Philosophy Now Forum

A couple of simple points.

Jews believe they're chosen by God to bring light to the world.

Protestants believe people are depraved from original sin and that people have to be chosen by God to be elected for salvation, and that those chosen perform obvious good works that represent a predestined calling.

These are two clearly fatalist belief systems in Western religion.

Is the atheist association of free will with religion more of an anti-Catholic position, and doesn't it mostly have to do with opposing how free will is used to justify free markets in the name of rational choice and the diversity of utility preferences?

Furthermore, is the atheist anti-Catholic position primarily a matter of opposing the institutionalization of beliefs in society? That is do atheists want the right to abuse others in society because they oppose the insurance of people believing in universal, individual, internal equality? Instead, don't free will denying atheists want the right to lie about hypocrisy by claiming Catholics are trying to impose their beliefs in society when in reality, Catholics are trying to prevent people from imposing beliefs upon each other in society? That is Catholics believe everyone in society is endowed with grace, and that people are OK if they synthesize their grace with goodwilling faith, but that while the synthesis of grace with faith leads to the performance of good works, good works are mysterious such that nobody in society may judge anyone else's performance of them.

In turn, free will denying atheists basically want the right to judge others in society by claiming that those who expect universal, individual, internal equality are demanding that others stop judging other in society. That is free will denying atheists want the right to be intolerant by claiming those who expect tolerance are intolerant of the intolerant.

To be clear, this isn't saying that all atheists deny free will. After all, many atheists believe morality can exist on the basis of rational thought that takes place independently of artistic religion, but other atheists believe morality is fundamentally emotional instead of rational. That is they want the right to be abusive by judging others as not likable, so therefore, they want the right to force others to change. They also want the right to act out their emotions without self-control while blaming the victim. Instead of growing up themselves in behaving like mature adults, they want the right to tell others to grow up and deal with how they're bullied around because they're weak and not liked.

Likewise, are those atheists who believe in government institutionalization hypocrites, and is it possible that the entire point of those free willing atheists to be deliberately hypocritical and just get away with it?

Daktoria wrote:A couple of simple points.

Jews believe they're chosen by God to bring light to the world.

Protestants believe people are depraved from original sin and that people have to be chosen by God to be elected for salvation, and that those chosen perform obvious good works that represent a predestined calling.

These are two clearly fatalist belief systems in Western religion.

Is the atheist association of free will with religion more of an anti-Catholic position, and doesn't it mostly have to do with opposing how free will is used to justify free markets in the name of rational choice and the diversity of utility preferences?

Furthermore, is the atheist anti-Catholic position primarily a matter of opposing the institutionalization of beliefs in society? That is do atheists want the right to abuse others in society because they oppose the insurance of people believing in universal, individual, internal equality? Instead, don't free will denying atheists want the right to lie about hypocrisy by claiming Catholics are trying to impose their beliefs in society when in reality, Catholics are trying to prevent people from imposing beliefs upon each other in society? That is Catholics believe everyone in society is endowed with grace, and that people are OK if they synthesize their grace with goodwilling faith, but that while the synthesis of grace with faith leads to the performance of good works, good works are mysterious such that nobody in society may judge anyone else's performance of them.

In turn, free will denying atheists basically want the right to judge others in society by claiming that those who expect universal, individual, internal equality are demanding that others stop judging other in society. That is free will denying atheists want the right to be intolerant by claiming those who expect tolerance are intolerant of the intolerant.

To be clear, this isn't saying that all atheists deny free will. After all, many atheists believe morality can exist on the basis of rational thought that takes place independently of artistic religion, but other atheists believe morality is fundamentally emotional instead of rational. That is they want the right to be abusive by judging others as not likable, so therefore, they want the right to force others to change. They also want the right to act out their emotions without self-control while blaming the victim. Instead of growing up themselves in behaving like mature adults, they want the right to tell others to grow up and deal with how they're bullied around because they're weak and not liked.

Likewise, are those atheists who believe in government institutionalization hypocrites, and is it possible that the entire point of those free willing atheists to be deliberately hypocritical and just get away with it?

Your point on atheists, as in the mainstream atheist community, is good: being that most of them act profane around religious people and impose their beliefs on others by insulting their religions, which amounts to hypocrisy. I do, however, want to point out that in your deducing of atheism and religious people, that you are over generalizing things to make it sound like all atheists are like that; all Catholics are open minded while the Protestants closed minded.

