Home › Forums › Philosophy › athiest mgtow
This topic contains 98 replies, has 13 voices, and was last updated by 
Anonymous 4 years, 9 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
Anonymous42I suspect you’re on drugs or you have selective memory.
You know what? F~~~ THIS! I’m sick of being insulted, degraded, and called a drug addict with a feeble mind; simply for NOT BELIEVING AS YOU DO! I respect your beliefs, Try respecting others, instead or using gynocentric shamming tactics!
Much like Nostradamus? You’re only seeing what you want to see. You’re reinterpreting gibberish to correlate with modern events.
I never said others haven’t seen the future, and YOU are TELLING ME that I’m only seeing what I want to see, and that my arguing points are no more than GIBBERISH!
Another Girly shamming tactic: Placing words in another man’s mouth. F~~~ THIS DEBATE! YOU WON! YOU ARE GOD! Have a nice eternity!
subjugate yourself to a religion? Serving women, serving a god. In both cases you are a slave.
Show me the chains that bind me to slavery? I am a free man, I may revolt against God, or take some friendly advice form scripture, that’s my prerogative, NOT YOURS! I’ll go my own way, be my own man, make my own life!
Who the f~~~ are you to judge? Oh f~~~ me, it’s Lord Qbeck01, I better chain myself to HIS beliefs, be HIS SLAVE, serve his interests! F~~~ THAT! DRAG YOUR OWN F~~~ING CHAINS OF BIGOTRY……
You were going on about bible prophecy and premonitions on a board for atheists. Don’t get your panties in a bunch.
I have a low tolerance for magical thinking. If you want to cherry pick religious books for “friendly advice” have at it, but don’t look for atheists to respect religious dogma.
Anonymous42You’re correct QBeck01, there’s room for debate here, I digress to the absolute rule of atheism. Enjoy your thread…..
Au revoir, My intent was not to insult. No hard feelings
Anonymous42No hard feelings, I’ve been cold and snowed in for several months, I’m shivering form the onslaught of a nasty cold, I’m on the man-rag, please ignore my outburst. and have a pleasant evening too, my MGTOW brother…..
you all should look at my blog on how the church of christ thinks that prom is evil. Its quite annoying that i have to deal with stupid people who believe in stupid religious ideas all the time.
I'm married to the game,but she broke her vows.
Religious MGTOW have one more red pill to swallow.
The “christian” religion as we know it was created by the Roman emperor Constantine around the year 324 a.d. to keep his empire from falling apart. Constantine had a “vision” (probably a dream) where “Jesus” told him to conquer the unbelievers in the name of “God”. (I put “Jesus” in dummy quotes because that WASN’T his name. There was no letter “J” and nothing pronounced like it in the year zero. There WAS a carpenter from Nazereth named “Iesu”, but the mispronunciation of his name is the least of the atrocities done in his memory). Emperor Constantine had a vision. One God, One Nation, One Emperor. He continued the economic and social programs of Emperor Diocletian with a new religious twist.
So Constantine took the sacked town of Byzantium and renamed it Constantinople and then dug up the graves of the 12 apostles (where they could be found) and had them moved to one of his new churches there. He had a grave made for himself to sit in the middle of the twelve, and referred to himself as the “Isoapostelis”, or “equal to the apostles”. He collected as much early “christian” writing as he could (I use dummy quotes because “christian” isn’t a word that Iesu ever used. The Greek word “khristos” (anointed one) drove out the Hebrew word “mashiah” or “messiah” (also anointed one) around the year 600. “Khristos” became “Christian” even though Iesu, or “Jesus”, didn’t speak Greek). Then Constantine had the first fifty bibles created. They didn’t have printing presses, so they were hand written on thin skin parchment. Parts of these original Codecs survive today in museums. Constantine picked and chose what went into these original bibles, including 14 books by his favorite, Saul of Tarsus (i.e., the apostle Paul). It contained only books that he approved of, and didn’t include such popular works as the book of Enoch or any mention of Iesu’s brother, Jame. Modern examinations also reveal how sections of the codecs were edited by erasing and writing over them by scribes.
