"5 stupid things about atheists"

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And I for one would much rather talk about the things that bring us together rather than the things that can drive us apart. For example what is going to happen during the I-70 derby is far more important to me than your atheism

There's a horse race here?

 

[JoeMorgue]

And I for one would much rather talk about the things that bring us together rather than the things that can drive us apart.

If you hold a world view for which the simple fact of someone else pointing out that they don't feel it is supported by evidence drives you from them, that's not their problem.

I get that the whole "Things that drive us apart" thing is a nice little truism, but we don't have to be driven apart because we disagree on things.

Maybe you need to stop avoiding people who make you question your mythologies.

 

[MG1962]

There's a horse race here?

No some wayward Cardinals are going to get their little red feathers plucked over the next few days

 

[MG1962]

Maybe you need to stop avoiding people who make you question your mythologies.

I certainly don't avoid atheists. I just don't go out of my way to challenge them about their position on faith. Say I have an atheist friend who has a passion for monster movies. I ignore this common interest because we disagree on something else, means I lose an opportunity to make my life that much richer by discussing something I know will create conflict.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Being presented with other people's ideas is not "creating conflict."

And where back to atheist basically having to stay in the closet lest we be seen as troublemakers.

 

[MG1962]

Being presented with other people's ideas is not "creating conflict."

And where back to atheist basically having to stay in the closet lest we be seen as troublemakers.

No because I don't believe Theist have any right to initiate the conversation if the chance of conflict is present either. And in truth, I have only ever met one Atheist who went out of his way to be a dick about religion, the vast majority of Atheists I have met have been very capable of having a calm intelligent conversation about religion without any of us getting hot under the collar.

 

[quadraginta]

No because I don't believe Theist have any right to initiate the conversation if the chance of conflict is present either. And in truth, I have only ever met one Atheist who went out of his way to be a dick about religion, the vast majority of Atheists I have met have been very capable of having a calm intelligent conversation about religion without any of us getting hot under the collar.

Theists are initiating conversations about gay marriage in public venues and private ones all over the country.

If a theist initiates a conversation about gay marriage, and asserts that his book of mythologies and oral traditions from 2000 years ago and more is sufficient reason to refuse the right to marriage to that group then I am going to point out that they are basing their conclusion on a book of mythologies and oral traditions from 2000 years ago and more.

Am I being rude?

 

[MG1962]

Theists are initiating conversations about gay marriage in public venues and private ones all over the country.

Are they now? And here is me thinking it was just a case of the gay community finally getting organized enough to be able to influence various State and Federal government institutions.

Given that 37 states have legislated in favor of the gay community on this issue in the last 6 years I am not seeing why there is even a point someone like you engaging in debate with the anti same sex marriage lobby. They are clearly doing an exceptional job of shooting themselves in the foot without the need for help.

 

[quadraginta]

Are they now?

<snip>

Yes.

 

[Leumas]

Are they now? And here is me thinking it was just a case of the gay community finally getting organized enough to be able to influence various State and Federal government institutions.

Given that 37 states have legislated in favor of the gay community on this issue in the last 6 years I am not seeing why there is even a point someone like you engaging in debate with the anti same sex marriage lobby. They are clearly doing an exceptional job of shooting themselves in the foot without the need for help.

There are 50 states in the USA.... 37 is not 50... so there are 13 more to go.

That is going to be plenty of "debating" with Christians who believe that Gays do not deserve Constitutional rights equal to all other citizens.

And who do you think is doing this

• Big Question For 2015: Will The Supreme Court Rule On Abortion?
• Supreme Court to Decide Marriage Rights for Gay Couples Nationwide

 

[Leumas]

If atheism = 'lack of belief in god(s)' then I would think it is safe to say that all the rest of creation* is atheist.

* ETA: other than human theists.

Atheism is an ISM which means an Ideology.

Only humans can hold ideologies as far as we can tell.... but for sure at least only living creatures.

Atheist is a person who holds the ISM.

So only humans can be atheists... inanimate objects cannot hold ideologies for sure.

Animals and plants may hold ideologies for all we know but we do not know that.

But that also means we do not know what kind of ideologies they hold.

It could be that crocodiles and snakes that have been around for millions of years longer than even hominids let alone humanoids, have developed a Polytheism or even a Monotheism.... we cannot know that since we as humans do not talk reptileese.

So it is very possible that there are animals that are theists.... can you prove that all animals are atheists?

So no I disagree that

.... it is safe to say that all the rest of creation* is atheist.

* ETA: other than human theists.

In fact if there is a god for real then it is a safe bet to say that perhaps animals do know that, especially given the length of time they have been around and how many animals tend to have instincts that tell them how to build nests etc. ... so it could be that animals have THEISTIC instincts too.

