Philosophy Now Forum

Harbal wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: What a bigot.

I think thedoc's behaviour has definitely got worse since he's become pals with Immanuel Can. I'm not saying he never used to talk any nonsense before but it's stepped up a gear since he's been under the influence of Mr. snotty Can. If this were a school class I think the teacher would have separated them by now and moved them to opposite sides of the classroom.

I wonder how those 'immoral' kristian shit-heads can explain how 'atheists' make up only 0.07 percent of the US prison population. Clearly 'atheists' have a much stronger sense of 'morality' than kristians. I also hope they never use medication because a disproportionate number of scientists and medical researchers are 'atheist'. It's also funny that a big part of their 'moral code' is 'though shalt not kill', yet kristians are the most vocal supporters of the death penalty in the US. They really are too stupid to even bother to try to reason with. Stupid, but dangerous.

Necromancer wrote:Typically,

"Religion does what? I'm an Atheist/atheist! I don't believe in any god!

What? Ethics does what? Ethics what?!!! I don't believe in truth! I believe in subjective ethics! In Nietzschean ethics! Ethics that allows for all! In me, at least!

Get me straight! Atheism doesn't inhibit anything, prohibit anything, is for all! What is your point?!!! I'm only an Atheist/atheist! What's wrong with that?!!!"

Cheers!

I'm an "agnostic" (apparently) but greatly enjoyed this post

I do not believe it's possible for a sane person to deny evolution. According to creationists, all species were created at once. When? Life started a few hundred thousand years after the Hadean period ended. At that time there was hardly any oxygen in the atmosphere and the Earth was populated by anaerobic microorganisms. So how would all species be created at once if there's no oxygen?

Another vexing question: are the females of all species created from a male rib or is it only human females? What of female invertebrates? Were they formed from a chunk of male exoskeleton or internal organ? Then there's the young Earth creationists who completely discard reason and logic in favour of obvious legends. To that end, they are similar to the Flat Earth Society.

We routinely give such people control over our public policy and then wonder why everything is corrupt and pear-shaped. The point of theism is ultimately social and political - a "tribal"banding together of a group against "the rest". There is powerful in-group loyalty and often equally powerful out-group demonisation.

Just as humans banded together to control other species, theists have always banded together to control other people. Since their loyalty is only ever to each other, they govern more for their in-group than for the many (an example is how churches routinely covered up child abuse within their ranks, showing corrupt loyalty to their own even in the most extreme of circumstances). It's true that cronyism and corruption is far from limited only to theists, but hard-line theists necessarily take office with moral conflicts of interest as regards their attitude towards the many.

At this stage, a significant lobbying number of theists in the White House believe that humanity is on the verge of the apocalypse and the second coming. Thus, they have no interest in preserving nature. They are rooting for the apocalypse to come ASAP because that's when they will be rewarded and those they loathe will die.

Dubious wrote:Why not just accept this pronouncement for your own piece of mind and forget about atheists?

Because I have more than a "piece" of mind.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Dubious wrote:Why not just accept this pronouncement for your own piece of mind and forget about atheists?

Because I have more than a "piece" of mind.

Who told you that?

....

.. ... ..

Greta wrote: I do not believe it's possible for a sane person to deny evolution. According to creationists, all species were created at once. When? Life started a few hundred thousand years after the Hadean period ended. At that time there was hardly any oxygen in the atmosphere and the Earth was populated by anaerobic microorganisms. So how would all species be created at once if there's no oxygen?

Life started more than 3 billion years ago, the Earth and the Solar system are about 3.7 billion years old, anaerobic microorganism are alive, and they still survive in special environments. It took a long time for oxygen to accumulate in the atmosphere and make aerobic life possible, it didn't start all at once, but evolved over long periods of time. At first oxygen combine with Iron to form Iron oxide and then accumulated in the atmosphere. Just a little research will give you the answers to these questions, but the Creationists sites have it wrong, the Earth and the Universe was not created 6,000 to 10,000 years ago.

