Same shit same fundy argument "Atheists responsible for most genocide"

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15461
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Same shit same fundy argument "Atheists responsible for most genocide"

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4740
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Yawn

Yawn


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15461
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Yawn

Yawn is right, but we still have to combat this bullshit.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Peggotty
atheist
Peggotty's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2012-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Yawn

Yawn is right, but we still have to combat this bullshit.

Stalin, Hitler and Chairman Mao are the top three psychopathic leaders!

 

Also, all three had mindless followers just like a religious phenomenon such as the totalitarian Catholic Church which believes the pope is infallible and that they are the only ones who have the truth.

 

None of this had anything to do with atheism. As the science historian Jacob Bronowski said ‘we should all remember there is no absolute truth'.

 

http://www.mediaite.com/online/christopher-hitchens-final-interview-catholic-church-christian-charities-and-totalitarianism/ 

 

Oh, but Peggotty, you haven't given Mr. Barkis his proper answer, you know.
Charles Dickens


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Peggotty.

 

 

 

                  Just as a point of reference.   Hitler was NO atheist, he believed in god and considered himself a good catholic;(he also believed in astrology & psychics & faith heeling) he persicuted atheists and often referenced god in his speaches.   Stalin from an early age was  studying for the priesthood from which, no doubt he learned how to create a personality cult.   Mao  & Pol Pot were both on a youth track to be buddhist monks where they , no doubt learned about education and re-education and dedication to THE Master (hem).   NEVER let a theist off easy just by sighting them,  never!

 

 

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick wrote:Mao  & Pol

Jeffrick wrote:

Mao  & Pol Pot were both on a youth track to be buddhist monks where they , no doubt learned about education and re-education and dedication to THE Master (hem).   NEVER let a theist off easy just by sighting them,  never!

mao never considered becoming a buddhist monk, nor did he ever express belief or interest in buddhism.  i'm fairly certain his father wasn't even religious, only his mother.

mao, like most ambitious, reasonably educated young men of his day, studied for the civil service exams, which were based on neo-confucian philosophy.  in the meantime, he worked as a schoolteacher.  anyway, becoming a buddhist monk has never been considered a terribly respectable thing in china, where family is valued above all else, and has been since long before buddhism came to the country.

as for stalin, he studied for the priesthood for the same reason most young men did: it was the only way to get an education and a good job in theocratic, tsarist russia, especially in a backwater like georgia.  considering russian orthodox priests are free to marry (and usually do), it's not like he would have really had to sacrifice anything.  like mao, he never expressed a religious viewpoint (quite the contrary); he was a problematic student, and never finished seminary.

mao and stalin were unambiguous atheists, and we all just need to accept that and move on.

as for pol pot, i'm not sure, but considering cambodia is a theravada country, where buddhism has little to do with the day-to-day life of the laity (unlike in mahayana countries like japan), i would be surprised if he did pursue a monastic vocation, and even more surprised that he didn't follow through with it.

as for hitler, he does seem to have been a theist, but not a terribly motivated one.  catholicism no doubt influenced his thought, but that can be said for the majority of europeans even to this day.  i think "gott mit uns" was kept on nazi military paraphernalia more out of habit than genuine conviction, as it had always been part of the german uniform, long before the rise of national socialism (and the nazis were very careful to appear to uphold the old german military tradition).

mao, stalin, and pol pot were not primarily motivated by their atheism, nor was hitler primarily motivated by his theism.  whether or not most 20th century dictators were theists is pretty much a non-issue.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Peggotty wrote:  None of

Peggotty wrote:

 

 

 

 

None of this had anything to do with atheism.

 

 

strictly speaking, nothing has anything to do with atheism, as atheism has no content.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Peggotty
atheist
Peggotty's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2012-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick wrote:Just as a

Jeffrick wrote:
Just as a point of reference.   Hitler was NO atheist, he believed in god and considered himself a good catholic;(he also believed in astrology & psychics & faith heeling) he persicuted atheists and often referenced god in his speaches.   Stalin from an early age was  studying for the priesthood from which, no doubt he learned how to create a personality cult.   Mao  & Pol Pot were both on a youth track to be buddhist monks where they , no doubt learned about education and re-education and dedication to THE Master (hem).   NEVER let a theist off easy just by sighting them,  never!

 

Yes, a large number of the population were Christian. The main cause of the rise of totalitarianism in Europe in the 30’s was mainly economic hardship partly due to the harsh reparations for the damage of WWI  - Treaty of Versailles.

 

 

Oh, but Peggotty, you haven't given Mr. Barkis his proper answer, you know.
Charles Dickens


Peggotty
atheist
Peggotty's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2012-08-07
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Peggotty

iwbiek wrote:

Peggotty wrote:
 

None of this had anything to do with atheism.