Now surely most atheists are herds, ignorantly bashing people who don't buy into the atheistic/scientistic/materialist worldview under the guise of "free thought". But there are mistakes that you make: one being that you say that they're mainly "anti-Catholic". Atheists do criticize Catholicism for its association with the brutal atrocities undertaken during the feudal era and the Inquisitions, and are today infamous with the association of crooked minded Popes, but Atheists are not limited to criticizing Catholicism. They criticize all religions of the world, with some exceptions of Buddhism, and maybe even the moralism of Jesus and Abraham in the Abrahamic tradition, without the belief in divinity of course. Many of the criticisms of religions are indeed well founded; such as the story of Jesus and other characters in the Bible, the crimes committed under religions such as Christianity and Islam, and also the fact that religious people are generally closed off to other systems of knowledge and understanding (though there are those who are religious that are open minded). And not all Catholics are open minded either. There are still fundamentalist Catholics who practice their version of Christianity in the way that Catholicism was done in the past, with their criticism of the modern Roman Catholic Church. Here's one such website that I've discovered some years ago when researching up on religion.

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/

Another point that I shall make is that the Protestantism that you're talking off is mainly the Calvinist version of Protestantism. There's Arminianism, which also came from Protestantism, that teaches free will. Martin Luther, the founder of the Protestant Reformation, had actually believed in the concept of free will.

Your perception of Jews that they believe themselves to be chosen by God seem to be largely correct. I myself have looked into Judaism, Jewish Nationalism/Zionism, and Chabadism, and have seen the message of them being "God's chosen people", or being "superior to other races" (as with Chabad and other Hasidic organizations", along with their strong attitudes against non Jews. I must ask: what are your views on the Jews? Can you further explain that, drawing from you're sentence "Jews believe they're chosen by God to bring light to the world"?

In all fairness, you make good points, but I'd say that you should further elaborate more on this.

Right.

My focus here, to be clear, is on the Catholic ideology, not the Catholic institution. Atheists should focus on this especially since they are atheists. The definition of atheism comes from ideologically denying belief in God. Obviously, there has been some corruption in the Catholic institution, but the definition of atheism in itself shouldn't focus on that. Furthermore, whether we're talking about atheism or not, the partial corruption of the Catholic institution shouldn't assume that the entire Catholic institution is corruption. The inquisitions are a good example of this in the presumption that inquisitions had hysterical conviction rates, a presumption which is exacerbated by mass media portrayals of the Church. Another good example is the treatment of witch-hunts. In reality, the Catholic Church passed the Councils of Paderborn and Frankfurt to condemn witch-hunting and be tolerant of Pagans. In modern interpretation, the institutionalization of the Church is treated as an obsession with conformity, and in reality, lots of witch-hunting was a Protestant practice in the obsession with judging people as being chosen by God for performing good works. Those who hadn't obviously performed sufficient good works in the opinion of their peers were judged to be witches. In reality, the Catholic Church condemned slavery in the Sublimus Dei and Valladolid Debate, and it was the Protestant Royal African Company and Dutch West Indies Company which judged Native Americans and Africans as not performing good works to represent predestined callings.

Does this mean Protestants are necessarily closedminded and Catholics are necessarily openminded? No. Obviously, some Protestants are what they are because they're looking for an alternative to the partial corruption of the Catholic Church, so they relate with people worshiping independently. Likewise, they see how Catholicism can tolerate people behaving lazily, so they relate with people proving themselves through work ethic. Luther's argument was that the sale of indulgences was illegitimate since people couldn't reconcile their sins to realize salvation. Instead, people were saved by grace alone which revealed itself through good works. There was no synthesis of grace with faith, but Luther was campaigning to oppose the corruption in the Church which happened during the Renaissance with patronage and the Italian Wars...

...but in any case, atheists really need to understand that free will is not a universal value across Western religion.

As for Jews, there really isn't much to be said other than their culture is fundamentally arrogant. It's nobody's right to look down upon other peoples as "goyim". Do objective values exist that universally apply across cultured civilizations? Sure, and do some peoples appreciate those values more than others? Perhaps, but that doesn't mean you're entitled to dictate your subjective style of culture upon others. This applies on an individual level as well. You're not entitled to bully others in society by institutionalizing or professionalizing them because you don't like how they live. Just because you have a practical way of living doesn't mean you have the only practical way or that you're entitled to expect others to prove their practicality. Practicality reveals itself on its own schedule which is sometimes slower or faster than what we expect.