Let's not forget the talking donkey and talking snake in the Biblical accounts that knew god well... they must have been very theistic ... no?

Numbers 22:28-30 And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee. And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? And he said, Nay.

Genesis 3:4-5 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
​

Jesus seems to also have thought that even inanimate objects can obey god.

Matthew 17:20 ..., If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.​

Jesus even thought that trees should do things for him because he is god and if they did not then they deserved cursing.

Mark 11:13-14 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it.​

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No some wayward Cardinals are going to get their little red feathers plucked over the next few days

Ornithology humor. I never get it.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Atheism is an ISM which means an Ideology.

Only humans can hold ideologies as far as we can tell.... but for sure at least only living creatures.

Atheist is a person who holds the ISM.

So only humans can be atheists... inanimate objects cannot hold ideologies for sure.

Animals and plants may hold ideologies for all we know but we do not know that.

But that also means we do not know what kind of ideologies they hold.

It could be that crocodiles and snakes that have been around for millions of years longer than even hominids let alone humanoids, have developed a Polytheism or even a Monotheism.... we cannot know that since we as humans do not talk reptileese.

So it is very possible that there are animals that are theists.... can you prove that all animals are atheists?

So no I disagree that




In fact if there is a god for real then it is a safe bet to say that perhaps animals do know that, especially given the length of time they have been around and how many animals tend to have instincts that tell them how to build nests etc. ... so it could be that animals have THEISTIC instincts too.

Let's not forget the talking donkey and talking snake in the Biblical accounts that knew god well... they must have been very theistic ... no?

Numbers 22:28-30 And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee. And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? And he said, Nay.

Genesis 3:4-5 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
​

Jesus seems to also have thought that even inanimate objects can obey god.

Matthew 17:20 ..., If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.​

Jesus even thought that trees should do things for him because he is god and if they did not then they deserved cursing.

Mark 11:13-14 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it.​

And we're back... again.

I'd say there is a 6th stupid thing about atheists: They get into massive debates about the meaning of atheist, rooting out those false atheists. Not all atheists do this, mind you. Interestingly, as with the other 5, a subset of theists do it too. It's a wonderful world, no?

I'm not sure who the faux atheist is around here, with all the bible thumping some people do. However, as an atheist, I couldn't give a fig what the bible or any other book of myths has to say about god(s), what god(s) want, or what god(s) say, because... and you may agree here... they don't exist.

I've played the 'what if god(s) exist' game, but realized early on that D&D is far better. If I even entertained the concept here, with you, you'll apply some fun house distortion, call me a closet theist, then start cutting and pasting the crap out of your previous posts. No thank you.

Tell you want, you go right ahead a quote a study that indicates any part of creation (obviously, other than humans) has a concept of god(s), then a study that some of those actually believe in god(s), and I'll change my opinion. Wait, didn't we argue we opinions are not a choice, too? Never mind. Quote a study, and if it is adequate, my opinion will change one way or another.

To make this as clear as possible (though I fear this is a fools errand): All of creation is atheist, aside from human theists. Atheism is as has been defined before at Mirriam-Webster:

atheism

noun athe·ism \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\

Definition of ATHEISM

1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness *

2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

* No, not the archaic ones, as they don't apply.

This definition speaks to no other issue or attribute, only ATHEISM. Not thought processes, not equality, no veiled insults, no comments about you or I being alike or unlike, other than no belief in god(s).

Atheism is an ISM which means an Ideology.

Only humans can hold ideologies as far as we can tell.... but for sure at least only living creatures.

Atheist is a person who holds the ISM.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways. Either it is a LACK OF BELIEF, or it is an IDEOLOGY. Up until now, you have been claiming I am wrong to claim it as an IDEOLOGY. Back to those sophist game players Mirriam-Webster:

ideology

noun ide·ol·o·gy \ˌī-dē-ˈä-lə-jē, ˌi-\

: the set of ideas and beliefs of a group or political party

So, now you agree, Atheism, an ideology, is a set of ideas and beliefs... Glad we now have a meeting of the minds.

 

[Nihilianth]

Atheism is as much of a belief as not playing sports is a sport or as much as not being alcoholic is an addiction or as much as not killing is a murder.



IFTFY




And yes... pretty much atheists are less bloody barmy than anyone who believes that the almighty creator of the universe and everything in it chose a cowardly PIMP over all humanity to be his friend and that he made real estate deals with him which had to be ratified by cutting the foreskin off of his and his descendants' genitals for perpetuity.

