0/10 didnt watched

today we will be discussed new bul'sit religyon -- atheizism

yes veri big brane smart man LIKE

could have been a 10/10 master trole, but unfortunately is a little bit too obvious trole by looking at his own video comments. still, lots of people troled successfully.

at least... I hope he's troling.

You just need to let the voice of a great illuminated master permeate your being:

this guy probably knows 5 languages +, has an higher IQ, a brighter prospect for the future than anyone who makes fun of him

yeah, these racists here don't understand. metaphorical murder and you're getting away with it!

#justiceforthisguy

gotta admit i havent even watched the videos.

just guessing because i like indians and religion

oh wait, you're serious.

i have no idea, i just liked indians and dislike atheists. completely unrelated

you must get a lot of questions for advice

I thought atheism is a lack of religion

no its a belief that there is no god, its like religion backwards. so instead of not thinking about god as some kind of entity they just deny the existance of god. basically science nerd or criminal mind. atheists are basically thinking if its not prohibited by law you can do it or whatever, or putting human civilization as their god. so if science is going to be overthrown by new nazi or communist regime they will accepts those values too. atheism is basically submiting to money and science driven control.

and atheist are usually those who are well off relatively in the society, they simply tend to feed off the human civilization. i would doubt there would be any atheist who lost it all.

problem with this worldview as good as science is it will eventually lead to pollution of entire planet and definite end to the current civilization. atheist dont really care about higher values.

l3l u dump

"atheist are usually those who are well off relatively in the society"

Any proof to back that ridiculous statement up? I come from a poor background but I've been an atheist since I was 14 so it has nothing to do with how wealthy your family is, or you as a person. The belief in something which there is absolute no proof of is not only insulting to the intelligence but also fucking retarded.

you simply submit to a narrative of people who have power.

As I expected, no response :)

you know commies and nazis denied religion too, they replaced jesus with fuhrer and stalin.

At least they had better arguments than you. Or had arguments, for that matter.

jews suck

I don't think that k3ks is particularly lucid, however, he does make an important point. In all this talk about religions, there has been a great heist, in that the institution of the state, and its supporting sub institutions (economics, law, education, administration) have attained an almost mythic power.

In the religious realm, it at least has core ethics e.g. don't steal, don't cheat, etc, etc... however the ethics of nations is dictated by growth, profit, and an ethic of 'dog eat dog,' and 'survival of the fittest.'

There is no deny the dangers of religions, and religiosity, however, I am compelled to believe that this ability to take something so seriously as to warrant the justified murder of another human being can be reached with any ideological framework -- even science.

I agree with you, and it is an important point and I'm well aware of it. I'm just not so inclined to agree with the post it's in when unlike in your post, it's used to extrapolate some absurd black-white conclusions.

Moral values, knowing the difference between right and wrong. An individual shouldn't need to follow a blind faith to understand that, and if one does then one is deeply fucked.

What makes you think knowing the difference between right, and wrong, is obvious? And in most cases, especially when considering ethics, and epistemology, you require some thing like a faith to even begin your investigation.

Ever heard of the dark ages? People used to kill "witches" and scientists in the name of God and this was mostly practiced by priests and religious people.

Not to mention the bible actually encourages murder, rape, genocide, and a heap of other ugly things. It is used to justify the worst crimes there are. A world without the Bible can be seen in action – in Scandinavian countries which are overwhelmingly atheist, yet are the most peaceful and have the highest standards of living on the planet.

I rest my case.

Ever heard of the wars of modernity? Ever heard of The colonization of Africa, The colonization of the Americas?The Boer Wars, WWI, WWII, The Cold War, The Vietnam War, The Iraqi Wars? People currently kill "terrorists" -- an ambiguous practise which can potentially include anyone. This seems to be openly, and happily practised by governments, and politicians.

Not to mention, practised capitalist ethics actually encourages systematic murder, rape, genocide, and a heap of other ugly things -- on an unparalleled scale.

I like that you want a world without a Bible, but the essentialist, transcendent grounding of modernity/science, is the exact same of "secular" Bible-free regions. The under-pinnings of these views are from Plato, and the Socratic philosophers -- to this day, they dominate our core paradigms.

You're right, religious people do terrible things, for a seemingly silly, and illusory agenda, just don't think that secular, non-religious community cannot commit these types of errors. In fact, there is nothing in their world-view which can insulate them from committing terrible acts. We must always be vigilant of those who want to dominate our will, and buying into any system of beliefs cannot, does not, give us an immunity to stupidity, gullibility, etc...

All the wars and political acts you mention are completely unrelated to religion or atheism in any way. It's just polluting a discussion by flinging useless shit.

Thinking that a world without religion automatically equals peace and stability is naive, but using silly claims of imaginary gods and their words as rulebook of how to behave in life and society is downright retarded.

Use your own mind and common sense at all times here in life is a fucking given.

I think you should take a minute to read what I said, and refrain from the knee-jerk "show me your god" type of nonsense.

No where in my post did I make any claims that these were "athiest" wars, the point is simply that there non-religious wars, and the atrocities committed in the name "democracy," (ideological) or the "free markets," (economic) have been more frequent, and have done greater damage.

Funnily enough, you claim religion to be garbage (which I am inclined to agree with to be quite frankly), however, that does not mean that non-religious ideas (capitalism, communism, fascism, monarchism, etc...) are less retarded.

Thanks for missing the point.

You're over-complicating this stuff, as are many other people (Mostly religious followers). I have nothing against any person who follows a faith, that's good for you and you should be happy. Most of us live in a free world where we have the ability and the human right to say, voice, practice whatever we choose.

But.

I honestly believe that every person born in the world knows the difference automatically, on a sub conscious level from right and wrong. Your parents and the way you're raised have a much bigger impact on you as a person than a book. I know people who have been raised without religion and have been brought up in extremely harsh circumstances i.e. sexual/mental abuse, being unloved yet they still know the difference in what is right and what is wrong. They might do things which are wrong a lot, but they know themselves that what they're doing isn't morally or ethically right.

I'm not over-complicating anything. Maybe you just don't like reading this, but your government will happily commit atrocities which will make religious nuts seem sane.

"I honestly believe that every person born in the world knows the difference automatically, on a sub conscious level from right and wrong."

This is a very grand proposition, would you recommend some proof of such things?