Daktoria wrote:A couple of simple points.

Jews believe they're chosen by God to bring light to the world.

Where does it say bring light? Jews don't proselytize.

Protestants believe people are depraved from original sin and that people have to be chosen by God to be elected for salvation, and that those chosen perform obvious good works that represent a predestined calling.

Some Protestants believe that. But they didn't invent original sin.

Is the atheist association of free will with religion

The which what?

more of an anti-Catholic position,

More than what alternative?

and doesn't it mostly have to do with opposing how free will is used to justify free markets in the name of rational choice and the diversity of utility preferences?

No.

Furthermore, is the atheist anti-Catholic position primarily a matter of opposing the institutionalization of beliefs in society?

Anti-Catholic is mainly resistance to the 1700-year brutal hegemony of RCC over Europe and its colonies.

That is do atheists want the right to abuse others in society because they oppose the insurance of people believing in universal, individual, internal equality?

No atheist I know wants to abuse anyone, for any reason. Of course, I don't know all the atheists.

Instead, don't free will denying atheists

I don't believe all atheists - or even, probably, a majority - deny free will. Those who do, do so from a scientific standpoint, and not at all because they

want the right to lie about hypocrisy

by claiming Catholics are trying to impose their beliefs in society

So, you mean, no bonfires, witch-hunts, no rack, no crusades.... All that stuff was made up by atheists?

when in reality, Catholics are trying to prevent people from imposing beliefs upon each other in society?

And a very good job they've done!

That is Catholics believe everyone in society is endowed with grace, and that people are OK if they synthesize their grace with goodwilling faith, but that while the synthesis of grace with faith leads to the performance of good works, good works are mysterious such that nobody in society may judge anyone else's performance of them.

No Inquisition, no Jesuit teachers making children kneel on corn, no scourging of the flesh...

In turn, free will denying atheists basically want the right to judge others in society by claiming that those who expect universal, individual, internal equality are demanding that others stop judging other in society. That is free will denying atheists want the right to be intolerant by claiming those who expect tolerance are intolerant of the intolerant.

Plus, they want everybody to stop throwing anybody in prison for going to the wrong church, executing them for whom they love, depriving them of employment, voting rights and education, fire-bombing birth control clinics... My, those atheists are a cruel bunch!

To be clear, this isn't saying that all atheists deny free will. After all, many atheists believe morality can exist on the basis of rational thought that takes place independently of artistic religion, but other atheists believe morality is fundamentally emotional instead of rational.

Magnanimous of you!

That is they want the right to be abusive by judging others as not likable,

Well, that's got to be a lot worse than red hot pokers to the eyes!

so therefore, they want the right to force others to change.

No. Just to stay the hell out of government.

They also want the right to act out their emotions without self-control while blaming the victim.

Which acts? Which victim?

Instead of growing up themselves in behaving like mature adults, they want the right to tell others to grow up and deal with how they're bullied around because they're weak and not liked.

Grow up. No, you grow up! Let's both grow up. Let's all grow up.

Likewise, are those atheists who believe in government institutionalization hypocrites,

Government institutionalization of what? Government is already an institution, for the regulation of law, defence and mutual assistance in a nation. Should it also regulate the private life and spiritual welfare of citizens? I don't think so.

and is it possible that the entire point of those free willing atheists to be deliberately hypocritical and just get away with it?

Get away with, what precisely?

Two simple points:
You don't know the difference between having an opinion and imposing it on others.
You don't know a damn thing about atheism.

Alright, fair enough. I most definitely see where you are coming from, and your information about the Inquisition and such as definitely enlightening for me, as I searched a bit more on it.

Regarding your points, I believe that much of the Atheists are by large ignorant and are pretty much followers who are no more open minded than religious fundamentalists who wants to enforce their beliefs on others. They obviously don't care about the religious values that people hold, and pretty much go as low as chanting "Hail Satan", as I recall Atheists chanting that at some pro Life rally. They do not know that they're being used as a product of modern society, as they watch crap TV, listen to crap music, and eat crap food and not caring about how they are being enslaved by the government by submitting to their dystopia.