 

 

strictly speaking, nothing has anything to do with atheism, as atheism has no content.

Do you know how that came about - I always thought it was because the burden of proof was on the theist?  Also, slightly off topic I've come across some atheists (not online) that believe in ghosts, paranormal activity and other strange stuff but still don't believe in God - are they classed as weak atheists as opposed to strong?

 

Oh, but Peggotty, you haven't given Mr. Barkis his proper answer, you know.
Charles Dickens


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Peggotty wrote: Do you know

Peggotty wrote:

 

Do you know how that came about - I always thought it was because the burden of proof was on the theist?  Also, slightly off topic I've come across some atheists (not online) that believe in ghosts, paranormal activity and other strange stuff but still don't believe in God - are they classed as weak atheists as opposed to strong?

 

the burden of proof is always on whoever makes a positive assertion.  an atheist is an atheist because of an absence of belief in god.  it does not rest on anybody having the burden of proof for anything.  it's a philosophical default, not a logical postulate.

if those believers in paranormal activity believe a god is logically and/or empirically impossible, they are strong atheists (and strong atheism does have content).  if they do not believe a god is impossible, they are weak atheists.  their belief or disbelief in the paranormal is by definition irrelevant.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
lol

lol...

"I've come across some atheists (not online) that believe in ghosts, paranormal activity and other strange stuff but still don't believe in God - are they classed as weak atheists as opposed to strong?"

Equivocation anyone? I love it

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Peggotty
atheist
Peggotty's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2012-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin

Jean Chauvin wrote:

lol...

"I've come across some atheists (not online) that believe in ghosts, paranormal activity and other strange stuff but still don't believe in God - are they classed as weak atheists as opposed to strong?"

Equivocation anyone? I love it

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

It's not quite as simple as you think. Try reading 'Atheist Spirituality - An Elegant Argument for Spirituality Without God' - by Andre Comte-Sponville OR this:-

People who self-identify as atheists are often assumed to be irreligious, but some sects within major religions reject the existence of a personal, creator deity.[77] In recent years, certain religious denominations have accumulated a number of openly atheistic followers, such as atheistic or humanistic Judaism[78][79] and Christian atheists.[80][81][82]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Christian atheism is an ideology in which the belief in the God of Christianity is rejected or absent but the moral teachings of Jesus are followed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

Atheism is the absence of God-belief.  Consequently, a person could be an atheist and still believe in ghosts and paranormal phenomena.  I don't believe in such things and I don't think most atheists do but nothing about atheism per se rules it out.

 

 

Oh, but Peggotty, you haven't given Mr. Barkis his proper answer, you know.
Charles Dickens


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Peg

Hi Peg,

I do believe it's pretty simple. While "atheists" are suppose to deny all in the area of supernatural (which would include the soul), then by affirming the supernatural in ghosts (spirits) causes a huge huge essential contradiction and hypocrisy in their atheism.

I have said this over and over. The so called atheist says one thing in theory on this blog, but in practice do absolutely the opposite of what they say.

No if we stop being mentally retarded and just admit that we not NOT atheist but indeed agnostics that simply mean we have no idea what is out there, then the ghost concept is less fallacious and idiotic.

And finally, these "atheists" beg the question with ghosts, Grandma's banana pudding, and kite flying by confusing sound reason with empiricial irrationality.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:While

Jean Chauvin wrote:

While "atheists" are suppose to deny all in the area of supernatural (which would include the soul)

whoever said that, jean, you unbelievably dense, dilettantish piece-of-shit nincompoop?  you don't fool anybody.  you have all the intelligence of a fucking brick and you haven't even read half the shit you refer to.

an atheist denies "god," you moron.  a personal, creator god who is a conscious personality.  that is what we deny.  go learn sanskrit and/or prakrit and find out just what a huge variety of atheists there are.  kapila, mahavira, and shakyamuni were all atheists and they predate your bullshit, fantasy galilean jew by a longshot.

you really are incredibly stupid.  you're the opposite of erudite.  i bet you frustrated your teachers to no end, and probably thought that was because you were "misunderstood."  you are easily understood, as all simpletons are.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Ick

Atheists deny God? This is your definition now? So you disagree with this entire website on the definition of atheism. Serpent, the founder of this site uses a more modern definition.

Real "atheists" know that it brings with it a worldview regarding evolution (biology), chemistry, politics, philosohy, art, music, etc. This has been shown on countless times and I have demonstrated this fact countless times.