Harbal wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:

Dubious wrote:Why not just accept this pronouncement for your own piece of mind and forget about atheists?

Because I have more than a "piece" of mind.

Who told you that?

It's self evident, just as your lack is self evident from your posts.

Lacewing wrote:Unfortunately, this passionate and generous effort by atheists could be wrongly perceived as somehow acknowledging that such impenetrable positions based on ignorance, dishonesty, and dishonor are even valid to argue with.

Everyone who tries to make sense of their world is in the same boat. All we have is the sights and sounds of our own experience, which loosely equates with science, and the stories that others have told to account for their own experiences, which is more or less what philosophy is about. I don't think atheists are necessarily any more passionate and generous than theists, and don't doubt that Mr Can sincerely believes that loving Jesus Christ, as he does, will lead to eternal happiness. The fact that he takes the trouble to try and persuade others is generous and I have already said that if I believed as he does, I too would try to 'save' others. Nor do I think that theists are necessarily more ignorant, dishonest or dishonourable as a rule, but Mr Can's passion clearly has authority over his intellectual integrity.

Lacewing wrote:When in truth, it's just a natural drive for humans to strive toward broadening and evolving thinking forward collectively.

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here. I don't think that the drive to think collectively is an instinct common to everyone; there are plenty of people, both theist and atheist, who respect and even take joy in other people's opinions and beliefs. The problem is people who think we should all think collectively, in other words; that we should agree with them. As you say:

Lacewing wrote:There will always be those who resist all outside of "themselves", as they want to control reality for the universe.

thedoc wrote:I can't speak for IC, but I can say that I do not discount the possibility that there are other names for God, than the Christian ones. That means that I don't know that the other Gods are not simply different names for the same God I believe in, and that God has revealed different, even contradictory aspects of God's nature to others.

Well, like I keep saying; as an atheist, I don't believe there isn't a god, I just don't believe there is one. As someone working in the history and philosophy of science, I come across ideas from respected physicists about the origin and nature of the universe, which are way more ludicrous than some versions of the god hypothesis. For all I know there is a god, and perhaps some people do experience it, but I am literally damned if it's that monster in the old testament. As above, the problem is not people who believe in god, in any guise, as a creator or benevolent influence in the universe, some of the stories they tell are wonderful. The problem is the cultural vandals who would destroy that creativity by imposing a single religion on everyone, which is exactly what Rome did with Christianity, it is what Daesh is fighting to achieve and ultimately, it is what Mr Can is trying to do on this forum.

thedoc wrote:

Harbal wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:
Because I have more than a "piece" of mind.

Who told you that?

It's self evident, just as your lack is self evident from your posts.

I'm still waiting for his first substantial idea to be offered. As near as I can see, all he does is stand on the sidelines, jabbering and dancing like a pet monkey. But he doesn't ever ante up anything. Maybe he can, and maybe he can't...but I suspect we'll never know.

So it's not worth refuting him. There's nothing to refute.

uwot wrote:

Lacewing wrote:Unfortunately, this passionate and generous effort by atheists could be wrongly perceived as somehow acknowledging that such impenetrable positions based on ignorance, dishonesty, and dishonor are even valid to argue with.

I don't think atheists are necessarily any more passionate and generous than theists

I don't either. I'm just referring to the effort put forth here to discuss something with a person who is (as you say) sacrificing intellectual integrity... and (in some opinions) playing dishonest/dishonorable games. Ignoring all that is said to him, only to lash out again at the "Atheist" entity that he, himself, has created. He has no interest in understanding anything beyond himself and his bizarre claims.

uwot wrote:Nor do I think that theists are necessarily more ignorant, dishonest or dishonourable as a rule

I don't either. This isn't about theists and atheists in general. This is about personal behavior... and Mr Can demonstrates these traits over and over. His theism does not make him a truthful, intelligent, or honorable person. I think he gives theism a bad name, actually. I know plenty of theists who genuinely respect atheists, and strive to understand beyond themselves. Mr Can is a fraud on so many levels.

uwot wrote:

Lacewing wrote:When in truth, it's just a natural drive for humans to strive toward broadening and evolving thinking forward collectively.