Anyhoo, Constantine outlawed other religions while forcing his new concoction into dominance. What a perfect religion, too. One that promoted subservience, piety, meekness, and humility among practitioners. One that promised heaven if you follow and hell if you don’t. He had it translated into Greek to serve as propaganda in efforts to conquer Greece, the birthplace of Philosophy and democracy (competing ideas). He didn’t like the cool December pagan holiday of Saturnalia, where people got drunk and sang from door to door (the first caroling) and town mayors forgave certain criminals and set them free. He didn’t like the competition, so he proclaimed Christmas during Saturnalia. The same with Easter during pagan fertility holidays (which were also a lot of fun, as you can imagine.)
All of this from a guy who had his wife executed by having molten lead poured down her throat. Yay! Emperor Constantine! A guy who was Sainted by all subsequent orthodox churches. Two thousand years later, nobody remembers the horrific way this propaganda was created. Now christianity is a blue pill “faith”.
Why are Atheist MGTOW are so f~~~ing angry? We are sick of being lied to. Christianity is a state created farce. Religion, much like feminism, is one big f~~~ing lie attempting to turn men into disposable copper top batteries. We would LIKE to believe in a god looking out for us, and a heaven waiting for good men. We would LIKE to believe women are looking out for us, and that we can build futures together if we are good. But these are lies.
Religion is a blue pill. Feminism is a blue pill. Anti-theism and MGTOW are red pills.
For further info, check out my reference “The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Roman Empire” by Eric Nelson, Ph.D. (I know, I know. “Complete Idiot’s Guide.” But it’s a thoughtful book. Seriously)
Do you see us dicking around in the Men of Faith room?!
Not only did you “dick around” but you were quick to insult and slander others. For example in “Christian/Religious Mgtow possible?” read posts:
32228, 32299, 32319, 32509, 32602, 32884, 32848 these are just some of the recent few. If you want more then I think they start on page 2.
We’re here to talk about atheist topics/literature/authors between atheists, not muck up another thread with your tired old, defeated Christian apologetics that even you aren’t familiar with because you don’t read books dude!
There were no apologetics here. I simply pointed out that Atheism, which understands reality as only physical, does not make sense. For many, its fundamental premise is “reason” however if one was to look up the definition (posted above)
That’s not a premise of Scentific atheism.
Actually it is a premise of scientific atheism. If man’s ability to reason or the scientific method does not give understanding then it does not exist. The scientific method is based on control scenarios and sensory experience. For the scientific method to prove there is a God: First he would have to be controlled in some manner for an experiment (And if man can control God in any respect then he could not be God). Second man would have to have faith that his senses were not deceived or limited (if all knowledge comes only through sensory experience then we are stuck with the problems of abstract concepts such as Geometry being in existence).
Dropping names like Aristotle and Descarte is a fallacy: argument from authority.
Then in effect you cannot argue since you yourself are acting as an authority.
Faith is just another word for irrationality.
You should check at the definition on reason again.
“While it is true there are fundamental axiom we must accept, this is not faith. They are considered necessary starting points. We assume, as an axiom that the external world does exist and we are not brains in a vat. Believing in Solipsism is an unfalsifiable position to hold.”
You see the bold italicized mark? You do know what an axiom is right? Here is the definition:
1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof.
2. a universally accepted principle or rule.
3. Logic, Mathematics. a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.Wait, we need proof for everything right? (definition 1) Do you even know what self evident means?
evident in itself without proof or demonstration; axiomatic.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/self%20evident?s=t
You cannot argue for definition 2 either because that would fall under dogma. Do you know what dogma is?