If you look at John Cage for music, or Jackson Polluck for art, these men demonstrate through the practice of their art their worldview of atheism. To say that atheism has no worldview is nilhilistic via Nietzche's philosophy in brining Existentialism to its logical conclusion. While atheism and Existentialism are natural allies, they are two different categories.

Thus "atheism" especially your classical definition brings a worldview with it. This has been showing in history and our soceity. It is no coincidence that every 'atheist" is a liberal. Every meaning the consistent ones. This demonstrates the worldview of atheism.

And we all know, ESPECIALLY your classical definition that you just gave, "atheism" presuppositionally denies the supernatural. They deny the miracles, the resurrection of Christ, they deny the sea separated when Moses crossed. This is "atheism"

To then affirm the supernatural with ghosts is extremely humorous and reiterates how you are all hypocrites going through life like a leap of faith, where the theory and practice constantly contradict among the ignorant emotional "atheists"

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5130
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
The gas demon

 

This is not about genocide directly but you'd expect human violence to be a biochemical thing.  And so it does seem. 

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline

The falling violence figures in the U.S. are mirrored by Australia's violent crime rate, which has fallen fast since 1990. It's the same in Britain and NZ. The UK's murder rate has halved since 1990. 

You couldn't argue lead causes all violence but evidence suggests its a major contributor.

 

The countries where leaded petrol is still used include:

 

IN POPULATION ORDER

53,999,804 Myanmar (Burma)

33,944,937 Algeria

30,399,572 Iraq

29,835,392 Afghanistan

24,457,492 Korea, Dem. People’s Rep of (North. Korea)

24,133,492 Yemen

 

Leaded fuel will be phased out globally in the next year or so and hopefully the violence-damping effects seen in the West will be seen elsewhere. 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
fuckface wrote:Atheists deny

fuckface wrote:

Atheists deny God?

yup.

fuckface wrote:

This is your definition now?

yup.  this has always been my definition.  search my posts. 

fuckface wrote:

So you disagree with this entire website on the definition of atheism.

ok.  and that's a problem because...?

wow, gene, for someone who rails against public education all the time, i would at least expect you to be educated.  public education is better than no education, which is what you bring to the table.

in fact, you're CONSISTENTLY uneducated.

what a joke.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hey Ick

Your use of argument shows the worldview of atheism being utterly absurd. You have no argument. You're just flinging your poo.

Atheists by definition are Naturalists which brings and entire philosophical worldview and to deny this is historical ignorance and complete ignorance on the subject of philosophy and worldview.

Definition of Worldview

A web of basic beliefs in which is determined by ones experience and knowledge.

So for an atheist to deny the supernatural and then affirm his belief in ghosts causes him to break an essential in atheism and he by definition would then be disqualified from the naturalistic atheistic religion and is not an atheist by definition.

Profession isn't possession. This is a core essential that has been broken by this uneducated ghost wannabe atheist.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Your use

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Your use of argument shows the worldview of atheism being utterly absurd. You have no argument. You're just flinging your poo.

Atheists by definition are Naturalists which brings and entire philosophical worldview and to deny this is historical ignorance and complete ignorance on the subject of philosophy and worldview.

Definition of Worldview

A web of basic beliefs in which is determined by ones experience and knowledge.

So for an atheist to deny the supernatural and then affirm his belief in ghosts causes him to break an essential in atheism and he by definition would then be disqualified from the naturalistic atheistic religion and is not an atheist by definition.

Profession isn't possession. This is a core essential that has been broken by this uneducated ghost wannabe atheist.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

mm-hm.  nice effort, scout.  i'll hang it right here on the refrigerator.

 

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Ick

Ick,

How Convenient!

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Ick

Ick,

How Convenient!

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Peggotty
atheist
Peggotty's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2012-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Real

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Real "atheists" know that it brings with it a worldview regarding evolution (biology), chemistry, politics, philosohy, art, music, etc. This has been shown on countless times and I have demonstrated this fact countless times.


Where knowledge is concerned, loss of faith changes nothing.  The sciences remain the same and have the same limitations.  Our scientists are well aware of this. Where morals are concerned loss of faith changes next to nothing why would you think it does?
 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
If you look at John Cage for music, or Jackson Polluck for art, these men demonstrate through the practice of their art their worldview of atheism. To say that atheism has no worldview is nilhilistic via Nietzche's philosophy in brining Existentialism to its logical conclusion. While atheism and Existentialism are natural allies, they are two different categories.


Nihilism is triggered by disappointment (hope for future happiness) so the cure for nihilism must be to give up all hope (for the future) and integrate our present despair, cheerfully (love/acceptance).  Therefore the atheist must be in a better position than the theist who is forced into the position of having both faith (belief) and hope, whereas the atheist needs only acceptance of what is (love/charity).  It's a bit like the inverse of Pascal's wager (the idea that we ought to act as if there were a God just in case there is one).
 

