Bill O'Reilly"s downfall

[Immanuel Can]

...the Atheist dogma...

I would agree with you that Atheism has a dogma...though a very limited and anti-intellectual one.

For example, these are the Atheist commandments:

No gods.
No allowing that anyone else has reason to believe in gods.
All "religions" will be treated as the same. (All will be kept in fuzzy focus only.)
No part of the achievements of any "religion" will count. Every sin committed by any will be attributed to all.
No Atheist is to be required to justify his/her disbelief in any way.

That's pretty much the dogma.

After that, Atheism is completely open to whatever happens. Once religion is dead, so is morality -- just as Dostoevsky said. There is no other dogma -- except Theism -- which cannot be legitimately fused with Atheism, since Atheism voids the moral field of content. It's open to everything.

If I'm wrong, I would invite any Atheist-apologist here to give me one -- just one -- moral precept that an Atheist is required to believe or practice.

[Skip]

Cite it. Link it. Quote it. Quoteitquoteitquoateit!!!!
No quote, no wafer.

[Skip]

For what it's worth, here is my version ---
----- THAT NOBODY, ANYWHERE, EVER, IS REQUIRED TO ACCEPT ---

All claims to a personal hot-line to some supernatural authority are bogus.
Anyone who tells you to obey him, or else some god will punish you, has a suspect agenda.
Do the best you can in this life, in this world, with and for whatever other life-forms you can team up with, to minimize suffering and maximize well-being, according to the best information your senses, faculties and reason can devise.

[Immanuel Can]

For what it's worth, here is my version ---

----- THAT NOBODY, ANYWHERE, EVER, IS REQUIRED TO ACCEPT ---

Is that an additional dogma? "Nobody is allowed to require other people to accept things?" I just wonder, because you put it in caps, as if you think it's terribly important: but what logic would an Atheist give for thinking it matters at all?

Why not impose your will on others? Who shall say thee nay?

All claims to a personal hot-line to some supernatural authority are bogus.

But for this, you have offered no reason. You just affirm it, time and time again, but never give one iota of evidence to suggest you know it's right. So I think, as dogma's go, it's a pretty irrational one.

Anyone who tells you to obey him, or else some god will punish you, has a suspect agenda.

Agreed. But then we ought to look at the "agenda," and see if it's a good or bad "agenda." We shouldn't leave it as "suspect." Let's go find out for sure.

Do the best you can in this life, in this world, with and for whatever other life-forms you can team up with, to minimize suffering and maximize well-being, according to the best information your senses, faculties and reason can devise.

This one is highly problematic to understand. WHY would anyone think you were obligated to "minimize" the suffering of others, when nature is a matter of survival of the fittest? And why should you care about anybody's "well-being"? In fact, how would you even know what "well-being" for them means, unless you decide arbitrarily to impose on them an agenda not their own, as in "You don't know what your 'well-being' is, but I'm going to tell you..."

Why not, as an Atheist, say this instead: "I'm strong, and others are weak. If I push them aside, I get more nachos -- more power, more influence, more money, more women, a bigger slice of every pie. So let the weak die and the strong thrive...and me in particular."

Can you give one reason why an Atheist can't be a perfectly good Atheist and believe that second alternative? Is there even one reason why he has a duty to take the first in preference to it?

[uwot]

For example, these are the Atheist commandments:

No gods.

As opposed to 'No gods except mine'. It's just the next logical step.

No allowing that anyone else has reason to believe in gods.

You can believe in as many gods as please you. That your reasons for doing so are a bit crap, isn't our problem.

All "religions" will be treated as the same. (All will be kept in fuzzy focus only.)

Yes, but any religion that gets a bit uppity and starts telling other people what to do, will get a slap.

No part of the achievements of any "religion" will count.

Many wonderful things have been created by artists, architects and scientists in the name of religion. Religion has achieved nothing without human input.

Every sin committed by any will be attributed to all.

This is the basis of christianity and precisely why people reject it. Original sin, the fact that we have bodies that feed, fart and fuck, is the whole reason that christianity thinks we need saving. Same with Judaism and Islam. It is the most stupid idea ever, and the one that has been most widely believed.

No Atheist is to be required to justify his/her disbelief in any way.