<span class=”oneClick-link”>a</span> <span class=”oneClick-link oneClick-available”>settled</span> <span class=”oneClick-link”>or</span> <span class=”oneClick-link oneClick-available”>established</span> <span class=”oneClick-link oneClick-available”>opinion,</span> <span class=”oneClick-link oneClick-available”>belief,</span> <span class=”oneClick-link”>or</span> <span class=”oneClick-link oneClick-available”>principle:</span>
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dogma?s=t
Definition 3 is self explanatory. If you don’t understand why, then bring it up.
Listen qbeck, you have no clue what you are talking about. Half the “fallacies” you falsely claim I commit you have committed yourself. You do not even know the definitions of some of the words you use then project that on me. Take a day or two off, figure out where you went wrong and we will continue this conversation. I am going to continue with elemental’s points on a separate post.
The “christian” religion as we know it was created by the Roman emperor Constantine around the year 324 a.d. to keep his empire from falling apart. Constantine had a “vision” (probably a dream) where “Jesus” told him to conquer the unbelievers in the name of “God”. (I put “Jesus” in dummy quotes because that WASN’T his name. There was no letter “J” and nothing pronounced like it in the year zero. There WAS a carpenter from Nazereth named “Iesu”, but the mispronunciation of his name is the least of the atrocities done in his memory). Emperor Constantine had a vision. One God, One Nation, One Emperor. He continued the economic and social programs of Emperor Diocletian with a new religious twist.
It was organized as a social construct during that time. All governments of the time claimed power through deities or religious means. It was not created in and of itself from Constantine. Many of the documents and leading authorities who gave advice existed prior to him. In many respects it replaced paganism and the belief that the emperor’s themselves were gods. There is no argument here. Just select pieces of history.
Anyhoo, Constantine outlawed other religions while forcing his new concoction into dominance. What a perfect religion, too. One that promoted subservience, piety, meekness, and humility among practitioners.
Even the pagans required authority. State sanctioned atheistic communism promoted subservience. All governments do this. If the issue is authority, then you do not have any points to argue with in regards to the promotion of atheism. Your issues are mostly political and you forget that all governments and institutions claim authority from either a Diety/dieties or man acting as a deity. Authority is an inevitable part of life.
He collected as much early “christian” writing as he could (I use dummy quotes because “christian” isn’t a word that Iesu ever used. The Greek word “khristos” (anointed one) drove out the Hebrew word “mashiah” or “messiah” (also anointed one) around the year 600. “Khristos” became “Christian” even though Iesu, or “Jesus”, didn’t speak Greek). Then Constantine had the first fifty bibles created. They didn’t have printing presses, so they were hand written on thin skin parchment. Parts of these original Codecs survive today in museums. Constantine picked and chose what went into these original bibles, including 14 books by his favorite, Saul of Tarsus (i.e., the apostle Paul). It contained only books that he approved of, and didn’t include such popular works as the book of Enoch or any mention of Iesu’s brother, Jame.
There was a whole synod of Bishops who helped in deciding what books were necessary and which weren’t. Constantine had the final say in unifying all these things. As I said before, he helped unify Christianity. Theology/philosophy/history/true or false claims were all taken into account. You view this as a “bad thing” but editing is a natural part of the formation of all books and ideas. There would have been a problem if there was no editing. The editing was meant to determined which books were inspired or not and where necessary or not. The book of Enoch was not viewed as necessary. In regards to James, many cultures did not have words for cousin’s/uncles/aunts/etc so the term brother and sister were used very liberally.
We are sick of being lied to.
About what exactly? Because all the history you quoted is Sunday school stuff. There are no deep historical secrets you are revealing that a million Christians (and non-Christians) do not already know.
All of this from a guy who had his wife executed by having molten lead poured down her throat.
All kings and governments had brutal forms of execution back then. The pagan emperors would roast Christians alive or have them mauled by animals in the arena. Rome was brutal. What is the point?
Christianity is a state created farce. Religion, much like feminism, is one big f~~~ing lie attempting to turn men into disposable copper top batteries.
