'Shock' atheists

[b*braze]

best thread ive read in a while... continue

 

[judahxulu]

I meant he's trying to negate the truth of the quote by pointing out a negative characteristic of Jefferson, his racism... so ad hominem attack on Jefferson not me

exactly...are these tactics familiar?

 

[Bodhi]

First of all, you don't have to let go of spirituality to qualify as an athiest. That's where most arguments in here fall apart.

Secondly, there are many theories on how the universe formed. Many athiests do not subscribe to the belief that it formed from "nothing" and Stephen H. is not the spokesperson for atheists worldwide. One theory is quantum vaccuum and another is the singluarity among other theories. buddhists believe that the universe is infinite

Thirdly, you cannot prove the existance of a god nor can you absolutely disprove it but logically, it is highly improbable for the bible god to exist

 

[judahxulu]

First of all, you don't have to let go of spirituality to qualify as an athiest. That's where most arguments in here fall apart.
Secondly, there are many theories on how the universe formed. Many athiests do not subscribe to the belief that it formed from "nothing" and Stephen H. is not the spokesperson for atheists worldwide. One theory is quantum vaccuum and another is the singluarity among other theories. buddhists believe that the universe is infinite
Thirdly, you cannot prove the existance of a god nor can you absolutely disprove it but logically, it is highly improbable for the bible god to exist

Ok so you are saying that spirits exist?

And how is it improbable for a god to exist but probable for a spiritual realm to exist?

 

[judahxulu]

just because he was racist (but loved the sistas, go figure) doesnt discredit that quote

first of all he's got more in the negative category than racism. second of all, i challenge any atheist here to go find a rifle toting, white, christian survivalist or a iranian muslim extremist or the the big, black dope dealer with a glock u buy weed from and ridicule their belief IN PERSON and see how far jefferson's advice takes u. lastly....loved the "sistas"? yeah in a ghetto gaggers kinda way....

 

[Bodhi]

Ok so you are saying that spirits exist?

And how is it improbable for a god to exist but probable for a spiritual realm to exist?

Difficult to explain without writing a book myself but there are books out there on the subject. I'm not a Buddhist, but again, I'll use Buddhism as an example. There is a high level of spirituality involved in Buddhist beliefs the but the idea of a creator god is rejected. The universe is held to be infinite and reincarnation also plays a part.

 

[judahxulu]

Difficult to explain without writing a book myself but there are books out there on the subject. I'm not a Buddhist, but again, I'll use Buddhism as an example. There is a high level of spirituality involved in Buddhist beliefs the but the idea of a creator god is rejected. The universe is held to be infinite and reincarnation also plays a part.

So you can't answer the simple question whether you think spirits exist or not?

Do you measure your beliefs in reincarnation and a spiritual realm by the same standard you measure your disbelief in a creator god?

What is the causality of spiritual activity?

These are not difficult questions.

 

[Bodhi]

So you can't answer the simple question whether you think spirits exist or not?

Do you measure your beliefs in reincarnation and a spiritual realm by the same standard you measure your disbelief in a creator god?

What is the causality of spiritual activity?

These are not difficult questions.

1. I believe that we are reincarnated; the spirit is eternal. We always have been there/here and we always will.
2. Yes, I do
3. What you are trying to get at is that something had to create these spirits. Okay, so you go with the idea of a god. But something had to create that god going by that logic. What created your god? What is the causality of that?

Anyway, I'm not gonna go on and on with you about it because your belief system is just that. Beliefs. But my point was that atheism doesn't require you to disassociate yourself from any spirituality. And my point was proven with that example of Buddhism. If you want more information on Buddhism, you can go read a book

 

[Hyde Parke]

smh @ Joanie out here failing bad w/his carnival dunk tank act. this dude refuses or is unable to articulate the foundation from which hes based his ideologies. instead uses words & quotes that sync with his views throws those out there and hopes that will save him. lacking the understanding that the word itself never the actual thing.