"I honestly believe that every person born in the world knows the difference automatically, on a sub conscious level from right and wrong."

This is a very grand proposition, would you recommend some proof of such things?

I just did, I took a real life scenario which is more than enough proof as I know the person very well.

I'm not over-complicating anything. Maybe you just don't like reading this, but your government will happily commit atrocities which will make religious nuts seem sane.

You see, I want to take time out of my day to explain to you why what you say is very very moronic but it would take too much effort and in the end, like most religious followers you would never accept the truth no matter how much evidence and logic is placed in front of you.

Good day to you sir. May the force be with you, always.

That's lovely, you make ridiculous claims, offer no proof, re-type the said claim and use that as "proof", then rage-quit. You're no better than religious nuts, why don't you grow up a bit :)

Also I'm not of any religious denomination, so to jump to conclusions like that is childish.

You are in fact missing my point entirely yourself.

I'm why would you even mention these wars in the first place? They are not related to atheism, so why bring them up just because they are non-religious as well? They have nothing to do with either so all it brings is polluting the discussion which may have already happened

Besides that I will take capitalism, communism, fascism and monarchism over theocracy any day. Unlike theocracy, the other ideologies are based on actual sense in each some manner. They might be flawed but at least there is the possibility of change for the better.

Theology is based on the word of the "gods". It's based on what has already been established in a bible/coran or the like, and is not subject for change. Whatever nonsensical flaws or downright stupidities are set, and so be it and tough nuggies.

I have grown up in a non religious society. I'm fairly confident that I know right from wrong, as I have been shaped and taught as a person by the people around me. I don't need a religion to tell me what's what, and truly neither does anyone else. All you need is being surrounded by common sense, which you will NOT achieve by adopting the written words of the gods both literally and blindly.

These wars are brought up as examples, to demonstrate, that religious motivations are not the only, in fact, not even close to the primary cause(s) for human atrocities. Many atrocities have been committed by secular, non-religious, at times democratic parties -- indicating that at these outlooks have similar flaws as religion, and considering the history of ideas this shouldn't be a major surprise.

All these non-religious ideologies/outlooks have an equivalent way of deifying themselves, and it was a caution against this threat that sparked this conversation.

"They might be flawed but at least there is the possibility of change for the better."

Really? Like North Korea? Or China? Maybe the USA?

"Theology is based on the word of the "gods". It's based on what has already been established in a bible/coran or the like, and is not subject for change. Whatever nonsensical flaws or downright stupidities are set, and so be it and tough nuggies."

Well, that's one way of looking at theology, and with that definition I would agree with you.

"I have grown up in a non religious society. I'm fairly confident that I know right from wrong, as I have been shaped and taught as a person by the people around me."

Sure, and you're lucky for it, but (if you live in the West) your core ethical framework is born out of Judeo-Christinaty. Sure, you will disagree in that you have never studied it, never attended church, and that you disagree that there is a God, and all the other stuff. To understand this you have to study the history of ideas.

"I don't need a religion to tell me what's what, and truly neither does anyone else. All you need is being surrounded by common sense, which you will NOT achieve by adopting the written words of the gods both literally and blindly."

I never said you needed anything, and what makes you think "common sense" is so widely available? You trust yourself so much as to think you cannot be mistaken?

When I read the comments I don't really see any claims about religion being the primary cause of such atrocities. When you set it up like you have done, you on the contrary make it very much sound like it is the result of atheism, since non-religious.

Yes I think we would see change for the better within those governments sooner than we see a theocratic government improve in such manner. (maybe not North Korea until after a revolution)

I call it presumptions to say that the ethical framework of my society is a direct result of Judeo-Christinaty and not the result of sensible politics and sound work of the state the past 100-150 years.

Common sense is widely less available if free thinking and speech is subdued by the religious norms that per default deem it blasphemy.

Of course I can be mistaken. But I would rather want to enlighten myself by listening to people in this world that I consider "wiser" than myself, and then based on what I find decide on my own what knowledge may be the right. If I later on find out that it was in fact not correct, then I may educate myself once again on the subject.

I do NOT want to seek enlightenment by looking into the holy book that someone wrote as proof and fact of a "god", take that as granted and live blindly by it, good for bad.

Well religious atrocities -- none of which are being denied -- were cited by Nicholas, and I was just making a point that religious institutions are not the only, and not even close to the main force when dealing with atrocious behavior. Non-religious forces, not necessarily motivated by a lack of belief, but more so as, and as I have been saying, by economic, and political motivatations, have done things which would make theists appear like (no pun intended) angels.

How much integrity remains if we look at one system of ideology, and be open to criticize it, whilst the whole time ignoring other, more perilous forces?

I think it's absolutely bewildering that you're appealing to common sense, and intelligence, while at the same time not having any issues endorsing fascism, Soviet-style communism, and capitalism. In fact it's a farce; on one hand you think North Korea has a better chance at social development under totalitarianism, but on the other hand, think social development can only happen when you remove the totalitarian forces.

It's not so much an issue with atheism, but more an issue with certain atheists that have no problems blasting religious ideologies (open criticism is something which I fully endorse, I have no problems with calling religions what they are) but will stand next to fascism. How can such a person even cite some sort of humanitarian motivation?

How was the United States Government formed? Under God

Yeah..

Yes, God formed the United States.

It has nothing to do with the economics of Europe (poor people wanting things such as land), the ideological goals of the European powers (colonies, land, resources), or the biological warfare committed against Natives. It was formed so they can have a holy land... This is a naive, revisionist history which ignores the driving forces behind the creation of the "United States."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance

"The Pledge of Allegiance of the United States is an expression of loyalty to the federal flag and the republic of the United States of America, originally composed by Francis Bellamy in 1892 and formally adopted by Congress as the pledge in 1942.[1] The Pledge has been modified four times since its composition."

You are fucking stupid my friend, but yeah "god" will forgive you :)

Pretty much nothing of what you just said is correct or is a misrepresentation. Either it's a deliberate provocation / troll or you lack the intelligence.

haah are you for real? Go back to church

i like how you choose to side with men with guns.

Religion is the strongest weapon

do you believe in god?

no its a belief that there is no god, its like religion backwards.

Yes, the same way not playing quake is actually playing not quake.


>some atheists submit to ideals of money or ideology = atheism by definition submits to those or something else... Because you can't imagine not submitting to something, i guess?