You have not pointed out any examples of how Christianity attempted to turn men into “batteries”. You arguments seem to be more against government abuse itself. You seem to forget about the mass murders perpetrated by atheism regimes under such men as Stalin. Statistically speaking atheism has caused more deaths and persecutions in the 2oth century alone than Christianity, or most religions, have in the prior 500. If you do not want to accept a religion or philosophy because of government abuses, then that is fine. You cannot claim atheism as a philosophy (way of understanding either). Atheism has brought zero solutions.
As an atheist all you can do is attack the beliefs of others because you have none of your own. Athiesm has brought zero solutions to society, you cannot even claim its benefits. You will never point out the positives in any other belief system, only what it lacks. You will ignore the food programs, charities, social order, etc. created by faiths that immeasurably outweigh anything the atheist even contemplated. Atheism is a joke and a philosophy based around nothing promoted by self righteous hypocrites. You say there is no Justice or Fairness but done nothing to promote it. Even your concept of truth relies on negatives only. Athiesm cannot produce anything of value because it values nothing. It is a philosophy adopted by men who are angry at their own powerlessness in life because they did not get what they want how they wanted it. Then they seek to blame everything else for it.
I don’t respect Atheism because it is irrational and for whiny spoiled brats with over inflated self importance.
Now go ahead tell everyone how smart you are and then quote an obscure author.
Hey, John Doe. Let me tell you about how I’m a “whiny spoiled brat with over inflated self importance.”
I was in Afghanistan in 2010. As a squad leader in an Engineering Platoon, I had to chose a couple of guys to be machine gunners for convoys. I took volunteers. One was a buck sergeant christian, the other a specialist atheist.
I took them both to .50 caliber, S.A.W., and M240 ranges before we deployed. I was hyper qualified, being previously experienced in two combat MOSs (military occupational specialties, or jobs) in Armor and Artillery from other units that I hopped around in (I’ve got a very long military career). So I spent extra time in training these guys for the convoys we would be going on. Both of these Soldiers showed enthusiasm and ability. They enjoyed their guns.
But when boots hit the ground in Afghanistan and we had daily attacks on our FOB, old Sergeant christian reached for his bible. He discovered that gunners on convoys often had to actually shoot! He discovered he was getting paid money for a reason! So he complained to the C.O. that he had “religious issues” and that he felt he couldn’t take another human life. I had to scramble to train another guy on the fly because the christian, not the atheist, was a whiny bitch.
“Angry at their own powerlessness in life because they did not get what they want how they wanted it” you say?
F~~~ You John Doe. There are two groups of able bodied people who can get out of military service in America….women and conscientious objectors. Christians (and other religious types) use the power of the state to give them special privilege all the f~~~ing time, asshole. I’m angry that I was lied to by my sergeant who volunteered to be my gunner and then claimed religious privilege to get himself out of duty.
As for your claim that atheism is only about negatives, bulls~~~. Human beings are intrinsically valuable in and by themselves. We don’t need external validity. Humanism is Atheism’s answer to religion. We can make our own charities. We can make our own ethics. We don’t need women to tell us our own value, and we don’t need some invisible deity that no one has ever seen to tell us we’re worthwhile.
Anonymous42I had to scramble to train another guy on the fly because the christian, not the atheist, was a whiny bitch.
Hey Elemental, I’m a guy with faith beyond the tangible(leave it at that). Give me a 50.cal and ammo box, and I’ll have no problem annihilating the enemy! That guy was a coward, not a christian first and foremost, but a coward first and foremost! Please don’t confuse the two, it’s degrading to any person with courage, and should not be used as a primary example. I would have no problem blowing his coward head clean off his body. Cowards are one thing, Christians and likewise are another. I’m sure if there was a way to, atheist cowards would do the same…A coward is a coward and primarily a coward.