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here. I don't think that the drive to think collectively is an instinct common to everyone

I was trying to express an instinctive drive in humankind to "advance" and evolve for the success of the species. And I think that shows itself even in one-on-one interactions. We want to replace ignorance with intelligence and insight. We're constantly teaching each other... and showing what MORE is possible. Because we can't all move forward when we're rooted in mental swamps. (Hopefully that helps clarify... )

uwot wrote:the problem is not people who believe in god, in any guise, as a creator or benevolent influence in the universe, some of the stories they tell are wonderful. The problem is the cultural vandals who would destroy that creativity by imposing a single religion on everyone, which is exactly what Rome did with Christianity, it is what Daesh is fighting to achieve and ultimately, it is what Mr Can is trying to do on this forum.

I see the value of that first sentence... and many times I refer to "wise words" attributed to Jesus, even though I'm not sure an actual Jesus even existed. It's the "wisdom" that I'm interested in... not the idols or religions that try to own it. Wise words can come from any of us. We don't need a god or a particular belief system to be valid. Mr Can seeks to invalidate others simply based on a lack of a particular belief, and the absurdity of that defies any sort of rational thinking -- which results in only invalidating himself. It's just too stupid to take seriously.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Dubious wrote:Why not just accept this pronouncement for your own piece of mind and forget about atheists?

Because I have more than a "piece" of mind.

Unfortunately we haven't yet been shown evidence of the other pieces; just the same piece over and over again making the same piecemeal proclamations. It's to your advantage to give that piece some peaceful rest before you recommence your crusade against atheists. These barbarian hordes are hard to convert. Try using ALL the pieces simultaneously the next time around. Dare I say! That could actually be interesting!

Lacewing wrote:I was trying to express an instinctive drive in humankind to "advance" and evolve for the success of the species. And I think that shows itself even in one-on-one interactions. We want to replace ignorance with intelligence and insight. We're constantly teaching each other... and showing what MORE is possible. Because we can't all move forward when we're rooted in mental swamps. (Hopefully that helps clarify... )

Thank you; it does. I think there are two factors in this particular equation; there's the balance of an individuals curiosity/indifference and of their altruism/egoism. It is true that we are constantly teaching each other, but how much we care to learn and to what end, is part of what makes us individuals.

Lacewing wrote:...many times I refer to "wise words" attributed to Jesus, even though I'm not sure an actual Jesus even existed.

It's a moot point. Other than the gospels, canonical or otherwise, the only historical references are to people calling themselves Jesus or Christ. The name Jesus comes from the Hebrew for to save, and Christ is Greek for saviour or messiah. This forum richly shows that some people today believe they are party to some divine message that will save us; there is no reason to think that people were any different 2000 years ago. Since there was no internet, nor even much literacy, the only outlet some of our contributors would have had is public speaking. Given the strength of feeling, it is little wonder that some of these 'saviours' came to the attention of the authorities and historians.

Lacewing wrote:It's the "wisdom" that I'm interested in... not the idols or religions that try to own it. Wise words can come from any of us. We don't need a god or a particular belief system to be valid.

Indeed, and if there were no wisdom in the bible, it is unlikely that it would have been as influential as it has proved. 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' is something that any wise person would subscribe to, but Mr Can only accepts its wisdom because it is attributed to the character Jesus Christ.

Lacewing wrote:Mr Can seeks to invalidate others simply based on a lack of a particular belief, and the absurdity of that defies any sort of rational thinking -- which results in only invalidating himself. It's just too stupid to take seriously.

That may be true of Mr Can, but religious nuts are something we are having to take increasingly seriously.

Greta wrote:I do not believe it's possible for a sane person to deny evolution. According to creationists, all species were created at once. When? Life started a few hundred thousand years after the Hadean period ended. At that time there was hardly any oxygen in the atmosphere and the Earth was populated by anaerobic microorganisms. So how would all species be created at once if there's no oxygen?

Another vexing question: are the females of all species created from a male rib or is it only human females? What of female invertebrates? Were they formed from a chunk of male exoskeleton or internal organ? Then there's the young Earth creationists who completely discard reason and logic in favour of obvious legends. To that end, they are similar to the Flat Earth Society.

We routinely give such people control over our public policy and then wonder why everything is corrupt and pear-shaped. The point of theism is ultimately social and political - a "tribal"banding together of a group against "the rest". There is powerful in-group loyalty and often equally powerful out-group demonisation.

Just as humans banded together to control other species, theists have always banded together to control other people. Since their loyalty is only ever to each other, they govern more for their in-group than for the many (an example is how churches routinely covered up child abuse within their ranks, showing corrupt loyalty to their own even in the most extreme of circumstances). It's true that cronyism and corruption is far from limited only to theists, but hard-line theists necessarily take office with moral conflicts of interest as regards their attitude towards the many.

At this stage, a significant lobbying number of theists in the White House believe that humanity is on the verge of the apocalypse and the second coming. Thus, they have no interest in preserving nature. They are rooting for the apocalypse to come ASAP because that's when they will be rewarded and those they loathe will die.

Hi Greta! I see you. This issue isn't really so hard. It's only about finding common ethical ground! The Secular Humanists are already there so why don't all the nice Atheists just turn to Secular Humanism? There they can be joined by the Religious Humanists and thus the World becomes a bit more peaceful. Consider me therefore a Religious Humanist. The point is not to force you to be indoctrinated with Christian teachings. No, the point is only to agree on common ethical ground for society to be built on, no other agreement needed as such because all else is considered private and privacy is highly respected in Christianity (and other religions)! That is, we agree that privacy is kept, also lawfully!

Good?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Harbal wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: What a bigot.

I think thedoc's behaviour has definitely got worse since he's become pals with Immanuel Can. I'm not saying he never used to talk any nonsense before but it's stepped up a gear since he's been under the influence of Mr. snotty Can. If this were a school class I think the teacher would have separated them by now and moved them to opposite sides of the classroom.

I wonder how those 'immoral' kristian shit-heads can explain how 'atheists' make up only 0.07 percent of the US prison population. Clearly 'atheists' have a much stronger sense of 'morality' than kristians. I also hope they never use medication because a disproportionate number of scientists and medical researchers are 'atheist'. It's also funny that a big part of their 'moral code' is 'though shalt not kill', yet kristians are the most vocal supporters of the death penalty in the US. They really are too stupid to even bother to try to reason with. Stupid, but dangerous.

Have you ever considered that these locked up fools turn to Christianity while incarcerated. Ive been watching a lot of docos on US prisons lately and it appears to be the case. All of a sudden they seem to have some affinity with God\Christ.

I agree re the death penalty - its hypocritical of a country that has 'In God we Trust' on their currency to also permit the death penalty - but thats the US - weird\irrational.

Necromancer wrote:No, the point is only to agree on common ethical ground for society to be built on...

Good?

I'd be very interested in seeing someone do this, if it ever could be done.

But what "ethical ground" can an Atheist bring to the conversation, since as private persons, they may hold whatever ethical superstitions they choose, but their Atheism itself does not "ground" any particular ethic at all?

How do you ever manage to make common moral cause with people whose ideology makes all morality nonsense?

Immanuel Can wrote:How do you ever manage to make common moral cause with people whose ideology makes all morality nonsense?

The bounds of your delusional world are your limit to seeing the answers/reality beyond it. The nonsense you see is your own, Mr Can. You've received more than enough insightful feedback here to dispel your absurd fabrications -- but either your ignorance is too thick to grasp anything beyond your archaic boundaries, or you actually ENJOY distorting things despite all to the contrary so that you can continually feast on your nonsense questions and lash out at your ignorant concept of atheists. On either account, it appears that you must really be threatened, in order to continually act in such a desperately foolish way. Perhaps you secretly suspect/realize how insignificant your beliefs are to broader truths. That's a good start. It's all much bigger than you.