Meanwhile, you're not even able to prove that atheists are more likely to submit to these, let alone that that would imply unavoidable submission.

Then, you've also got to somehow prove that they submit to "money and science driven control" rather than anything else, which is trivially false.

Could you at least try harder?

Modern science is built upon the premise of falsifiability. The existence of a god or gods is, as far as I can tell, an unfalsifiable premise. Therefore, no science nerd would be atheist, rather they would likely be agnostic.

I think the hypothesis "the God of the bible doesn't exist" is falsifiable, don't you? Do you think it would be unreasonable for a scientist to be an atheist, given everything he knows about the world?

there are and were atheist scientists, even famous ones.

Which bible? Which translation? When a book has been re-edited/translated that amount of times it is hard to figure out exactly which god it's talking about at any given time.

If you're talking about the Christian god, I figure it's easiest to call him a sky man that wants to you to love and forgive. Taken from that point, what test would you set up to disprove his existence?

If you can knock one god off of their pedestal that still leaves countless others. Wouldn't you have to falsify every one of them to truly be an atheist?

I specifically said "God doesn't exist" is falsifiable, which is a notion an atheist can hold. So falsifiability doesn't stop a scientist from being an atheist.

I have to admit, the way you wrote that confused me. So if I'm understanding you correctly you're saying that:
If x is true "God doesn't exist" is false?

I need to run an example for myself....

No Sriracha is in my refrigerator.
If x then notS is false.
I see Sriracha in my refrigerator.

In your case x (the condition by which you falsify the premise) seems like an observation of god? How would you test this?

It's falsifiable because we could in principle make observations that would falsify it. If a being claiming to be the Christian God appeared to everyone in the sky and suspended a few laws of physics, I think "God does not exist" would be falsified by any reasonable definition of the word.

From the falsifiability article on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
"By the problem of induction, no number of confirming observations can verify a universal generalization, such as All swans are white, yet it is logically possible to falsify it by observing a single black swan. Thus, the term falsifiability is sometimes synonym to testability. Some statements, such as It will be raining here in one million years, are falsifiable in principle, but not in practice."

Again I must ask, how would you test this?

The test is the observation. It says it right there: "it is logically possible to falsify it by observing a single black swan".

Are you deliberately ignoring the important part of that quote? Should I just assume this is a troll?

A theory is falsifiable if we can in principle make an experiment OR observation which "disproves" it. That's it. "It will be raining in one million years" is falsifiable, but not practically falsifiable.

Sure, point out the important part.

Practicality is obviously important in science. Your 'test' relies upon a quasi-magical being revealing himself against any and all of his interests.

More importantly, scientific tests rely upon reproducibility. The reproducibility of your 'test' hinges upon the willingness of the actor. The person supposedly controlling the experiment actually has no control whatsoever. No scientist would ever accept your absurd test.

Seriously, if this is all you have to offer stop immediately.

Practicality and reproducibility are important in science, yes. But we are talking about falsifiability, which doesn't care about these things. The whole notion of falsification is to answer the question "how do we distinguish science from pseudoscience". It's called the demarcation problem. It's not a tool telling us what we should believe.

Does observing a black swan falsify the statement "all swans are white"? If there existed exactly one black swan and I randomly came across it would that test the statement? There's only one, so I could only ever perform this test once. It's "out of my control" because I found it randomly. Would it be the case that "no scientist" would accept this "absurd test"?

Falsifiability is an idea of philosiphy, not science and "testing" a hypothesis means more than just setting up an experiment.

I understand the demarcation problem, that is why I brought up falsifiability in the first place.

Falsifiability absolutely cares about those things. For all intents and purposes, falsifiability and testability are synonymous in science. I really did quote that one section of the wiki article for a reason.

Observing a black swan passes the test because you can go back and observe it whenever you want. You can carry him around for that matter.

Your test is not a test at all. Scientific experiments are highly detailed procedures. Your experiment is 'gee I hope this deity reveals himself to me.' Get back to me when you publish this experiment in a peer reviewed journal.

Finally, and perhaps most critically, observation is but one step of many in an experiment. This is why your assertion that an 'experiment or an observation' is all that is required is simply not true.

I'm done being serious with you as you never were. Perhaps come back when you've actually written a lab report?

Edit for recantation!

Science is not the same as Philosophy. An "experiment or observation" IS all that is required for falsifiability. If there exists a conceivable observation that counters the hypothesis, it's falsifiable. This is the standard definition. Falsifiable is not equal to practically falsifiable no matter how much you think it should be.

Of course going out and waiting for God to reveal himself is a retarded experiment to run. So what? Falsifiable doesn't mean convincing or well formulated or probable.

Btw that quote you love so much is using the word "testability" in the same way I am. Look at the context: it's falsifiable because we could in theory observe the black swan, thus falsifiable is synonymous with testable. The test IS the observation. (Conceivable counter example exists) implies (Falsifiable) implies (Testable); it says nothing about how easy or repeatable observing the black swan actually is (or even if its possible at all).

"I'm done with you. Perhaps come back when you've actually written a lab report?"

lol

edit: one more thing. So if my "one black swan" example is falsifiable, how is that different from my God example. The purpose of taking the swan is to show people (and ourselves) "Yes, you did find a black swan. There it is". But in the God example we wouldn't even need this because EVERYONE saw it happen. They are already convinced.

Fuck it then, one more just for laughs.

*Swan Experiment*

Step 3: Observe the black bird's physical qualities.
Step 4: Compare against the physical qualities of the bird we know as 'swan.'
Step 5: Take a DNA sample.
Step 6: Compare against the genetic qualities of the bird we know as 'swan.'

*God 'Experiment'*

Step 3: This dude, you know, shows up and says he's God.
Step 4: I take him at his word?

I'll recant my previous statement and instead go with, "I'm done being serious with you, as you never were."

Dude he's a catholic Irishman, why do you even bother.

I've stopped!

That doesnt even make sense, I'm not arguing for the existence of God here.

Oh so you're a protestant, then. My bad.

That doesnt even make sense, I'm not arguing for the existence of God here.

Oh so you're a catholic, then. My bad.

Yeah we're pretty much talking past each other here. Thats a ridiculous summary of what I said but you already know that. Also I have no idea why this is making you so mad?

no its a belief that there is no god, its like religion backwards.