Terminal Meme wrote:
Do you see us dicking around in the Men of Faith room?!Not only did you “dick around” but you were quick to insult and slander others. For example in “Christian/Religious Mgtow possible?” read posts: 32228, 32299, 32319, 32509, 32602, 32884, 32848 these are just some of the recent few. If you want more then I think they star
“Christian/Religious Mgtow possible?” this thread invited that kind of debate. If you had any integrity you’d acknowledge what you are doing in this thread as rude. I personally don’t have a problem with you posting religious nonsense here, but then again I didn’t create this thread.
Terminal Meme wrote:
We’re here to talk about atheist topics/literature/authors between atheists, not muck up another thread with your tired old, defeated Christian apologetics that even you aren’t familiar with because you don’t read books dude!There were no apologetics here. I simply pointed out that Atheism, which understands reality as only physical, does not make sense. For many, its fundamental premise is “reason” however if one was to look up the definition (posted above)
Atheism is simply the lack of belief in Gods-full stop. Just being an atheist doesn’t tell you anything about how they arrived at their lack of belief. Children are born atheist, people who’ve never heard of concepts of gods are atheist, etc.
I would agree that many Atheist come to their atheism via reason. Reason doesn’t limit itself to the physical. Reason deals with concepts as well. Mathematics comes to mind when thinking of rationally based, non physical scientific endeavors.Qbeck01 wrote:
That’s not a premise of Scentific atheism.Actually it is a premise of scientific atheism. If man’s ability to reason or the scientific method does not give understanding then it does not exist. The scientific method is based on control scenarios and sensory experience. For the scientific method to prove there is a God: First he would have to be controlled in some manner for an experiment (And if man can control God in any respect then he could not be God). Second man would have to have faith that his senses were not deceived or limited (if all knowledge comes only through sensory experience then we are stuck with the problems of abstract concepts such as Geometry being in existence).
You are fixated on adding “scientific” in front of atheism. At first I thought you meant rational atheists. (as opposed to irrational) But you think their is an epistemology associated with atheism…there is not. Sorry to disappoint you.
Your argument that a god would have to be controlled in order for you to use the scientific method is silly. All you would need to do is define what you mean by god; a definition that can be used to distinguish a god from what is not god. Also you would have to be able to conceive of a god that is theoretically falsifiable.
A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false. The philosopher Karl Popper explains the necessity of falsifiability. He’s worth a Google.Qbeck01 wrote:
Dropping names like Aristotle and Descarte is a fallacy: argument from authority.Then in effect you cannot argue since you yourself are acting as an authority.
You made the argument- hey! look Aristotle and Descartes believe in god so you should to. That is an argument from authority. If i say believe this because I say it’s true then I would be using that fallacy-Which i don’t
“Dropping names like Aristotle and Descartes is a fallacy: argument from authority.The ancient Greeks, though ahead of their time, believed a lot of crazy s~~~. Are you saying the Greek pantheon is real? Evidence and reason stand or fall on their own.”Qbeck01 wrote:
“While it is true there are fundamental axiom we must accept, this is not faith. They are considered necessary starting points. We assume, as an axiom that the external world does exist and we are not brains in a vat. Believing in Solipsism is an unfalsifiable position to hold.”You see the bold italicized mark? You do know what an axiom is right? Here is the definition: 1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof. 2. a universally accepted principle or rule. 3. Logic, Mathematics. a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it. Wait, we need proof for everything right? (definition 1) Do you even know what self evident means? evident in itself without proof or demonstration; axiomatic
Definition 3 is self explanatory. If you don’t understand why, then bring it up. Listen qbeck, you have no clue what you are talking about. Half the “fallacies” you falsely claim I commit you have committed yourself. You do not even know the definitions of some of the words you use then project that on me. Take a day or two off, figure out where you went wrong and we will continue this conversation. I am going to continue with elemental’s points on a separate post.If you’re going to quote me you should not alter what i wrote. Have some intellectual integrity for Christs sake.
Your objection to Axioms not themselves being proven is rather stupid. Axioms are not premises as you tend to confuse.