Wow Skip, you most certainly came out of nowhere and got all emotional over one person objecting to the actions of Atheists. In doing so, you pick apart small bits and pieces of what Daktoria said and attacked it without giving real facts and resorted to petty attacks, which I pretty much expect from much of the Atheists on the web. Maybe you should read more of his posts on this thread and be more open minded.

WanderingLands wrote:Alright, fair enough. I most definitely see where you are coming from, and your information about the Inquisition and such as definitely enlightening for me, as I searched a bit more on it.

Good. Look up the Cathars.

Regarding your points, I believe that much of the Atheists are by large ignorant and are pretty much followers who are no more open minded than religious fundamentalists who wants to enforce their beliefs on others.

You believe that for a reason, presumably. I don't know what that reason is.

They obviously don't care about the religious values that people hold,

And is there a reason they should, when those values are oppressive and perverse?

and pretty much go as low as chanting "Hail Satan", as I recall Atheists chanting that at some pro Life rally.

I wasn't there. How do you know the chanters were atheists?
Who organized the rally? What was its objective? (Surely, not to interfere with anybody's free will?)

They do not know that they're being used as a product of modern society,

Everyone who lives in a modern society is a product of modern society. Everyone is a product of their society.

as they watch crap TV, listen to crap music, and eat crap food and not caring about how they are being enslaved by the government by submitting to their dystopia.

I watch good tv shows (BBC, mostly) listen to classical music (prefer Schubert) eat wholesome home-grown vegetables (an no animals) and don't feel particularly enslaved by my public education, excellent roads, pretty good law enforcement, adequate pension and universal health-care.
Nor do I feel enslaved by a church or fear of damnation.
But that's just me; I do not speak for all atheists.

Wow Skip, you most certainly came out of nowhere

No, I've been here the whole time.

and got all emotional

Again, no. I basically don't give a flying fig about

one person objecting to the actions of Atheists.

Attacking. One person attacking other persons without a foundation of truth or justicew should be opposed at every opportunity.

In doing so, you pick apart small bits and pieces of what Daktoria said

All of it, one small bit at a time.

and attacked it without giving real facts

I have the real facts at my fingertips. So do you.

and resorted to petty attacks,

facts

which I pretty much expect from much of the Atheists on the web.

Oh, how you suffer!
But, hey, I hear god likes that, suffering for his name's sake. So, I'm helping you store up treasure in heaven.

Good. Look up the Cathars.

Familiar with that, and familiar with the Gnostics as well (Cathars were considered Gnostics, I see). I'm not saying that the church has always been good, but that does not stop me from seeing their view of things as they do have a right to object to what the Inquisition was.

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/h ... h0075.html

You believe that for a reason, presumably. I don't know what that reason is.

I have researched on modern Atheism and looked into Atheists like "The Amazing Atheist", "thunderf00t", and others, to know that the mainstream Atheist community are by large ignorant sheep who just follow people who call themselves "atheists". I also know that there are those who are intelligent and know what they are talking about, although I do not agree with their views as I am not an Atheist (neither religious, either).

And is there a reason they should, when those values are oppressive and perverse?

How are they "oppressive and perverse"? List some examples and some evidence.

I wasn't there. How do you know the chanters were atheists?
Who organized the rally? What was its objective? (Surely, not to interfere with anybody's free will?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdWQJZHNcKI

That video above shows atheists attacking religious people over the issue of abortion.

Everyone who lives in a modern society is a product of modern society. Everyone is a product of their society.

While I do live in society, particularly modern society myself, I choose not to partake in their ways, which includes listening to crap music, watching crap TV, and eating crap foods. Thus, I refuse to be called a "product" of modern society, as I am a human being and should be reduced to such label.

I watch good tv shows (BBC, mostly) listen to classical music (prefer Schubert) eat wholesome home-grown vegetables (an no animals) and don't feel particularly enslaved by my public education, excellent roads, pretty good law enforcement, adequate pension and universal health-care.
Nor do I feel enslaved by a church or fear of damnation.
But that's just me; I do not speak for all atheists.

Well good for you on vegetarianism and classical music, though I do not care for the BBC, but whatever. You may not feel enslaved by this society, but that does not refute the fact that this society that we're all living in is a death trap of indoctrination, police statism, health care/medical monopolies, and other aspects that make this era the most oppressive of all eras.