Of course not. Nobody has to justify there lack of belief in anything, least of all things for which there is no evidence.

That's pretty much the dogma.

As others have said: where is the text?

After that, Atheism is completely open to whatever happens. Once religion is dead, so is morality -- just as Dostoevsky said. There is no other dogma -- except Theism -- which cannot be legitimately fused with Atheism, since Atheism voids the moral field of content. It's open to everything.

It's because you are a divine command theorist, Mr Can, that you cannot conceive of morality without god given instructions.

If I'm wrong, I would invite any Atheist-apologist here to give me one -- just one -- moral precept that an Atheist is required to believe or practice.

Do not let your treatment of others be determined by the fear of a red hot poker up your arse.

[Skip]

For what it's worth, here is my version ---

----- THAT NOBODY, ANYWHERE, EVER, IS REQUIRED TO ACCEPT ---

Is that an additional dogma? "Nobody is allowed to require other people to accept things?"

Oh, do learn to read! That nobody is required to accept my moral directive.
If you want to require obedience from other people, it's up to them to tell you where you can stick your commandments.

[Immanuel Can]

For what it's worth, here is my version ---

Is that an additional dogma? "Nobody is allowed to require other people to accept things?"

Oh, do learn to read! That nobody is required to accept my moral directive.

You miss the point. I'm not accusing you of being some kind of fascist -- I'm inviting you to explain why you felt you ought to preface your comments with the disclaimer that you weren't telling anybody what to do.

Why SHOULDN'T you compel them? What precept of Atheism tells you that would be...what's the word..."wrong" of you to do?

That's the question.

[thedoc]

All claims to a personal hot-line to some supernatural authority are bogus.

But for this, you have offered no reason. You just affirm it, time and time again, but never give one iota of evidence to suggest you know it's right. So I think, as dogma's go, it's a pretty irrational one.

You can only actually know your own mind, what others tell you may or may not be true, you just don't know.
However I think IC's one item on his list of atheist dogma might apply here, "No part of the achievements of any "religion" will count. Every sin committed by any will be attributed to all". You, and many like you, automatically discount any religious claim of an experience that points to the existence of God. Since they are accounts by a religious person, they are automatically wrong, That seems to be rather closed minded to me, and atheists are usually claiming to be more open minded.

[thedoc]

Is that an additional dogma? "Nobody is allowed to require other people to accept things?"

Oh, do learn to read! That nobody is required to accept my moral directive.

You miss the point. I'm not accusing you of being some kind of fascist -- I'm inviting you to explain why you felt you ought to preface your comments with the disclaimer that you weren't telling anybody what to do.

Why SHOULDN'T you compel them? What precept of Atheism tells you that would be...what's the word..."wrong" of you to do?

That's the question.

It seems that many atheists conflate "atheist dogma" with "individual actions", thinking that if one atheist is found to be acting in a reasonable and kind way, then all atheists must feel the same way.

[attofishpi]

I don't think people are sniggering at the fact that there is no God, I think they are angry at what others do in the name of a God who seems only present in heartfelt interpretations of others, who describe themselves as witnesses. What has God done to prevent death or disaster, that wipes out, not just the guilty, but those innocent of sin?

In all likelihood - saved them to reincarnate in safer pastures. Reality is a convoluted apparition of the Truth. There is a reason for 'God' to leave us with DOUBT.

Reincarnate where? I thought the afterlife in the Judeo-Chritianic religions, promised, not rebirth, but spiritual liberation in 'heaven' or penance in 'hell'? Islam is not open to the idea of reincarnation, from what I know.

A sage spoke to me from the aether (yes im one of those) and advised we reincarnate as a child to the family we are deserving off. I have 20yrs experience of God - i have experienced a lot of hell and a little of heaven. I have not found a quote from the buy bull (bible) that death is required for heaven or hell - seems it is here during our lives on Earth ...and for the taking.

Reality is a convoluted apparition of the Truth. There is a reason for 'God' to leave us with DOUBT.

This line is haunting me.

This life is haunting me.

So God has created us with a flawed mechanism, for detecting 'truth', called 'perception', with reason to create 'doubt' , whilst all the while wanting us to accept 'true faith' in Him?

From my experience of God - it wants us to be a lot more intelligent than just accept mans writing in a buy bull. It doesnt want us just to accept - but rationalise. ...and from my experience of this entity - it seems quite likely that entropy is key. That is the reason for DOUBT.
It doesnt truly give a fuck about the raping murderers etc - their folly - to reincarnate the energy of man - the beast. Rich cunts that don't give a fuck about the poor - likely reincarnate in the poorest part of Africa - etc etc etc... I've experienced Karma and at its lowest ebb entropy is a beast.

Is this some kind of warped, but divine, reality game show? "I've No Idea What You're Up To... Get Me Out of Here!"

Thats life - consider this - IF there is a God - why the fuck were WE designated HUMAN and animals etc are designated animals - don't they get the chance to be human? Don't you think some humans have negated their privilege to be human?

http://www.androcies.com

[Immanuel Can]

It seems that many atheists conflate "atheist dogma" with "individual actions", thinking that if one atheist is found to be acting in a reasonable and kind way, then all atheists must feel the same way.

That's a really good point. And really a marvel of what Orwell called "groupthink."

The assumption is that all bad things done by "religions" are the equal blame of all, and any good done by any Atheist is the common virtue of all.

Interesting. Well said.

[Skip]

There is no atheist dogma. And atheist isn't a name; it's a generic term.
I stated my personal belief, which
- I do not attempt to force on other people,
- and which I do not feel in any way obliged to justify
- or provide philosophical principles for;
nor do I recognize anyone's entitlement to such justification or explanation,
- but here's a freebie: because I dislike bullying and bullies

Share it if it appeals; if it doesn't, make up your own code.

I will not initiate an unprovoked attack on your or your personal beliefs.
I will repel, by any means available, an attack by you.
And I will satirize, mock, deride, ridicule, lampoon and disparage any belief system I consider worthy of such treatment.

[Skip]

This -

It seems that many atheists conflate "atheist dogma" with "individual actions", thinking that if one atheist is found to be acting in a reasonable and kind way, then all atheists must feel the same way.

and this

Immanuel Can --- The assumption is that all bad things done by "religions" are the equal blame of all, and any good done by any Atheist is the common virtue of all.

as a response to this

Skip -- Good people behave well, whether they believe in anything supernatural or not; bad people behave badly, no [matter]*what they profess to believe.

do not quite fit.


What are you so afraid of? Why do you need to keep making up this lame propaganda?

PS I'm not demanding to know... Well, actually, I don't even care all that much. Just helpfully suggesting you get that log in your eye checked out before it makes you blind. More blind.

(* late-noticed typing error, corrected for clarity )

[thedoc]

There is no atheist dogma. And atheist isn't a name; it's a generic term.
I stated my personal belief, which
- I do not attempt to force on other people,
- and which I do not feel in any way obliged to justify
- or provide philosophical principles for;
nor do I recognize anyone's entitlement to such justification or explanation,
- but here's a freebie: because I dislike bullying and bullies

Share it if it appeals; if it doesn't, make up your own code.

I will not initiate an unprovoked attack on your or your personal beliefs.
I will repel, by any means available, an attack by you.
And I will satirize, mock, deride, ridicule, lampoon and disparage any belief system I consider worthy of such treatment.

You are certainly under no obligation to provide reasons and no-one is entitled to a response from you.
However it seems to me that if you are willing to take the trouble to post your beliefs and ideas, you would also be willing to explain why you believe as you do. To post a belief without any explanation, or offer of an explanation, is a bit like a hit and run.

[Skip]

You are certainly under no obligation to provide reasons and no-one is entitled to a response from you.
However it seems to me that if you are willing to take the trouble to post your beliefs and ideas, you would also be willing to explain why you believe as you do.

I thought my statement was self-explanatory. But, since you ask nicely:
Because it works.

To post a belief without any explanation, or offer of an explanation, is a bit like a hit and run.

"Ooops, I didn't see you there!"* Did I hit you very hard? Any fractures?

In fact, I've been pretty much just buzzing this thread once in a while, casually, since the whole controversy over whether Shakespeare is responsible for every political assassination since the opening night of Macbeth - or whatever. I'm not really here.

(*Lincoln Meyer)