An axiom is an irreducible primary. It doesn’t rest upon anything in order to be valid, and it cannot be proven by any “more basic” premises. A true axiom can not be refuted because the act of trying to refute it requires that very axiom as a premise. An attempt to contradict an axiom can only end in a contradiction.
They are not statements we merely believe to be true; they are statements that we cannot deny without using them in our denial. Axioms are the foundation of all knowledge.
Axiom include: existence exists, The Law of Identity, and Consciousness.
You do not get to label religious belief as an axiom in order to abandon your obligation for proving it.
You think if you undermine reason and science you somehow demonstrate a god exists. This is not the case; to abandon reason is to abandon sanity, it is to abandon reality itself.
I’d recommend you take a 101 logic course if you intend to speak on these topics.Elemental –It’s good to see a fellow veteran. 6 years Army here. /salute
Hey, Qbeck, no doubt you are right about the nature of cowardice. And I’ve given you a round of +1 ratings on a number of your well considered posts. But please allow me to clarify my position.
The state grants special privilege to women and people of “faith”. This privilege is not available to men or anti-theists. This privilege puts the latter group in the path of physical harm and death while keeping the former group safe. It is unethical.
I’m NOT suggesting that christians or “men of faith” are cowards. I am angry at a society (and at a former chain of command in my instance) that prioritizes the worth of women and religious people over ours. These values were not placed there by atheists.
More on my tour of Afghanistan….We also had a female in our unit who, upon learning of our pending deployment, got knocked up. Not only did she not have to deploy with the rest of us, she got a promotion and a 9 to 5 desk job answering the unit telephone while we were away risking our lives.
Am I calling her a coward? Not really. Any number of guys would have taken advantage of similar options given the chance. I’m just saying the system is unethical. It gives unwarranted privilege to one group while holding another responsible.
Thanks for supporting myself and Terminal Meme with John Doe’s relentless assault against reason. The guy uses terms he clearly doesn’t understand. Atheists bring secular reasoning to MGTOW discussions. We have a lot to offer the community. It’s hard to do when some nut job continuously tells us we are RIGHT to disbelieve what we’ve been taught about women but WRONG to disbelieve what we’ve been taught about an invisible god.
Elemental- I think you’re referring to MG-Tower post. I would say the inability to accept reality is an act of cowardice. And, if they do show courage it is likely for the wrong reasons. –the courage to burn a witch or a book.
Lets not forget the modern example of the courage to fly a plane into buildings or gun down cartoonists in France. These would be acts of courage inspired by villainy or madness. For courage to be considered noble it must be courage for a virtue-as reason.
To Qbeck. Woah, sorry bro. I’m all turned sideways here.
And to MG-TOWER, Gee, does that stand for Machine Gun Tower? Ha!
I get p~~~ed when one group gets unfair preferential treatment over another, and women and christians get that in spades. From my vantage, I really don’t care if you want to believe in what I perceive as fantasy. From my vantage, I also really don’t care if women want to buy too many shoes or try to f~~~ the neighbor. What I DO care about is when I (and men who don’t claim privelege in general) have to foot the bill for these things. What I DO care about is when the next generation of kids isn’t being taught proper biology or logic in public school, but instead learn about women’s rights and how to pledge allegiance to a “god” and a piece of cloth on the wall.
I applaud MG-Tower for “sticking to his guns”. But seriously, MG-Tower, can’t you see things from our vantage too?
Anonymous42MG-Tower, can’t you see things from our vantage too?
Absolutely! It p~~~es me off when anybody gets preferential treatment over another after being sworn in; Alliance is when people of all different belief structures come together to battle a common threat; personally I would be the type to shoot a coward, rather than let him run to safety while my ass and others were in the line of fire. I take cowardliness as a act of betrayal, and a threat to any unit or individual in that unit, be it political, social, or in war. I have no use for cowards, feminists are cowards, politicians are cowards, far to many people are narcissistic cowards; “me first and f~~~ the other guy!” Machine Gun Tower, I like that, thanks!