Atheism is a lack of belief in god or god(s).

I wouldn't extend that to "religion backwards" which is bound to possess things that would make for incorrect attributes.

so insteedad of not thinking about god as some kind of entity they just deny the existance of god.

A lot of atheists, including myself are agnostic atheists, meaning that whether or not there is a god for certain is not known, however the evidence is not sufficient to warrant its belief.

basically science nerd or criminal mind.

Atheism has nothing to do with science, even if many atheists tend to be scientifically inclined. It is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods.

Neither does it have anything to do with criminality.

atheists are basically thinking if its not prohibited by law you can do it or whatever,

No, again, atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. It has nothing to do with their morality or approach towards law.

See my blog post on Brett Keane's atheist challenge for some information on this:

http://lorfablog.blogspot.com/2013/06/brett-k...lenge.html

or putting human civilization as their god.

No.. that's not what atheism is.

so if science is goping to be overthrown by new nazi or communist regime they will accepts those values too.

No, that's not what atheism is either. Where do you get this stuff?

Atheism says nothing about a person's political affiliation. You may find more atheists within affiliations that are less religious, understandably, but that doesn't mean atheism has anything to do with it directly.

atheism is basically submiting to mone and science driven control. kinda like i bilieve in a gun pointed in your face so you should listen to my views.

No, and this is even crazier. You're starting to sound like a schizotypal.

and atheist are usually those who are well off relatively in the society, thwey simply tend to cocksuck on the human civilization that kinda supports them. i would doubt there would be any atheist who lost it all.

More of the same garbage you've been spouting.

Neither atheism, or theism for that matter, has anything to do with a person's financial situation.

problem with this worldview as good as science is it will eventually lead to pollution of entire planet and definite end to the current civilization. atheist dont really care about higher values. or maybe they say they do.

What does science have to do with pollution? The same science that can be used to pollute the planet can be used to prevent pollution, or clean up the pollution that's there.

Humans in general do not want an end to civilization, or a destruction of the environment. Since humans possess science, they can use it to preserve civilization, and save the environment.

but who killed the indians and all the other peace oriented civlization who believed in some kind of god.

If you're talking about Native Americans, it was predominately Christian settlers believing in things like manifest destiny.

lets not touch witchhunt, its probably was driven by the same science and money orineted biggots.

If you're talking about the Salem Witch trials, that was again a Christian gig. Persons whom they believed were involved in satanic acts were prosecuted and sometimes executed. I encourage you to read up on the subject.

"Wow I really let this blog go
All 0 of my subscribers must be really disappointed!!"
I chuckled, nice blog though!

lol yeah. TY :-)

I have to ask, what dictionary are you using to define atheism? OED waffles a bit: "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." However, dictionary.com is decidedly not in your camp. It's definition of atheism is "the doctrine or belief that there is no God," or "disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings."

Putting aside dictionaries, which even I will admit do not always define words in the most sensible manner, if atheism does not mean disbelief in a god or gods, what word does?

English is a shitty language when it comes to definitions since the meaning of words is decided by usage. A word can mean whatever you want it to mean as long as enough people agree that's what it means.

For the record, the equivalent word in French (where official meaning is decided by authority), "athéisme", has this definition : "Doctrine de ceux qui nient l'existence d'un Dieu personnel." which basically mean "Doctrine of those who say there is no god."

"Atheist"'s equivalent, "Athée", has this definition : "Personne qui ne croit pas en Dieu, nie l'existence de toute divinité.", which can be translated this way : "One who doesn't believe in God, deny the existence of any divinity."

If we used these definitions, someone who claims he doesn't know if there is a god or not wouldn't be an atheist.

(The definitions come from "LE PETIT ROBERT", edition 1977.)

It's amazing how close the words are, I assume the root is Latin? Anyways, your definition and mine definitely agree.

I actually included the OED's definition specifically because it is the appeal to authority. You're right about English. Americans specifically are anti-authoritarian down to our cores and the way we use language is no different. I, however, really like the usage method. It makes for a more adaptable and ever evolving language.

Most of French is of Latin origin and a tremendous part of English is of French origin. But in that case, the root is Greek. Here is what Wikitionary has to say about the etymology of "atheism" :

16th century French athéisme, from athée (“atheist”), a loan from Ancient Greek ἄθεος (átheos, “godless”), from ἀ- (a-, “without”) + θεός (theos, “deity, god”). First English attestation dates to 1587 (OED).

EDIT : Well crap. Greek letters. Just read it there :
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/atheism

Even "authority-driven" languages like French evolve, though. When there is a need for a word to express a concept, people will invent it and use it themselves. The authority will eventually acknowledge it or correct it. Usage always wins in the long run. But when you argue about something, you have a solid basis to build upon.

Fuuuuuuck am I going to use this site a ton.

"English is a shitty language when it comes to definitions since the meaning of words is decided by usage."

Is there a language which does not exhibit this characteristic?

Yes. My example for this was French. You could think of Latin in its current, static, state as well.

It is true that, ultimately, everything is decided by usage. However, that's only after the heads decide to accept a usage shift or a new word it and make it official. The idea is that you wouldn't argue that something means X if it actually means Y for the authority.

Of course it's not really completely authority-driven like some kind of newspeak.

Is your concern over "a lack of belief" vs. "disbelief"?

Can the two not be used interchangeably?

I feel that "a lack of belief" is more accurate though.

I'm saying it is my understanding that your definition of atheism is incorrect and the previous guy's was right.

The term atheism does not imply agnostic vs. gnostic, and it most certainly should not. There's an important difference.

http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/

This is the reason I asked what dictionary you were using. Mr. Freethinker isn't one.

The majority of its definitions don't include anything indicating a particular gnostic orientation.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

"The doctrine or belief that there is no god. The denial of the existence of god or gods." Seems fairly cut and dry to me.

That says nothing regarding gnosis.

"The doctrine or belief that there is no god," takes a strong belief position. A belief that there is no god is a positive belief action. In this case belief exists. The denial of the existence of god or gods is a positive belief action. In this case belief exists. Compare that with a doctrine that does not believe in god. I'd argue your 'lack of belief' definition shares a great deal more with this doctrine.

Also if you check FlashSoul's posts, he gives some of the etymology of the word atheism. History is against you.


On a related note, now I'm more interested in what Mr. Freethinker's idea of a belief is. If a person believes something, don't they think they know it? His separation of belief and 'think they know,' feels wrong.
Examples: A belief that the world is flat. (They think they know it is flat.) A belief that 2+2=4 (They think they know that 2+2=4.) A belief that a person doesn't 'think they know' seems utterly without conviction and not a belief at all. More of a whimsy.

I'm telling you the way things are defined within the atheist community, and the way in which they are the most useful.

It would be extraordinarily inconvenient to consider the term 'belief' as a belief with complete certainty, since complete certainty is not possible (see kant and hume).

I can say that I believe the world is round (I do), without having 100 % certainty. If only 100 % certainty satisfied the criteria of belief then I would believe in nothing, and I'd be unable to make use of the convenience the word provides.

In the case of mathematics, there are a set of definitions that exist. Within mathematics there is a definition for true/false that can be applied. Of course it may be very difficult, or even impossible to find a particular true/false answer but it's there, and you can have absolute certainty within this field. Your certainty over mathematics itself may not be 100 % though.

Mathematics however brings up an interesting debate. To shy away from absolute certainty of reality due to mind being a subset of reality makes sense, but what about realities created within mind? You could create a reality within your own mind, and have absolute certainty there, but couldn't you have a shared mental reality? I would say no since you cannot be certain of other minds. You can come very, perhaps infinitely close though of course.

It's cool that certain communities have specialized definitions for words. I accept that. However, within the much broader community of English language speakers, it's nice to adhere to the accepted definitions or at least note when you're going offbook. When you 'corrected' k3ks's definition you could have at least mentioned that the one you were using isn't necessarily the common place definition and why you felt yours was more accurate to use in this situation.
I feel this sort of stipulation is necessary because, while I am no scholar of religion, I'm a regular ole agnostic but I'm not hip to your lingo. However, I constantly find words who's definition I don't completely agree with based, as you said, on their usefulness. With that in mind, can you say why you feel your definition is more useful than the current one and why your community feels the needs to change the definition of a word rather than invent a new one to fit the new definition?

I personally reject nearly everything Kant says in a critique of pure reason. I like Hume because his ideas are wild and crazy and out there but to live as he purports to? It would be insanity.
I've read excerpts from the first two volumes of his history of England and I consider that to be his better scholarship. Also, he wrote some awesome criticisms on religion, specifically the Catholic church, that at the time earned him the title of atheist - a title he fervently denied to his death.

As for shared mental reality, I'm still holding out hope for cyberbrains. Just need that analog to digital brain converter and away we go!

a meaning 'non' or 'away from', theism meaning 'of god or gods'.

Examples of the prefix 'a'

amoral
atypical
aversion
asexual
absent
abstain
abstraction
abrasion
abnormal

theism comes from the greek word "theos" meaning "god".

Adding an 'ism' indicates a belief or a principle. So, theism would seem to indicate that this person has a belief in a god or gods, whereas atheism would be a 'non-belief'.

"Belief" can be described as "a confidence, a faith, or a trust".

A faith is "belief that is not based on proof", or a "confidence and trust in a person or thing".

Neither belief or faith as words alone speak to the certainty of a given conviction.

I see it as a kind of percentage, if a person is over 50 % certain of something they can say that they believe it, or have faith in it. If it's 51 %, or 99% they may stipulate that they either believe it but aren't sure, or that they believe it wholeheartedly.

When people are extremely certain about something, they tend to call it a 'fact'.

A gnostic atheist might say "it's a fact that there is no god.", whereas an agnostic atheist might say "I don't believe in a god, but it is not impossible".

The reason some other term isn't used is because:

A. The word's roots are sufficiently vague that more than one interpretation can be supported

B. The term gets loosely applied to a very large population of persons, persons who which within this group may have important differences.

It's the same as the term 'monotheist'. It covers an enormous population of persons who may have nothing else in common other than that they believe in only one "god", as far as the definition of a god can be stretched. Since monotheism is so popular, the term "monotheist" is rarely used.

Atheism would do the same thing, but due to its apparent lack of popularity, those that would be considered 'atheists' have to put up with the inaccuracies that come with this umbrella term.

That's why atheism as a term should say nothing about the certainty involved, and really neither should the term 'theism'. Some people are gnostic theists, they believe that a god exists and that it can be proven, or that they themselves can prove it. These probably aren't the majority though.

It's really the same for any -ism suffix. It's more of a guiding principle, way of life, or orientation rather than something held certain.

See, breaking it down into the prefix a- and theism is why I feel the more broadly accepted definition works as is. As you say the a- is more of an away from as in the opposite of rather than a lack. Look at me qualifying with 'more of,' but that's English for you, not terribly consistent. At the very least a- has more of an opposite connotation than un- does. Speaking of which I personally feel 'untheism' should be the umbrella term for those that lack belief. But untheism sounds awful.

Breaking down the percentages of certitude is all fine and dandy but it seems to me that the why behind the non-believer's percentage of certitude is the most important part, not the percentage itself. Has your posse considered grouping the non-believers in this fashion? This method would account for your percentage of certitude scale. Instead of what appears to be your current method of less than/greater than 50 you would have a more accurately graded scale. However, since it is the why that is important, and I haven't thought a great deal about this so I have no example, I assume it's possible to have the same certitude percentage for different reasons. Conversely, if a certain group of people have the same reason for not believing (basis or why for lack of belief), it makes sense to me that they should have the same certitude percentage. This method benefits both from the specificity of a more representative scale of certitude and would give non-believers better and more accurate labels with which they could self-identify.

And you wouldn't have to redefine any words!

The percentage gig is just my own mental model, I suspect serious problems if it were to be scrutinized from a proper philosophical standpoint.

Anyways, so far it is as I have stated it, agnostic atheism is commonly used (and therefore the definition of atheism would have to be absent of a gnostic orientation).

I suspect the most common reason for an agnostic position is a scientific, or evidentialist orientation at work.

They don't have sufficient evidence for the existence of a deity, so they do not believe in one. If and when such evidence prevents itself, the position can be reevaluated. Whether such evidence can exist is yet another debate.

The problem with dividing people up based on certitude or underlying reasons is that it's really just not done. Belief vs. non-belief is what people really care about, and they often do not delve further into it. Many atheists feel that their movement is rather small, and so they try not to divide things therein.

When atheism becomes much, much more common it will likely experience some divisions like this, probably on more grounds than just certitude.

You seem to accept the concept of etymology which means you accept that the meaning of words changes over time.
The meaning of "atheism" has changed. Go ask modern atheist communities what the word means.

Or, what, you're going to wave a dictionary in everyone's face and feel like you're making a point?
Many have tried that, it's quite a common thing to see. It's just a weak approach that's more about being rude than it is about making a point.

And even if you really insisted on telling people that they can't call themselves atheists due to a dictionary definition, they'll just say that, as they see it, the etymology goes way back to ancient Greece and that'll be that.

Bottom line: if you want to argue with people then you ask them what they believe or don't believe. You don't tell them what they believe in based on definitions you choose.

I think you misunderstood me. I'm not telling people what to believe, quite the opposite. People can believe what they want. However, society has a way of communicating ideas in written and oral fashion. It's called language. Society has given words specific meanings. Therefore, if someone says they believe in the flying spaghetti monster and call themselves Shinto, I'll tell them "Nah man, that's not the right word, you're looking for Pastafarianism."

Do you see how I'm not telling anyone what to believe, merely saying their word choice conflicts with society's definitions?

No, a proper comparison would be you telling a worldwide Shinto community (assuming one existed) that they can't be Shinto since they don't meet the definition you found in a dictionary.
They probably wouldn't give a crap about your rather arrogant opinion.

As for language, language changes. That's a familiar fact to you since you talk about etymology. Well, this is another case of language just changing. I'm sure you understand.

Besides, dictionaries aren't infallible. They contain inadequate and sometimes inaccurate information (as is evident regarding many science-related words).
Now, if someone tells you that your dictionary definition is incorrect and doesn't apply in our modern world, where do you go to find out the current definition? You ask the atheist communities that are around. They ought to know.

Lorfa
Posts: 1710
Popularity: God (86%)

the irony

ahw very very nice effort, mine is just meh in comparison :\ i blame the alcohol

look at that big grown up trying to hide his neckbear while promoting his imaginary friends, haha!

You humans are so depressing

They don't believe in God because
A: It's uncool and
B: Everything has to be proven by scientists and
C:

if Jesus Christ our saviour isn't real how come there is evil?

Atheists 0
Catholics 1

Atheists 0
Catholics Christians 1

You have to use whole integers.

I got it

))

Atheists 0
Catholics Christians Rapha 1

If Darwin's so good how comes he's dead?

unsurprisingly, thread delivers

You'd think people would stop getting baited like that. But no. I guess they just like it.

the thing about atheism is thats its a totally circular world view. the typical atheist will admit that they know CANNOT know anythign with absolute certainty. they rely on 'reason' to inform their worldview, but let me ask you this: how do our atheist friends justify their reasoning? THEY USE THEIR REASON!!!! this is viciously circular and patently ridiculous. the Christian God is all powerful, so he CAN REVEAL THINGS SUCH THAT WE KNOW THEM FOR CERTAIN. thus the ONLY WAY we can have knowledge, reason or logic is through the existence of an all powerful creator to BREAK the circle. Consider this: logic is contingent on human minds. but as we know human minds are limited, fallible and all experiences are subjective. but the laws of logic are absolute and unchanging ie A can NEVER equal not A (LAW OF LOGIC: LAW OF NONCONTRADICTION!!!!). THWEREFORE these laws are CONTINGENT an ABSOLUTE and UNCHANGING mind. gee I wonder who that could be? thats right; God

Not sure if trolling..

Let's say you aren't:

the thing about atheism is thats its a totally circular world view. the typical atheist will admit that they know CANNOT know anythign with absolute certainty.

It's true though. You cannot be 100 % certain about anything. It's a side effect of mind being a subset of reality and not the other way around.

they rely on 'reason' to inform their worldview, but let me ask you this: how do our atheist friends justify their reasoning? THEY USE THEIR REASON!!!! this is viciously circular and patently ridiculous.

Justification is a logical, reason based process, even if the reasoning is bad.

To justify is to reason. Without reason there is no justification.

Reason and evidence work together as the foundations of thought and knowledge.

the Christian God is all powerful, so he CAN REVEAL THINGS SUCH THAT WE KNOW THEM FOR CERTAIN.

This is all in your mind.

It's the same as saying your imaginary friend has told you that if you jump off of a building, you will not be harmed, and that you can be 100 % certain that this is true.

Reason and evidence are your best tools for knowledge.

thus the ONLY WAY we can have knowledge, reason or logic is through the existence of an all powerful creator to BREAK the circle.

The two pillars of epistemology are reason and evidence. Irreducible, without both you cannot gain knowledge.

Even your attempt to justify the existence of a creator is based on reason and evidence (although they are weak and faulty in this case).

Consider this: logic is contingent on human minds.

..or minds in general. They don't necessarily have to be human.

but as we know human minds are limited, fallible and all experiences are subjective.

We do the best way we can with what we have.

but the laws of logic are absolute and unchanging ie A can NEVER equal not A (LAW OF LOGIC: LAW OF NONCONTRADICTION!!!!). THWEREFORE these laws are CONTINGENT an ABSOLUTE and UNCHANGING mind. gee I wonder who that could be? thats right; God

The law of non-contradiction is one of the "laws of thought", not "laws of logic". These are attributed to Aristotle.

I don't know why you consider them absolute and unchanging. I mean, they work, whereas anything else appears not to work but this has no bearing on the existence of a deity.

are you certain you can't be 100% certain about anything?!?!? (checkmate). The athiest CANNOT show his reasoning to be valid because the only tool he has to do so is REASON ITSELF!!!!!!!! The athiest worldview is reduced to a circular ABSURDITY and the atheist must assume the Theistic worldview in order to SAY ANYTHING!!!!!!!!¡¡¡. the laws of logic are absolute because they are not contingent on time or space = a rock is always not (not a rock). Logical absolutes are CONCEPTUAL (logic is the process of a mind) and thoughts reflect the thinker , therefor the absolute transcendental nature of logical absolutes require an absolute transcendental mind= GOD

This is like, gibberish.

I don't know where to begin with what's wrong with what you wrote.

Luckily I already answered most of it in my previous reply and you're mostly just repeating yourself.

are you certain you can't be 100% certain about anything?!?!? (checkmate).

As certain as I can be, which is not 100 % of course.

The athiest CANNOT show his reasoning to be valid because the only tool he has to do so is reason itself

Changing the word from justify to validate makes no difference here. Validation is a reason based process.

If you want more than the best that can be done with mind, then I suggest you leave mind for something else, but I couldn't tell you exactly what, become your own universe maybe.

and the atheist must assume the Theistic worldview in order to SAY ANYTHING

Speaking of absurdity, this is just lol.

This is the random garbage you hear from only the most batshit crazy creationists like Kent and Eric Hovind.

No one has to believe in anything in particular, or assume any particular worldview to make statements on anything.

the laws of logic are absolute because they are not contingent on time or space = a rock is always not (not a rock).

Like I said, what you mentioned aren't called "laws of logic", but anyways..

Why do you assume that they are not contingent on time and space? Without time and space could mind exist? This enters into the philosophical debate over the physical existence of intangible ideas/concepts.

For example a platonic (platonism) view holds that these things do exist in another realm, so you could theoretically "hang out" with the number three if you could visit this realm.

The point is that you can't be sure that logic is not contingent on time (There is also philosophy of time!) and space, completely, partially or not at all. It's a philosophical position.

logical absolutes are CONCEPTUAL (logic is the process of a mind) and thoughts reflect the thinker , therefor the absolute transcendental nature of logical absolutes require an absolute transcendental mind= GOD

The conclusion does not follow from the premises.

You would have to specify with great precision, and tremendous certainty that "thoughts reflect the thinker" in a way that supports your conclusion. I don't think this can be done conclusively.

Also what's needed is a specification of why logical absolutes are 'transcendental'. What exactly do they transcend?

Even if you did these, it still doesn't mean that they originated from a deity. Why wouldn't a "transcendental absolute" originating from a human mind not render this human a god in your model?

Or are you saying that these absolutes already existed, and were discovered by minds? Making them evidence of a deity? Even if you could decide conclusively that they were evidence of a deity, there would be yet another problem deciding as to whether this evidence was sufficient to prove deity, and if so to what degree of certainty.

To make an analogy, you're at stage 1 of a mario game with Graham's number of stages and you haven't even learned to jump yet. You're telling everyone you already beat the game though.

If you want more than the best that can be done with mind, then I suggest you leave mind for something else, but I couldn't tell you exactly what, become your own universe maybe.

Great stuff! [+]

typical nerdS ahteism

Lots of awesome pictures with different versions of this quote rofl.

It's more logical to believe in god if you think about it using game theory. If god doesn't exist whether you believe in him or not then when you die nothing will happen, alternatively if god exists and you don't believe then you will go to hell and if you do believe there's a small chance to go to heaven. So with all 4 cases if you don't believe in god either nothing happens or you lose or if you believe in god either nothing happens or you have a chance to win. So since it's a huge and confusing topic that has good and bad points on either side wouldn't the safer choice be believing in god?

Just my two cents.

theres a million gajillion different religions. what makes the christian god the right one?

argument against pascals wager: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.co.nz/2...sited.html

also fuck, i didnt think my thread would end up like this.

I mean determining which religion is right is another topic altogether but if you draw up a huge game theory table you'll probably find that atheism probably always ends up with nothing happening or losing.

I guess the real question would be, wouldn't an omnipotent being know that you decided to believe in him based on the stakes?

How is that the real question? Why would that matter?

I meant if you applied that logic and decided to believe in god just to be safe. Would that really satisfy God or Allah or Zeus etc? It seems like you would have to trick yourself somehow.

Well simply believing in a deity(s) won't cut it for most religions, you have to practise the religion properly (Which most people don't do anyway lol) Like for christianity you can't simply believe and expect to go to heaven (though some branches probably have that belief lol).

So you do what to put in effort if you want to get the rewards of your religion (if your religion ends up being the correct one in the end)

Just read that article. He determines some arbitary probability that christianity is true based on his study of the evidence. He pulled a random number out of his ass basically. There's convincing evidence either way imo and you can't simply quantify how much a religion is more right than another. His first argument is basically his opinion.

The second argument assumes that pascals wager is an argument (which theists probably use alot to "prove" god exists which it doesn't) and while it is true pascal wager doesn't really work with more than one religion it's more of a logical idea that it's better to believe in "something" than nothing at all.

The next arguement is the same thing as the second one but in terms of poker. He says pot odds don't exist when you have to go all in but which religion do you go all in on? My whole point is you have at least some small chance that your religion is right and you practise it right then you get the reward after death whatever that religion says, but with atheism you either lose or nothing happens 100 percent of the time lol.

Guess you just answered my question too, I didn't realize you were talking about people who already believed in a particular religion.

Anyway I'm typing on my phone and it's bloody annoying haha. It all comes down to whatever you want to fucking believe, I'm not forcing nor do I want to preach a particular viewpoint xD My fingers are tired, I'm going.

Yeah I don't care either way, always enjoyable to discuss such things with amiable people.

Odds are wrong. You lose time in the life you are living practising a certain religion, hoping there's an afterlife, based on a faith assumption. Atheists won't.
In poker terms it would be you won't use half of your stack untill you have 5 aces. Well, logic says there are 4 in the deck and blinds are eating your stack alive)))

And anyway it looks like believing and practising out of fear and not out of faith, i doubt that'll give you salvation lol

If true knowledge cannot be ultimately reached, then 100 percent chance is inconceivable. In Mor(m)onic scripture heaven is divided into three categories and souls spend their eternity in the most suitable heaven according to their tastes. Who knows, maybe there are dozens of gods and atheists will get into a nerd heaven where they fuck cosplay chicks and lan party with their friends?

im gonna get a bowl of cereal

milk expired 2 days ago

I have no idea why that made me laugh so much. A piece of life we can all relate to.

Eat the cereal anyway you pansy, it's only two days past use-by date, it's not like it's gone toxic.

Unless the milk is lumpy in which case microwave it for 2 minutes and the lumps would go away.

then it's fucking warm

Nothing like a hot bowl of Lucky Charms!

Naper knows what he's talking about: The heat generates the tastiness!

cereal aint fuckin porridge

the fun part about atheismists is that believing in Jesus existance and words is exactly the same as believing in Darwing

What?