Again, no. I basically don't give a flying fig about

If you "don't give a flying fig about", then why are you reinforcing the image of "oppressive religious fundamentalists", and attacking Daktoria on the grounds of "not knowing what Atheism means"? Your responses come across as being emotional, especially since you said that you "don't give a flying fig about", when in reality you obviously do. Also, some of your sentences are not completed; just a correction.

Attacking. One person attacking other persons without a foundation of truth or justice should be opposed at every opportunity.

I believe that Daktoria was not attacking Atheists. He made a statement saying, "To be clear, this isn't saying that all atheists deny free will. After all, many atheists believe morality can exist on the basis of rational thought that takes place independently of artistic religion, but other atheists believe morality is fundamentally emotional instead of rational". For you to say that he was attacking without foundation or justice is reactionary.

Oh, how you suffer!
But, hey, I hear god likes that, suffering for his name's sake. So, I'm helping you store up treasure in heaven.

Now you are just ignorantly portraying god as loving suffering, even though there are diverse theological discussions of what god is and what a higher power is, in both Eastern and Western religion. This shows your clear ignorance of religion, and proves that you are indeed being emotional over nothing.

Skip wrote:Where does it say bring light? Jews don't proselytize.

In the Book of Isaiah.

Some Protestants believe that. But they didn't invent original sin.

This isn't about invention. It's about focus. Jews don't recognize original sin, and Catholics recognize that original sin is compensated for from the New Testament where the covenant between men and God was reformed. In fact, the Catholic Church even deemed Jansenism heretical.

Protestants deny the value of the New Testament here in basically saying the death and resurrection of Jesus doesn't count. Instead, every individual needs to be accounted for on their own. They're either individually endowed with grace after the fall of man or they're not.

No Inquisition, no Jesuit teachers making children kneel on corn, no scourging of the flesh...

You're confusing the institution with the ideology, and projecting possible bad events to everything Catholicism stands for.

Plus, they want everybody to stop throwing anybody in prison for going to the wrong church,

Well this is exactly the point isn't it? The Catholic church believes in universal, individual, internal equality. Alternate churches wouldn't believe in that unless the point is to worship separately from corruption, but that doesn't really deal with corruption. It just runs away from it. People should be uniting in common within the Church to purify corruption.

Therefore, there's good reason by default to not tolerate other religions since alternate beliefs wouldn't believe in universal, individual, internal equality. They would believe in intolerance by default. Are you saying we should tolerate the intolerant?

executing them for whom they love,

Again, that might be justified if those they love are intolerant. We don't want intolerance to fester.

depriving them of employment,

We don't want the intolerant to work.

voting rights and education

We don't want the intolerant to vote or be educated.

, fire-bombing birth control clinics... My, those atheists are a cruel bunch!

Abortion clinics are intolerant since they apply work ethic to preborns through behaviorism. Such clinics shouldn't exist.

Contraception isn't perfect either. It still forces people to assume the risk of being created in insecure households. If it exists, it should exist in cultural context where people are willing to take responsibility for their actions in case things go wrong.

Even so, where has the Catholic Church done the above activities? It sounds like you're confusing Catholics with Evangelicals.

No. Just to stay the hell out of government.

That's not true. Many free will denying atheists look to government as a rescuer from religious influence as an alternate influence, especially when it uses science to objectify humanity in engineering society.

Which acts? Which victim?

Are you saying you believe in plausible deniability being OK?

If that's the case, then perhaps you would like to be assaulted or killed while your assaulters or killers aren't being tracked such that evidence isn't being gathered of the crime? Forensics don't cover everything, and criminals can cover their tracks.

Government institutionalization of what? Government is already an institution, for the regulation of law, defence and mutual assistance in a nation. Should it also regulate the private life and spiritual welfare of citizens? I don't think so.

Is that all government does?

Get away with, what precisely?

Two simple points:
You don't know the difference between having an opinion and imposing it on others.
You don't know a damn thing about atheism.

Until you're willing to get killed by a killer who hides behind plausible deniability, there's no reason to even consider your obsession with precise evidence.

The fact of the matter is society is not a science experiment. We don't compartmentalize people under control, nor do we measure the effects of their environments on them separately. Instead, people dynamically flow among each other, and evidence isn't perpetually gathered on a 24/7/52/365 basis. Furthermore, there is internal diversity in human nature since everyone isn't the same. The effects of an environment on someone aren't the effects of an environment on everyone. Therefore, society is both externally and internally out of control which is in contrast to a science experiment. You can't rely on evidence to come to justified true beliefs.

WanderingLands wrote:Alright, fair enough. I most definitely see where you are coming from, and your information about the Inquisition and such as definitely enlightening for me, as I searched a bit more on it.

Regarding your points, I believe that much of the Atheists are by large ignorant and are pretty much followers who are no more open minded than religious fundamentalists who wants to enforce their beliefs on others. They obviously don't care about the religious values that people hold, and pretty much go as low as chanting "Hail Satan", as I recall Atheists chanting that at some pro Life rally. They do not know that they're being used as a product of modern society, as they watch crap TV, listen to crap music, and eat crap food and not caring about how they are being enslaved by the government by submitting to their dystopia.

Thanks.

I don't think all atheists are the same either. Yes, there are many ignorant ones that just like to create drama because they despise objective morality, but there are others who really think about right and wrong.

I mean religion is used as an artistic tool to temper people's emotions, and it's from that tempering that rational people are respected...

...but it can also be used to evoke people's emotions in order to encourage irrationality.

Some atheists deliberately believe in irrationality. They want violence, abuse, and drama in the world. They enjoy seeing others panic from the threat of dystopia, and they enjoy seeing dystopia happen because they crave for destruction.

Daktoria wrote: Thanks.

I don't think all atheists are the same either. Yes, there are many ignorant ones that just like to create drama because they despise objective morality, but there are others who really think about right and wrong.

I mean religion is used as an artistic tool to temper people's emotions, and it's from that tempering that rational people are respected...

...but it can also be used to evoke people's emotions in order to encourage irrationality.

Some atheists deliberately believe in irrationality. They want violence, abuse, and drama in the world. They enjoy seeing others panic from the threat of dystopia, and they enjoy seeing dystopia happen because they crave for destruction.

Definitely agree. I've seen many of them on the Internet who believe in pure Scientism; the idea that secular science over Philosophy and Spirituality is the key to answers (which is not true at all). People don't realize this, but there have been crimes committed under the name of atheism and scientism; such as the League of Militant Atheists, which existed in Soviet Russia under Stalin's time; or Social Darwinism and Eugenics, in which much of the supporters of these ideologies were atheists.

Much of the atheists on the Internet, though, are real idiots, such as "The Amazing Atheist" and his ilk stinking up the Internet with pure stupidity that's promoted in popular culture. They are, like I said, ignorant, and they do not use their heads real well. They are basically pawns of the elites who strive for this ignorance to continue, because it keeps their control preserved as the general public, especially in the West, are divided and passive.

WanderingLands wrote: I'm not saying that the church has always been good, but that does not stop me from seeing their view of things as they do have a right to object to what the Inquisition was.

They have the same right to their view and to object as I have. We are both exercising that right. Except they have considerably bigger resources to do it with.

I have researched on modern Atheism and looked into Atheists like "The Amazing Atheist", "thunderf00t", and others, to know that the mainstream Atheist community are by large ignorant sheep

I am not familiar with those organizations or publications or whatever you consider "mainstream". So, for all I know, you may be right about them. However, they don't include myself or any of the atheists (notice small a: we never capitalize atheist) of my acquaintance. And if we're not "mainstream", maybe we're not sheep.

How are they [religious values] "oppressive and perverse"? List some examples and some evidence.

Legal rape by husbands. Legal killing of daughters by fathers. Stoning of blasphemers. Whipping of children. Denial of education to girls. Persecution of homosexuals. Exorcism of "demons". Denial of reproductive choice. Torture and execution of people accused of witchcraft. Disenfranchisement of whoever happened to be on the wrong side of the Catholic-Protestant wars. Forced conversion of and genocide against native peoples on other continents. Serfdom and slavery.

That video above shows atheists attacking religious people over the issue of abortion.

That video shows a bunch of people standing around, singing, some other shouting, and one girl yelling - none of their words are comprehensible, and I have only the headline above it to identify who the people were or what they're supposedly chanting. I saw nobody attacking anybody. But maybe they did, later on.

While I do live in society, particularly modern society myself, I choose not to partake in their ways, which includes listening to crap music, watching crap TV, and eating crap foods. Thus, I refuse to be called a "product" of modern society, as I am a human being and should be reduced to such label.

All that means is, you opt out of some aspects of your culture. As many people do. But that doesn't stop you making assumptions about others. As many people also do. If you stop labelling us, I'll stop labelling you.

You may not feel enslaved by this society, but that does not refute the fact that this society that we're all living in is a death trap of indoctrination, police statism, health care/medical monopolies, and other aspects that make this era the most oppressive of all eras.

You're welcome to whatever period you prefer.

If you "don't give a flying fig about", then why are you reinforcing the image of "oppressive religious fundamentalists", and attacking Daktoria on the grounds of "not knowing what Atheism means"?

Responding as per principle and the purpose of internet forums.

Your responses come across as being emotional, especially since you said that you "don't give a flying fig about", when in reality you obviously do.

I don't care what he or she think or feels; I respond only to what he or she prints. It may seem emotional to you; I can only know what I feel and mean.

Also, some of your sentences are not completed....

Paroled for exemplary behaviour.

I believe that Daktoria was not attacking Atheists.

Okay.

For you to say that he was attacking without foundation or justice is reactionary.

Indeed. I was reacting.

Now you are just ignorantly portraying god as loving suffering,

That was a rumour spread by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and.... oh especially Paul.

Daktoria wrote: S: No Inquisition, no Jesuit teachers making children kneel on corn, no scourging of the flesh...

You're confusing the institution with the ideology, and projecting possible bad events to everything Catholicism stands for.

Not possible "bad events"; actual brutal oppression and consolidation of political power. And I'm not confusing the actions with the ideology: the prelates of the Catholic church committed those atrocities in the teeth of their own professed ideology. How objective is a morality, how effective is an ideology that fails to restrain even its most senior administrators from actions that are diametrically opposed to the teaching they themselves represent?

S: Plus, they [atheists] want everybody to stop throwing anybody in prison for going to the wrong church,

Well this is exactly the point isn't it? The Catholic church believes in universal, individual, internal equality.

Yeah, I've seen the bishop drive up in his limousine, set his kid-skin slippers on the podium, smooth his silk-embroidered chasuble over his ample lobster-fed belly and intone a mass over a crowd of barefoot, ill-fed inner city slum-dwellers. Of course, the mass was held at a football stadium, because no way was his eminence going into those dirty, dangerous streets or run-down, fund-starved churches.

.... People should be uniting in common within the Church to purify corruption.

So they should.

Therefore, there's good reason by default to not tolerate other religions since alternate beliefs wouldn't believe in universal, individual, internal equality. They would believe in intolerance by default.

Intolerance is the defence of tolerance to prevent intolerance by default. Interesting concept. I'm not grasping it.

Are you saying we should tolerate the intolerant?

No; I'm not telling you what you should do. I tolerate everybody's ideas, as long as they don't perform harmful acts. Since the catholic church, in its human manifestations and representations has performed and continues to perform many harmful acts, I do not want the Catholic church, or any other church, in any of its or their earthly representations and manifestations to have the power to institutionalize, legalize or normalize harmful activities in any social organizations.

S: executing them for whom they love
Again, that might be justified if those they love are intolerant.

We don't want the intolerant to work.

We don't want the intolerant to vote or be educated.

Abortion clinics are intolerant since they apply work ethic to preborns through behaviorism. Such clinics shouldn't exist.

Because you're so tolerant....
It's not the catholic church I reject; it's all religions, and all their harmful activities, everywhere. In this, I am like most atheists.

S: Just to stay the hell out of government.

That's not true. Many free will denying atheists look to government as a rescuer from religious influence as an alternate influence,

I don't know who those free-will-denying atheists are, but the government of my country (not Uganda, El Salvador or Iran) is established according to a constitution which explicitly calls for freedom of religion.

S: Which acts? Which victim?
Are you saying you believe in plausible deniability being OK?

No, I'm asking you to specify the acts to which you refer in this sentence of the OP

They also want the right to act out their emotions without self-control while blaming the victim.

S: Government institutionalization of what? Government is already an institution, for the regulation of law, defence and mutual assistance in a nation.
Is that all government does?