P.S. I live in the witch burning state/Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I dwell in a forest that has been abandoned by cowards, this forest is approaching 100 years old, and has no forestry management plan. It’s approaching it’s natural burn cycle dictated by the laws of nature; drought, wind, and combined with fire, will eventually lead to people being burned alive in this forest; I grew some B~~~~ and started clearing the forest from around my home, but not without much opposition and criminal charges from the corrupted politicians that created these conditions in the first place.
That’s why from time to time I say “God damn the United States of America”, and the republic as it stands; a death trap for all who dare enter this overgrown forest of political decay and legal corruption.
I like what I’m reading here, props to Elemental and Qbeck01. Former 0311 Marine here. Kicked out for substance abuse and some article 86. I did deploy in 07 though outside Falujah. But ultimately go the OTH following post deployment leave, popped on UA. Served 3 years. I was a pretty rebellious 20 year old. I wised up though. 2 years sober now and proud of my service in theater where I picked up Lance Corporal. I’ve patrolled Iraq and it was enough to never desire a visit to that part of Earth ever again, unless I have my trusty M203 with me and permission to ice some towel heads. I just always got paper f~~~ed in garrison with NJPs, losing rank, pay and libo. It was a hell of a ride though.
Anyways, thanks for the posts. I like reading but have only read Harris in total. Ive read most of Hitchens and Dawkins too. One by Susan Blackmore. Several other misc.
Elemental had it perfect when he said that MGTOW and Atheism are red pills, Christianity and feminism are blue pills. This is 100% the true true.
I’m angry that I was lied to by my sergeant who volunteered to be my gunner and then claimed religious privilege to get himself out of duty.
Good now you admit to having a bias argument based off emotion and subjective experience. And you avoided an responses as to how I could have been wrong. That is okay. Everyone has a faith, nothing wrongto admit to by default.
If you had any integrity you’d acknowledge what you are doing in this thread as rude.
What you wanted a circle jerk?
Atheism is simply the lack of belief in Gods-full stop. Just being an atheist doesn’t tell you anything about how they arrived at their lack of belief. Children are born atheist, people who’ve never heard of concepts of gods are atheist, etc. I would agree that many Atheist come to their atheism via reason. Reason doesn’t limit itself to the physical. Reason deals with concepts as well. Mathematics comes to mind when thinking of rationally based, non physical scientific endeavors.
Children are born unable to speak too. Or write. Or express opinions.
In regards to “reason” I already gave the definition to that. It is not a “be all end all”. However if reason does not limit itself to the physical why would it limit one from believing in a Diety. God is a concept in one respect, although not limited to “concept” only.
You are also claiming that there is a non physical existence. This permits there being a Diety without any requiring any physical proof. You cannot get physical proof for mathematics, yet it exists.
Your argument that a god would have to be controlled in order for you to use the scientific method is silly. All you would need to do is define what you mean by god;
You would also have to define what exactly you mean by God. Because in effect you are saying you are trying to disprove “nothing” unless you had a prior definition. You say “God” doesn’t exist. Which means if “God” is nothingness, then you are saying “nothingness is nothingness”.
The problem with Athiesm is that it has no meaning for the concept of God. It gives no definition. It talks about how God does not exist, but if asked “who/what is God?” it gives no answer. It is a fundamentally reactionary philosophy.
Humanism cannot be the answer, because to admit humans being the sole power would make them a Diety/Dieties. This would eliminate atheism. You cannot say physics controls everything because that would disprove humanism by subjecting man to the laws of physics. This would eliminate man’s role as God.
You are fixated on adding “scientific” in front of atheism. At first I thought you meant rational atheists. (as opposed to irrational) But you think their is an epistemology associated with atheism…there is not.
So science is not subject to reason? One can be scientific and irrational? If there is no epistemology [defined as:
(the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.)]
Then you cannot claim atheism as true. After all if there is no philosophy or reasoning required for it then it is just a belief system. If it is just a belief system then you cannot claim having faith is wrong.