 

[Huruma]

Atheism isn't a belief, it is the rejection of a belief

I think of a-theism as the absence of a belief. Agnostics, who claim that they don't or can't know whether or not a deity exists, are atheists even though they aren't strong atheists (people, like myself, who not only lack a belief in god but have a positive belief that no god exists). Then again, maybe my definition of 'atheist' is too literal/open since it would include infants, chimpanzees, rocks etc.

edit :

a rejection of belief that requires rejection of something you cant prove or disprove by empirical means.

Although I think strong atheism is logically sound, neither theism or strong atheism can be supported by empirical evidence.

 

[whar67]

I support 'shock' atheist and believe they serve a vital function. For a very long time religion has held a special place in the marketplace of ideas. it was the one thing that you could not question or mock; it was 'sacred'. If there is a more evil word in the English language than sacred I can not think of it. Cloaking religion and religious belief as sacred places beyond touch or question. The 'shock' atheist tear down this wall of sanctity and force those ideas right into the light to be judge as all ideas should with logic and rationalism. Sure those atheists will never convert the people they argue with but when that argument is conducted in the public square it can move the audience in one direction or an other. Since the fastest growing "religion" in the US is 'No Religion' the shock atheist are doing a pretty good job.

 

[Jonas.dini]

I think of a-theism as the absence of a belief. Agnostics, who claim that they don't or can't know whether or not a deity exists, are atheists even though they aren't strong atheists (people, like myself, who not only lack a belief in god but have a positive belief that no god exists). Then again, maybe my definition of 'atheist' is too literal/open since it would include infants, chimpanzees, rocks etc.

edit :

Although I think strong atheism is logically sound, neither theism or strong atheism can be supported by empirical evidence.

Although this thread proved enormously entertaining, at some point about four pages ago I became convinced that you made it to rile people up... arguably a troll thread.

I support 'shock' atheist and believe they serve a vital function. For a very long time religion has held a special place in the marketplace of ideas. it was the one thing that you could not question or mock; it was 'sacred'. If there is a more evil word in the English language than sacred I can not think of it. Cloaking religion and religious belief as sacred places beyond touch or question. The 'shock' atheist tear down this wall of sanctity and force those ideas right into the light to be judge as all ideas should with logic and rationalism. Sure those atheists will never convert the people they argue with but when that argument is conducted in the public square it can move the audience in one direction or an other. Since the fastest growing "religion" in the US is 'No Religion' the shock atheist are doing a pretty good job.

 

[Huruma]

Although this thread proved enormously entertaining, at some point about four pages ago I became convinced that you made it to rile people up... arguably a troll thread.

Who, atheists or theists? I was just pointing out that people are rarely ever persuaded by people who force them to become defensive about their views. Stress itself clouds our better judgement and interferes with critical thinking so it makes clear sense that most people are more in a position to analyze something impartially when they don't associate the opposing argument with humiliation or fear (the threat of a worldview that seems harsh, offensive or unfamiliar).

I support 'shock' atheist and believe they serve a vital function. For a very long time religion has held a special place in the marketplace of ideas. it was the one thing that you could not question or mock; it was 'sacred'. If there is a more evil word in the English language than sacred I can not think of it. Cloaking religion and religious belief as sacred places beyond touch or question. The 'shock' atheist tear down this wall of sanctity and force those ideas right into the light to be judge as all ideas should with logic and rationalism. Sure those atheists will never convert the people they argue with but when that argument is conducted in the public square it can move the audience in one direction or an other. Since the fastest growing "religion" in the US is 'No Religion' the shock atheist are doing a pretty good job.

'No religion' is probably rising because more people are more educated than ever before and an improved standards of living (in my opinion) which would explain why countries like Sweden and Japan have a significantly higher atheist populations than Rwanda or Iraq do.

 

[Jonas.dini]

Who, atheists or theists?

Both.

I was just pointing out that people are rarely ever persuaded by people who force them to become defensive about their views. Stress itself clouds our better judgement and interferes with critical thinking so it makes clear sense that most people are more in a position to analyze something impartially when they don't associate the opposing argument with humiliation or fear (the threat of a worldview that seems harsh, offensive or unfamiliar).

As noted early in this thread, I'm skeptical about this blanket assertion.

 

[whar67]

'No religion' is probably rising because more people are more educated than ever before and an improved standards of living (in my opinion) which would explain why countries like Sweden and Japan have a significantly higher atheist populations than Rwanda or Iraq do.

I would certainly agree that education reduces religiosity. This has been born out in several studies. However the US occupies a special place when it come to religion and educational advancement. Compared to similar education levels in Europe Americans tend to retain religiousness at a higher rate. Perhaps the recent rise is simply the natural effect of education on religion but I believe that Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris have had a positive effect in moving the discussion toward rationalism.

 

[judahxulu]

1. I believe that we are reincarnated; the spirit is eternal. We always have been there/here and we always will.

2. Yes, I do

3. What you are trying to get at is that something had to create these spirits. Okay, so you go with the idea of a god. But something had to create that god going by that logic. What created your god? What is the causality of that?

Anyway, I'm not gonna go on and on with you about it because your belief system is just that. Beliefs. But my point was that atheism doesn't require you to disassociate yourself from any spirituality. And my point was proven with that example of Buddhism. If you want more information on Buddhism, you can go read a book

1.) Wouldn't that make men gods of then?

2.) Ok then can you break down how you logically arrived at the spiritual inner man/reincarnation conclusion by the same means you reached the no god conclusion?

3.) How you gone answer my direct question based off of what you wrote with a response based off what you hypothesize my intent to be? But since you went there I will ask you- where did these spirits come from? This is not a leading question. I'm just seeing how far you have thought this out and curious as to how you have drawn the conclusions you have. Concerning causality and YHWH: YHWH is causality. The word commonly translated as Jehovah or Yahweh is more of a verb than a proper name as most think. It is a compound word made up of three paleo-Hebrew words meaning "is/was/will (or causes to)be. In other words self-generated.

My father is a Buddhist and I practice Xiaolin Gong-Fu. I'm very familiar with its tenets. I have the books. The Dhammapada never gets old to me.

You seem rather defensive and apprehensive. It looks like you were comfortable going back and forth with One Spliff, especially after you got his goat. Why then be dismissive about straightforward questions and conversations. Sorry for generalizing, but it seems you guys love going back and forth with guys you can troll or intellectually best by logical or nefarious means, but you play this cop-out "i aint got time for this shit" type of attitude with me. I'm not here to convert you, I'm just curious and simultaneously fed up with some of this intellectual bullying I see going on around here- and you know who and what I'm referring to.....

 

[judahxulu]

I would certainly agree that education reduces religiosity. This has been born out in several studies. However the US occupies a special place when it come to religion and educational advancement. Compared to similar education levels in Europe Americans tend to retain religiousness at a higher rate. Perhaps the recent rise is simply the natural effect of education on religion but I believe that Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris have had a positive effect in moving the discussion toward rationalism.

Yeha and I'll bet the studies show these trends only to be true in areas most influenced by Western culture. Prayer and religious references have been outlawed in the public schools system since the 60's and social ills have grown exponentially since then. Francis Fukuyama details this very well. What good are a bunch of atheists with more degrees than masonic thermometers if they cant invent conveniences without fucking up the earth, if they cant stop the rapid decline of the industrialized world- if they cant even cure the common cold or create a single blade of grass??? There is a direct connection between this thing you call rationalism and social decline. These godless scholars you boast of are on top of the game and they aint busting a fucking grape so to speak. Bunch of educated fools IMO.

The answer = the median between religiosity and rationalism. But both ends of these extremes are too arrogant to admit "hey we don't know what the fuck were doing and shit is getting more and more messy...lets go back to the drawing board".

 

[@My_nameaintearl]

I practice Xiaolin Gong-Fu.

lmao

never change, crazy internet people

 

[judahxulu]

lmao

never change, crazy internet people

How does that relate to what you quoted? I take martial arts. So do a lotta people. Whats crazy about that?

 

[b*braze]

How does that relate to what you quoted? I take martial arts. So do a lotta people. Whats crazy about that?

rick james had a lil somethin to say about that lol