You don't believe that Darwin existed?

dude it was some weak early morning trolling about the false assumption that none of Darwin's theory is scientifically proven (some of his works have scientific formulas supporting them since 1900 or so). When i signed up in quake I made a clan called "Darwinism" lol :D.
It's been two days so CBA going on

Go on, arse yourself ;)

best part of the thread is guessing who's trollink and who's not. Not easy.

Atheists, huh? Nothing we can't fix. Do you have a moment to talk about our Lord and Savior Cooller?

um wel suer sir tel me al about.

In the beginning when Cooller created the entities and the renderer, the map was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from Cooller swept over the face of the polygons. Then Cooller said, "Let there be vertex light"; and there was vertex light. And Cooller saw that the vertex light was good; and Cooller separated the vertex light from the darkness. Cooller called the vertex light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

All that might actually be more suitable for Carmack :>

There is only one Lord and Saviour (peace be upon his name) - don't blaspheme as Xenu is the One and Only.

Title misses a colon.

Atheism: Religion is bullshit.

.

Ahhhh what's the fucking difference between the two????
Been looking and loooking.....

plussed you accidentally but you just view links and see that both have same name, hence...

but why?? why does he doe that?

plussed you back btw, so the esreality balance isn't upset.

Athistism!

Ahh i Never knew that i beliebe in UFOs!

Ah, the age-old "will a earth round or will he flat" dilemma. This one will take brain power several orders of magnitude above mine to resolve. I defer to the expert opinion of Doctor Nigel E. Chesterfield -

"According to my calculations, an earth will round".

Another mystery solved.

the only religion i see in this thread is autism

amazing.

hmmm... may very well be the biggest crock of shit i have ever read. thanks guys! carry on!

christians :D


gotta love these guys... so persistent in their ignorance even though we left the caves many years ago.

^

what exactly are they ignoring?

their own ability to think

how so?

first 20 times when i actually made the mistake to try to put some sense into the mind of a christian was 20 too many. ain't gonna go there again. sorry.

just curious what makes you think christians as ignorants and what they're ignoring in specific

that's okay, but no, thank you.

I want to read Jamies' take on this.

I heard he believes in unicorns.

He believes that shagging a unicorn is an upgrade from shagging goats ))

that's not how it works.

you're supposed to say he's poor, then he immediately runs to the bank and withdraws 10 years worth of unemployment checks, then takes a picture of it to prove you wrong.

Actually the proof in the video about "will a earth round or will he flat" is so fuckin funnyy. I exploded at work today, when I say his drawing for the south pole guy gravity. Hahahahah

I think he is just trollin. Nobody can be that stupid!

I just watched it, it is so lol.

The urt.. he not a round he is a flat.

xaxaxa!!!!!!!!!!1

u all dum bdicsusing god exis ts god not exits...

everi body nows god is ded so noexist no god no more

see truht in wipikedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_is_dead

lol @ u alle ))))))))))))))

Nietzsche proclaimed that we had killed the need for organized religion, and with it objective morality, thus bringing about nihilism and thought it was dangerous.

even though most of his contemporaries in his similar existentialist department were mostly atheist, including Nietzsche i believe, it's a mostly misunderstood quote

also heil satan, fuc god #sawg

u reed buks ye??? smart much???

xaxaxaxaxaxa

edukat plz!!!1!

i know u were joking/le trolun XDDD but i decided to make myself feel smart anyway.

Well, in that case...

And how smart do you feel right now?

heil satan

www.truthism.com Everyone should read that wall of text once in their lives.

This domain name expired on 2013-07-28 21:18:56
Click here to renew it.

Edit: Found the typo, didn't readed lol.

Its the funniest shit you will ever read.

Ok, so it's the funniest shit I'll never read. ;)

That site will give you cancer lol

Good thing you spelled it wrong ;-)

I mean likening "masonic" with sonic the fast food place..

..and that all stars are cubical but look round because they're spinning fast.. lollerskates

I've encountered some people in my days who believe all of this David Icke shit....

Yeah but that site is like, David Icke taken to blatantly comedic levels.

Well it's all crazy anyways, maybe degrees of crazy is a waste of time :-P

I just like how combative the wording is on the site.

Reptilians, genetic engineering of humans, aliens, hollow Earth... all blended together in a single wonderful website! Thank you, internet.

Okay I saw the thread last week and have been following the comments, but I didn't bother to watch the videos until today.

haha

Great stuff.

SyncError - Getting more involved in the community, one troll thread at a time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cg6mpcxVKY

if you take a look at any world map and you think about how life was socially structured before globalization happened, you can realize that religion is merely a geographical accident because in each place they had to make something up to explain why sun rises every single day and they definitely educate their children over religious premises.

That's changing nowadays, let's say you can find a buddhist in central park or you don't have to wake up anymore a Sunday to listen that you gonna burn in hell, but this is good, this means freedom of choice so you shouldn't tell what people what to believe, we are all wrong anyway.

i'd say it's just crowd control. the oldest and the most simple way of crowd control.

In other words, religion is a lot like polymorph. It turns people into sheep and they cannot move nor act!




Your words, not mine.

If everyone is wrong and you say everyone is wrong then at least one or more is right ;)

Imagine 5 persons talking to each other about their favorite fruit, and they are really fanatic about their taste.

the 1st one loves apple, 2nd loves pears, 3rd loves watermelon, the 4th loves lemons and the 5th doesn't eat any fruit.

None of these guys can tell to each other which fruit fruit is better or tastes better, however they gonna be surprised at the guy who doesn't eat fruits, like, wtf man y no eat fruit.

this analogy goes into religion too, except that the conversation would be way more tense because people think religion is more important than fruit.

If you say that one or more is right we will get conspiranoid dude


and nobody make any racist joke about the 3rd guy

mmmmmmh watermelon :homer:

Haven't seen the videos until today and I must say that guy is a glorious troll.
Subscribed

Just realized exactly who he looks like.

Will try find a picture of this guy.

looking forward to this

can't find a picture of him individually, sorry to disappoint. I will try again. I WILL TRY AGAIN

man, you can't build a chaps hopes up like that :(

Posting in a progamers thread.

India has a good number of retards like him, some of these become Gurus and exploit other weak minds.

After visiting his facebook and twitter seems like he is hardcore trolling :)