You made the argument- hey! look Aristotle and Descartes believe in god so you should to. That is an argument from authority. If i say believe this because I say it’s true then I would be using that fallacy-Which i don’t “Dropping names like Aristotle and Descartes is a fallacy: argument from authority. The ancient Greeks, though ahead of their time, believed a lot of crazy s~~~. Are you saying the Greek pantheon is real? Evidence and reason stand or fall on their own.”
Well then terminal would be guilty of this fallacy (sam harris). You claim “your reason alone” is authority. Then tell me I am wrong because of “your reasoning”. You say authority is wrong, but if I agree with you I would be submitting to your authority. I actually read much of their works. My point, using others as examples, is that one can come to the conclusion of a diety through reason.
An axiom is an irreducible primary. It doesn’t rest upon anything in order to be valid, and it cannot be proven by any “more basic” premises. A true axiom can not be refuted because the act of trying to refute it requires that very axiom as a premise. An attempt to contradict an axiom can only end in a contradiction.
I pulled the definition from a dictionary. Now you are being subjective. But let’s stay with “irreducible primary”
for your sake. How is God not an axiom then? You say there are certain things that rest on their own terms and
cannot be proven. Then how can God not be an axiom? The argument of the athiest depends on the axiom of God. Without
this they cannot have an argument other than “there is only the physical universe” (which you say is not required
to be an athiest and is not an axiom) or “there is nothing” (which is contradictory on its own terms [is=not is (nothing)]. To argue
that there is no God would require to both use God as an axiom and disrefute that axiom at that same time. You cannot
have a philosophy only based around disproving something without proving something else by default. But, as you said,
Athiesm has nothing to do with proving anything other than there is no God. But one cannot prove a negative.Axiom include: existence exists, The Law of Identity, and Consciousness. You do not get to label religious belief as an axiom in order to abandon your obligation for proving it.
God is God is an axiom also. God does not violate any of those axioms. I have not posted any religious beliefs as
Axioms. I strictly said that there is a God. That is it.This is not the case; to abandon reason is to abandon sanity, it is to abandon reality
But you clearly stated that Athiesm is right. One does not have to be rational to be an Athiest (irrational athiest).
You do not have to be rational to be right. Is there something I am missing? How is this not faith?Just getting back to the forums and I see this topic grew even after my clear admission it was a f~~~ed up biased experiment, But I have to admit laughing at John Doe proving the opposite of what I intended to show..Some people just love to debate, and others of us who are addicted to reading, just like to listen to the debates… Keeping an open mind… I do like to chime in when emotions are clearly exposed…Online anger and frustration is interesting to me and makes me wonder if they are ready to toss and break things…Safer to witness than in person…I have had to deal with my own anger issues, and it was not easy…In conclusion I realized the person who is upset is 100% responsible for their own feelings. I am not saying those feelings are not justified…I am just saying the person or people I was angry at was unaware that they had a problem…All the ranting and raving at them could not convince them…Kind mockery of my behavior is the best I ever received as a reward for showing my anger and frustration…
Recently I was sent an email originating from urban dictionary which upon opening infected my computer…they were able to ghost on google+ as me and undo some publishing at the urban dictionary site.. As KeyMaster has said I didn’t write the definition, but only published it at urban dictionary…I have re-published it again…The site is mostly automated where the public decides what gets published and also the up or down voting is public…I have the emails from them sand-boxed now….I was more than a little upset that someone would do this, but some good came of it, because this machine is running great after the reformat and fresh OS install….
I was bound to be misunderstood, and I laugh at those who misunderstand me. Kind mockery at the well intentioned, but unfettered cruelty towards those would be prison guards of my creative possibilities. This so as to learn as much from misunderstanding as from understanding. Taking pleasure in worthy opponents and making language fluid and flowing like a river yet pointed and precise as a dagger. Contradicts the socialistic purpose of language and makes for a wonderful linguistic dance, A verbal martial art with constant parries that hone the weapon that is the two edged sword of my mouth.
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