Oh, but Peggotty, you haven't given Mr. Barkis his proper answer, you know.
Charles Dickens


Amedevew
Posts: 1
Joined: 2013-01-12
User is offlineOffline
GardenFly IIUncertainInquiryKick

Obraz Chmura Romantyczny Biegacz Aktorka Brązowy Kandydat Bath II Pasmo Duży w$p1erajmy hosp1cja Tutaj Importować Pierś Worek Dziennikarz Miąższ Niebo Świadek Kopnij Piasek w$p1erajmy hosp1cja Bęben Kosztować Bank II Alkohol Pilot I Zakres Dolina Komórka Duchowy Watch http://williamsburgva.gov/redirect.aspx?url=http://www.sramnaspam.pl/ Pozować Kościół Spotkanie I Wejście Kąt Katastrofa Starożytny Mózg Ekran Prawnik w$p1erajmy hosp1cja Bar II Pole Nagranie Zaangażowany I Zajęty Górny Dżinsy Region Walczyć Choroba w$p1erajmy hosp1cja Uszkodzenie Przepowiadać Zaklęcie Strona Hammer Emocjonalny Dokładnie Obracać Przyjaciel Producent w$p1erajmy hosp1cja


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Peg

Lack of belief is not atheism, its agnosticism. They cannot both be the same lest they break the logical fallacy of contradiction. However, Atheism brings with it a worldview of naturalism. This has been understood through John Dewey, B.F. Skinner, Pavlov, Liell.

As a result of the consequence of this naturalistic atheism, an entire cirriculum was founded based on this secular worldview. Most if not all State colleges therefore demonstrate through their teaching that very atheistic naturalism that is the consequence thereof.

Nietzche carried Existentialism to its logical conclusion. It started with Kirkengaard, Sarte systemized it but it was not completely brought to the end of its complete confidence until Nietzche. We see this ally in atheism today within Post-Modernism.

There is no purpose or meaning, no absolutes, no right or wrong, Reality is subjective, Knowledge is impossible, and beauty doesn't exist.

Thus in 2013, atheistic naturalism along with its ally Existentialism has brought it very close to its logical conclusion. We don't see an atheistic dictator yet killing people (e.g. Obama), we're getting close to ultimate consistency.

Look up John Cage on youtube Peg so as to see an example of naturalistic atheism using "music" to deliver its Nihilistic worldview.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Lack of

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Lack of belief is not atheism, its agnosticism. They cannot both be the same lest they break the logical fallacy of contradiction.

bullshit.  agnostic=without knowledge.  without knowledge of what?  atheist=without god.  without knowledge of god, i.e., god cannot be reasonably perceived or inferred, therefore we do not take his existence for granted.

all atheists are agnostics of a sort, but not all agnostics are atheists.

and you have made yourself look like an even bigger moron.  you remind me of me at age 15 when i got a hold of the summa theologiae and suddenly thought i was hot shit because i could throw around words like "essence," "substance," and "accident."  trouble was, i had no real idea what i was talking about.  neither do you.  ever.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Atheism

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Atheism brings with it a worldview of naturalism. This has been understood through John Dewey, B.F. Skinner, Pavlov, Liell.

dewey was a not a naturalist, dewey was a pragmatist.  a pragmatist accepts a worldview as long as it makes sense and no longer--hence sidney hook's transformation from revolutionary marxist to rabid cold warrior and neoconservative, all while remaining an atheist.  a naturalist, on the other hand, is a naturalist for better or for worse.  i would ask for a refund on whatever intro to philosophy book your grubby little sophomore hands are dogearing.

and funny you should say that, because there are millions of atheists in the world who are not naturalist at all, and yet people still willfully ignore them.  i will list their names yet again: buddhists, jains, sankhya-yogins, and advaita vedantins.  if you really want to learn something about atheism (which by now it's obvious you don't and are probably incapable of anyway), check out ishvarakrishna's sankhya karika or nagarjuna's mulamadhyamakakarika

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Nietzche carried Existentialism to its logical conclusion. It started with Kirkengaard, Sarte systemized it but it was not completely brought to the end of its complete confidence until Nietzche.

 

ok, so...sartre (have no idea who "sarte" is) predates nietzsche all of a sudden???  wow, you really need to return that book to the community college bookstore.  if you even made to a post-secondary school at all. 

oh, but let's be fair, i have nothing against autodidacts, but don't be a fucking dilettante...especially an incredibly dim one.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson