Philosophy Now Forum

surreptitious57 wrote:
https://twitter.com/hackenslash1/status ... 8701326336

That is what some of us have been saying all along, so why is there still an argument?

thedoc wrote:That is what some of us have been saying all along, so why is there still an argument?

Death throes of a Nihilistic worldview.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Are you suggesting they were killed because of atheism?

I'm asking what YOU are implying. It was not I who brought the Holocaust into issue.

What do YOU think killed them? Let's hear your theory.

Let's see what we've figured out so far:

1. Atheism, whether with a big "A" or a small "a-" is the belief there is no God.

2. Atheism has neither sufficient evidence for such a claim, nor rational reasons for such a claim. If it did, it would owe it to rational people to explain those.

Even Dawkins, as mentioned above, knows and admits both #1 and #2 are true. This is why he won't call himself an "Atheist." He opts for "Firm Agnostic" instead.

3. Atheism allows people to be good if they already want to; but it also allows them to be totally evil if they want to. There is no evil it forbids, or upon which it even frowns. There is no good it favours, and no virtue it teaches us to reward. It has no position on moral values at all...except that no ultimate grounds for them exist.

4. Atheism survives on the pure negation of other people's belief. It has nothing to offer the world in its own right, since it entails nothing further than such a negation.

On these facts we all seem to agree completely.

The only think we continue to disagree about is whether it's smart, or whether a good person should want to be an Atheist (atheist).

Immanuel Can wrote:Let's see what we've figured out so far:

1. Atheism, whether with a big "A" or a small "a-" is the belief there is no God.

It's actually a case of not even giving it any thought, with a lot of people. Some of us are far too busy thinking about how we can make this world a better place for our fellow man.

2. Atheism has neither sufficient evidence for such a claim, nor rational reasons for such a claim. If it did, it would owe it to rational people to explain those.

This is a slippery slope. If one were to explain ones reasons then the next thing one knew one would find oneself having to explain why one didn't believe in Father Christmas or the Sex Fairy (like the tooth Fairy but for grown ups).

Even Dawkins, as mentioned above, knows and admits both #1 and #2 are true.

I don't think we're going to be able to let you get away with that one, dear fellow. I know you have a penchant for trying to slip outrageously false information through our net but really, there's a limit.

3. Atheism allows people to be good if they already want to; but it also allows them to be totally evil if they want to. There is no evil it forbids, or upon which it even frowns. There is no good it favours, and no virtue it teaches us to reward. It has no position on moral values at all...except that no ultimate grounds for them exist.

Reply withheld on grounds of not wanting to lend dignity to ridiculous statement by providing response.

4. Atheism survives on the pure negation of other people's belief. It has nothing to offer the world in its own right, since it entails nothing further than such a negation.

What, like you are negating the beliefs of atheists, you mean?

On these facts we all seem to agree completely.

You seem to agree with yourself completely, which is not quite the same thing.

The only think we continue to disagree about is whether it's smart, or whether a good person should want to be an Atheist (atheist).

It's not a case of wanting to be an atheist or anything else, If you are presented with something you find completely implausible what choice do you have but to disbelieve it?

Immanuel Can wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Are you suggesting they were killed because of atheism?

I'm asking what YOU are implying. It was not I who brought the Holocaust into issue.

What do YOU think killed them? Let's hear your theory.

I didn't mention the Holocaust. Kristians have been murdering jews for as long as there have been kristians. They've never been murdered BECAUSE of atheism, but there are atheists who hate jews, and that's usually because of the 'jews rule the world and own all the banks' conspiracy crap.
And no one could be as stupid as you are presenting yourself. You are just a vile little troll. I hope the mods realise that soon and ban your nasty arse off here.

Harbal wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:Even Dawkins, as mentioned above, knows and admits both #1 and #2 are true.

I don't think we're going to be able to let you get away with that one, dear fellow. I know you have a penchant for trying to slip outrageously false information through our net but really, there's a limit.

We haven't reached it yet. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfk7tW429E4


Bingo!

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Kristians have been murdering jews for as long as there have been kristians.

You don't know any more about Christians than you do about spelling, apparently. But I still want to hear your theory: how did all those people die in the Holocaust, again?

Immanuel Can wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Kristians have been murdering jews for as long as there have been kristians.

You don't know any more about Christians than you do about spelling, apparently. But I still want to hear your theory: how did all those people die in the Holocaust, again?

You tell me. As a kristian you would have a much better idea than I would.

Immanuel Can wrote:Let's see what we've figured out so far:

1. Atheism, whether with a big "A" or a small "a-" is the belief there is no God.

Once again, Mr Can: no it isn't. You still don't understand the difference between:
I do not believe there is a god.
And
I believe there is no god.
Your entire argument is predicated on a premise that isn't true.

Immanuel Can wrote:2. Atheism has neither sufficient evidence for such a claim, nor rational reasons for such a claim. If it did, it would owe it to rational people to explain those.

As above; atheism doesn't make any such claim.

Immanuel Can wrote:Even Dawkins, as mentioned above, knows and admits both #1 and #2 are true. This is why he won't call himself an "Atheist." He opts for "Firm Agnostic" instead.

Dawkins, like most atheists, acknowledges that he cannot prove that god doesn't exist. An agnostic, if anything, takes a firmer position than an atheist in that they are making an actual claim: that there can be no scientific evidence for god. Kant was an agnostic in that regard, even though the term hadn't been invented, and yet, as you point out, he was a theist. Dawkins when he made that statement either forgot, or didn't know, the difference between agnostic and atheist.

Immanuel Can wrote:3. Atheism allows people to be good if they already want to; but it also allows them to be totally evil if they want to.

Yes. And because god is supposed to have given us free will, so does theism.

Immanuel Can wrote:There is no evil it forbids, or upon which it even frowns. There is no good it favours, and no virtue it teaches us to reward. It has no position on moral values at all...

True. Because it is simply the absence of belief in a god.

Immanuel Can wrote:...except that no ultimate grounds for them exist.

Atheism makes no epistemological claims whatsoever. It is only your insistence that god decides morality that leads you to conclude that no god equals no morality.

Immanuel Can wrote:4. Atheism survives on the pure negation of other people's belief. It has nothing to offer the world in its own right, since it entails nothing further than such a negation.

Mr Can, I have to remind myself not to be surprised when you say something ridiculous. Atheism is not the negation of other people's beliefs, it is just the lack of them. If what you say were true, then the conclusion would be that if there were no theists, there would be no atheists. I would trust most people to be able to work out the absurdity, but as it's you, I'll spell it out. If there were no theists, everyone would be an atheist.

Immanuel Can wrote:On these facts we all seem to agree completely.

Earth calling Mr Can: with the possible exception of thedoc, none of the active members agree with you.

Immanuel Can wrote:The only think we continue to disagree about is whether it's smart, or whether a good person should want to be an Atheist (atheist).

If you haven't already seen it, check out Harbal's response to this.

uwot wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:Let's see what we've figured out so far:

1. Atheism, whether with a big "A" or a small "a-" is the belief there is no God.

Once again, Mr Can: no it isn't. You still don't understand the difference between:
I do not believe there is a god.
And
I believe there is no god.
Your entire argument is predicated on a premise that isn't true.

Immanuel Can wrote:2. Atheism has neither sufficient evidence for such a claim, nor rational reasons for such a claim. If it did, it would owe it to rational people to explain those.

As above; atheism doesn't make any such claim.

Immanuel Can wrote:Even Dawkins, as mentioned above, knows and admits both #1 and #2 are true. This is why he won't call himself an "Atheist." He opts for "Firm Agnostic" instead.

Dawkins, like most atheists, acknowledges that he cannot prove that god doesn't exist. An agnostic, if anything, takes a firmer position than an atheist in that they are making an actual claim: that there can be no scientific evidence for god. Kant was an agnostic in that regard, even though the term hadn't been invented, and yet, as you point out, he was a theist. Dawkins when he made that statement either forgot, or didn't know, the difference between agnostic and atheist.

Immanuel Can wrote:3. Atheism allows people to be good if they already want to; but it also allows them to be totally evil if they want to.

Yes. And because god is supposed to have given us free will, so does theism.

Immanuel Can wrote:There is no evil it forbids, or upon which it even frowns. There is no good it favours, and no virtue it teaches us to reward. It has no position on moral values at all...

True. Because it is simply the absence of belief in a god.

Immanuel Can wrote:...except that no ultimate grounds for them exist.

Atheism makes no epistemological claims whatsoever. It is only your insistence that god decides morality that leads you to conclude that no god equals no morality.

Immanuel Can wrote:4. Atheism survives on the pure negation of other people's belief. It has nothing to offer the world in its own right, since it entails nothing further than such a negation.

Mr Can, I have to remind myself not to be surprised when you say something ridiculous. Atheism is not the negation of other people's beliefs, it is just the lack of them. If what you say were true, then the conclusion would be that if there were no theists, there would be no atheists. I would trust most people to be able to work out the absurdity, but as it's you, I'll spell it out. If there were no theists, everyone would be an atheist.

Immanuel Can wrote:On these facts we all seem to agree completely.

Earth calling Mr Can: with the possible exception of thedoc, none of the active members agree with you.

Immanuel Can wrote:The only think we continue to disagree about is whether it's smart, or whether a good person should want to be an Atheist (atheist).

If you haven't already seen it, check out Harbal's response to this.

Why does the creep capitalise 'atheist'? So-called 'atheists' can believe any other crap (eg astrology, 'psychics'..)which is why it's such a stupid and meaningless word. Critical thinking and scepticism are pretty good safeguards against unwarranted beliefs.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: You tell me. As a kristian you would have a much better idea than I would.

So you don't know? You're just throwing around accusations of genocide? How much do you hate Christians, and how much do you despise the truth?

But here's some truth for you. The Jews of the Holocaust were not killed for their religion. The survivors themselves say so. They point out that though they tried, there was absolutely nothing they could do to make the Nazis have mercy on them. Converting to anything didn't save them or abate the Nazi hatred. Secular Jews were killed every bit as quickly as the Hassidim were. Women or men, educated, talented, wise or foolish, religious or atheist, the Nazis hated all of them and killed all of them with equal relish.

Why? Because their hatred was based on race, not religion. They didn't care if a Jewish person was religious or not. It didn't matter to them. Of course they always, like all sides, said "God" was on their side. In a war, the factions always do that. But the truth is manifest from both what they said and what their victims said.

They were racial supremacists, followers of Darwinian genetics, Heideggerian philosophy, socialism and Arian mythology.

Now, tell me YOUR theory. I reeeeally want to hear this.

Immanuel Can wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: You tell me. As a kristian you would have a much better idea than I would.

So you don't know? You're just throwing around accusations of genocide? How much do you hate Christians, and how much do you despise the truth?

But here's some truth for you. The Jews of the Holocaust were not killed for their religion. The survivors themselves say so. They point out that though they tried, there was absolutely nothing they could do to make the Nazis have mercy on them. Converting to anything didn't save them or abate the Nazi hatred. Secular Jews were killed every bit as quickly as the Hassidim were. Women or men, educated, talented, wise or foolish, religious or atheist, the Nazis hated all of them and killed all of them with equal relish.

Why? Because their hatred was based on race, not religion. They didn't care if a Jewish person was religious or not. It didn't matter to them. Of course they always, like all sides, said "God" was on their side. In a war, the factions always do that. But the truth is manifest from both what they said and what their victims said.

They were racial supremacists, followers of Darwinian genetics, Heideggerian philosophy, socialism and Arian mythology.

Now, tell me YOUR theory. I reeeeally want to hear this.

Patronising shit. You think I don't know all of that? You won't see me arguing over whether Hitler or Stalin were believers in your god or not. To me it's irrelevant. What IS relevant is the blind worship of a domineering leader, and a free-rein to vent and act on previously suppressed hatreds and prejudices. Nazism was a religion in itself. 'Blind worship of a leader/blind worship of a god'. I see little difference, except that one is something tangible. The fictional ''The Protocols of the Elders of Zion'' was probably poured over by the nazis. I don't think there were many sceptics or critical thinkers among them.
YOU are the one who keeps on with your hateful rants that athiests are the root of all evil.