its not a matter of pride or shame, simply a matter of logic. The atheist is a wild-eyed evangelical trying to pass himself off as a rational skeptic. To argue that the atheist and the theist reject the same number of contrary ideologies is only to reinforce my point about atheism being yet another religious ideology.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
The Protagonist posted:This kind of cynical hyperbole isn't the rationale behind early basic familial empathy, which from your insane sociopathic example isn't an ideally efficient mechanism. Neither is natural selection for that matter. But we don't want to strive for ideal efficiency because that would cause tremendous suffering, and empathy when properly fostered, when the familial bond is properly extended, leads to a shared suffering worth avoiding for the health and mental physical wellness of the social group. Are you arguing that morality is a product of an indifferent biological process or not? Its fine to call me stupid. The essential praxis of atheist ideology is calling other people stupid on the Internet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
You held aloft insane hyperbole as a valid argument. Sorry I got heated.Agag posted:Are you arguing that morality is a product of an indifferent biological process or not? e; oh right, well i guess it seems that way, but then are you extending this 'indifferent' modifier to imply that what i've said necessitates the lack of free will? 'cus i don't know about that. i'm agnostic about free will atm The Protagonist fucked around with this message at 07:01 on Aug 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
Agag posted:Atheists believe that there is/are no God/gods. Agnostics admit the question as unknowable. Some atheists want the bravado of taking a positive position without any of the attendant responsibility. no, atheists do not believe that there is/are a god/gods. it isn't an assertion of the negative, simply a rejection of the positive. "atheists" and "agnostics" are not two mutually exclusive groups; theism is a belief, gnosticism is a claim of knowledge. regardless, even a gnostic atheist is not professing a religious ideology, merely an assertion that something does not exist. that does not constitute an ideology. Agag posted:Nature red in tooth and claw doesn't explain why I should care for the elderly. Their water belongs to the tribe. Why not? because traits do not exist in a vacuum. the connection you feel with your relatives in general was formed by natural selection, but since natural selection is not a conscious, intelligent thing, it did not form that connection to be contingent on whether a particular person was useful to the survival and prosperity of the group or not. this isn't difficult to understand.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 07:00
|
|
|
TacticalUrbanHomo posted:no, atheists do not believe that there is/are a god/gods. it isn't an assertion of the negative, simply a rejection of the positive. "atheists" and "agnostics" are not two mutually exclusive groups; theism is a belief, gnosticism is a claim of knowledge. regardless, even a gnostic atheist is not professing a religious ideology, merely an assertion that something does not exist. that does not constitute an ideology. If a person conceded that knowledge of the existence or non-existence of a God or gods was impossible, why would they spend their time hounding and insulting people who belong to other religions, as so many atheists clearly do? quote:because traits do not exist in a vacuum. the connection you feel with your relatives in general was formed by natural selection, but since natural selection is not a conscious, intelligent thing, it did not form that connection to be contingent on whether a particular person was useful to the survival and prosperity of the group or not. this isn't difficult to understand. So then you agree that this origin for morality is based entirely on self-interest and material advantage in an indifferent universe?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 07:05
|
|
|
there is no god
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 07:05
|
|
|
Theists believe frosting and icing are actually the same thing, which is not actually possible in a universe with a deity, thus proving at the core they're really atheists.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
The Protagonist posted:You held aloft insane hyperbole as a valid argument. Sorry I got heated. I only argue that a morality based on evolution is a morality based on expediency and self-interest. What is good for your genes, if necessary at the expense of another's genes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
Agag posted:So then you agree that this origin for morality is based entirely on self-interest and material advantage in an indifferent universe? Self interest and empathic interest aren't mutually exclusive you know? Why are you so convinced they are?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
tetsuo posted:Theists believe frosting and icing are actually the same thing, which is not actually possible in a universe with a deity, thus proving at the core they're really atheists. There is either genitals or rear end in a top hat. The taint is an illusion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
The Protagonist posted:Self interest and empathic interest aren't mutually exclusive you know? Why are you so convinced they are? They needn't be exclusive, but in an evolutionary moral system the empathic only arises when it serves self-interest.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 07:08
|
|
|
fedoras are very fashionable
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
Agag posted:They needn't be exclusive, but in an evolutionary moral system the empathic only arises when it serves self-interest. Nooot necessarily. Self sacrifice to protect offspring is pretty common. And among all sorts of other groups ofc Emotion being the, it is believed, the 'building blocks' of intelligence, enable this kind of behavior I think. If we were perfectly rational creatures you might prove to be right, but we're not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
Agag posted:If a person conceded that knowledge of the existence or non-existence of a God or gods was impossible, why would they spend their time hounding and insulting people who belong to other religions, as so many atheists clearly do? I'm not interested in apologising for the behaviour of any particular individual, even if you did care to name them. I'm just offering a basic refutation of your claim that atheism is a religious ideology. it's not. it's not even an ideology of any kind. Agag posted:So then you agree that this origin for morality is based entirely on self-interest and material advantage in an indifferent universe? I wouldn't necessarily agree with that, if only because the natural basis for morality isn't, in itself, "based" on anything. it's just the result of a natural process.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 07:10
|
|
|
The Protagonist posted:Nooot necessarily. Self sacrifice to protect offspring is pretty common. And among all sorts of other groups ofc That is self-interest. You sacrifice yourself to propagate your own genes. You die for your country to protect your family, which secures the future of your genetic line, etc. A famous atheist spokesman wrote a popular book on this subject.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
Agag posted:They needn't be exclusive, but in an evolutionary moral system the empathic only arises when it serves self-interest. that's only true if you conflate self-interest with the interest of the species. see; bees that kill themselves when they sting, male insects (and males of many other types of animals) that die during the breeding process. edit: right, you are doing that. okay, in that context, I can agree with the above statement, but I don't know of what importance it has.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:well he does has a point But the government legally murders people all the time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
Agag posted:That is self-interest. Okay fine. But some of the basic ideological building blocks that can be subverted to lead to perverted and terrible, viral systems are still good Mr. Godwin.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 07:13
|
|
|
TacticalUrbanHomo posted:I'm not interested in apologising for the behaviour of any particular individual, even if you did care to name them. I'm just offering a basic refutation of your claim that atheism is a religious ideology. it's not. it's not even an ideology of any kind. In a materialist cosmology, literally everything and anything that happens is "just the result of a natural process." Whatever a salafist version of atheism might look like, contemporary atheism has evolved into an ideology, as the shocking similarity of arguments employed, and political and social stances taken, by most vocal atheists attests.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 07:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 20:01 |
|
|
Agag posted:In a materialist cosmology, literally everything and anything that happens is "just the result of a natural process." if you're willing to view the entire universe through a lens of reductionism that renders the word "natural" meaningless, yep. what's your point?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 07:15
|
|