Those are its basic functions. I reiterate: I do not agree that government should it also regulate the private life and spiritual welfare of citizens. That function can be left to the churches, and the churches can leave the military and police to the secular government.

Until you're willing to get killed by a killer who hides behind plausible deniability, there's no reason to even consider your obsession with precise evidence.

You're not considering it in any case, so my getting killed or not is a moot point.

The fact of the matter is society is not a science experiment.

Of bloody course it is! An on-going, ever-adapting, fragile, mutable experiment in survival. If you didn't want to apply science to social control, you wouldn't have used the iron maiden or Catherine wheel or internet - just clubs and rocks.

.... You can't rely on evidence to come to justified true beliefs.

Well, I sure can't rely on hearsay, mushroom hallucination or old storybooks, so i'll stick with facts as I see them until something more reliable comes along.

This is a minefield in religion it clearly states in The Bible that God gave man free will, which I can dig out if you need it.

On the other hand of course there's the omnipotence issue, if God knows exactly what we are going to do and said path is of course as laid out in stone as a road through our life 'til death then how can we choose anything surely we are just tramping the long road to death under God's prefect knoweledge.

There are two positions hence compatibilists who believe that free will can exist along side God's omnipotence (or it might if you are an atheist just be in a determnistic universe the God thing is not entirely necessary), and incompatibilists who believe such an assertion is clearly a logical contridiction and I could wax lyrical of course on whether it is indeed needed to have a God in either case, but I wont because it's kinda pointless, and I presume you already know that.

The problem hence is of course that you don't have to be religious or atheist to take either side, of course as Dennet (a noted atheist and compatibilist) for example has explained at length free will does not rely on the posit that you ARE able to chose, only on the fact that you believed you did choose aka as the free agent argument, so the whole thing becomes quite difficult. Incompatibilists believe there can be no free will without choice, but this part of the argument also throws up as many problems as the other side, and to make matters worse there are also people who believe in libertarian free will, where as long as a situation has a choice that was multirealisable, ie if you reversed time it is possible you could of chosen differently, then free will exists, often using arguments about probability in science to support the case of a lack of determinism.

Of course you can see the overarching problem, none of the above arguments rely on religion per se, one could equally be a Jew and a compatibilist or an incompatibilist who has his own own interpretation. The only thing forbidden to of course the religious person is that free will does not exist. Since God said it does, and also said he by his omnibenevolance is incapable of lying (I can fish out the quotes in Daneil et al if you like).

So anyway and I am probably losing people here with this long winded description the problem lies very much in how you tackle the issue, how you define free will, and what axioms you have to start with, and of course as anyone who knows anything about philosophy will know, axioms are in and of themselves problematic.

Suffice to say it's a good philosophical tool to grind your teeth on, religious, agnostic, athiest or whatever but of course every single argument is not without it's detractors, even the people who say the whole question is ill defined and hence I will not comment, aka as ignostics.

"The illusion of free will is so perfect that it might as well exist."

Probably sums up the whole thing well, although I don't know who said that, probably Spinoza or some philosophy dude who had unconventional beliefs.

Daktoria wrote:

WanderingLands wrote:Alright, fair enough. I most definitely see where you are coming from, and your information about the Inquisition and such as definitely enlightening for me, as I searched a bit more on it.

Regarding your points, I believe that much of the Atheists are by large ignorant and are pretty much followers who are no more open minded than religious fundamentalists who wants to enforce their beliefs on others. They obviously don't care about the religious values that people hold, and pretty much go as low as chanting "Hail Satan", as I recall Atheists chanting that at some pro Life rally. They do not know that they're being used as a product of modern society, as they watch crap TV, listen to crap music, and eat crap food and not caring about how they are being enslaved by the government by submitting to their dystopia.

Thanks.

I don't think all atheists are the same either. Yes, there are many ignorant ones that just like to create drama because they despise objective morality, but there are others who really think about right and wrong.

I mean religion is used as an artistic tool to temper people's emotions, and it's from that tempering that rational people are respected...

...but it can also be used to evoke people's emotions in order to encourage irrationality.

Some atheists deliberately believe in irrationality. They want violence, abuse, and drama in the world. They enjoy seeing others panic from the threat of dystopia, and they enjoy seeing dystopia happen because they crave for destruction.

I agree with this post, not all atheists are trolls or anarchists, or both.