Atheists are definitely less darned bonkers than anyone who believes that the almighty creator of the universe is a schizophrenic with a multiple personality disorder and who fornicates with a 13 years old married girl so as to impregnate her with himself pretending to be his own son and then sits inside her for 9 month and then slides out from between her legs so as to wait for thirty years doing pretty much nothing but cause the deaths of thousands of children while he is hiding like a coward and then to go pretend to get killed and then pretend to be a walking talking zombie and all so as to forgive the slip of a couple who ate from a magic tree after having been fooled by a talking snake.

So yes... an atheist is infinitely less meshuga than anyone who believes that the only sky daddy there is prefers some people over others and orders them to massacre and genocide people and to take their little girls as sex slaves and that is why in the year 2015 the imaginary impossible descendants of those mythical genocidal ethnic cleansing chosen Übermenschen are allowed to go on ethnically cleansing the land this almighty all loving creator of the universe and everything chose out of the entire universe to be his abode so as to dwell among the imaginary and impossible descendants of A MYTHICAL FAMILY OF COWARDLY PIMPS and an EFFEMINATE DECEIVING SWINDLING MAMA'S BOY and INCESTUOUS INBREDS.

hahahaha! Nominated! Thanks soo much for that.

 

[Myriad]

A word ending in ISM does not necessarily mean an ideology.

Is pointillism an ideology (perhaps, that everything is made of little dots of color)? No, it's just an artistic technique.

Is athleticism an ideology (perhaps, that physical fitness is more important than anything else)? No, it's just a characteristic of some individuals.

Is pugilism an ideology (perhaps, that the best fist fighters should decide pubic policy)? No, it's just an activity.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I agree with much of what is said in here (although the word "stupid" is in dispute for me - it's just the tag line for the youtube series) and wondered what others thought. Ofc, I won't pretend that when it comes to confrontation and other things that only atheists are guilty of this, either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uAR4nb3TLg

(7 min video by Steve Shives)

One thing I do disagree with is his point about being caught in "trivialities". I know many would consider defining terms to be a triviality, especially when it comes to the words atheist and agnostic (I use agnostic atheist and define it as often as possible to make it clear what I mean) but I consider this a very important thing to do both for the discussion at hand and to help others in future discussions to better understand what people mean or be less quick to pretend they understand what someone means by "agnostic" for example.

Since those 5 things can apply also to theists, I'm afraid his point is moot. We can just replace that by "Some people are too full of themselves".

 

[MG1962]

Since those 5 things can apply also to theists, I'm afraid his point is moot. We can just replace that by "Some people are too full of themselves".

I think you just won thread

 

[Leumas]

A word ending in ISM does not necessarily mean an ideology.

Is pointillism an ideology (perhaps, that everything is made of little dots of color)? No, it's just an artistic technique.

Is athleticism an ideology (perhaps, that physical fitness is more important than anything else)? No, it's just a characteristic of some individuals.

Is pugilism an ideology (perhaps, that the best fist fighters should decide pubic policy)? No, it's just an activity.

Please click on the hyper link in the quote below.... that is why it is in bold and underlined.... it is a hot link to a Wikipedia article about ISM.

...
Poly-Theo-Ism

Poly = many in number

Theo = God

Ism = Ideology​

Thus polytheism = many gods ideology
.....

Also click on this hyperlink... IST

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Please click on the hyper link in the quote below.... that is why it is in bold and underlined.... it is a hot link to a Wikipedia article about ISM.

I'll quote it, if you like:

It is often used in philosophy to define specific ideologies[...]

As you can see, the fact that the word "often" is there means that the link you provided contradicts your assertion that the presence of the suffix "ism" indicates an ideology, and it does back up Myriad's assertion that the presence of the suffix "ism" does not necessarily indicate an ideology. The fact that the links on that page includes a link entitled "List of art movements" further contradicts your assertion, and further supports Myriad's - especially as following the link leads you to a list which includes "pointilism", which was a specific example Myriad used.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Please click on the hyper link in the quote below.... that is why it is in bold and underlined.... it is a hot link to a Wikipedia article about ISM.

Also click on this hyperlink... IST

A word ending in ISM does not necessarily mean an ideology.

Is pointillism an ideology (perhaps, that everything is made of little dots of color)? No, it's just an artistic technique.

Is athleticism an ideology (perhaps, that physical fitness is more important than anything else)? No, it's just a characteristic of some individuals.

Is pugilism an ideology (perhaps, that the best fist fighters should decide pubic policy)? No, it's just an activity.

I'll quote it, if you like:

As you can see, the fact that the word "often" is there means that the link you provided contradicts your assertion that the presence of the suffix "ism" indicates an ideology, and it does back up Myriad's assertion that the presence of the suffix "ism" does not necessarily indicate an ideology. The fact that the links on that page includes a link entitled "List of art movements" further contradicts your assertion, and further supports Myriad's - especially as following the link leads you to a list which includes "pointilism", which was a specific example Myriad used.

Aren't we a tightly wound group

It's apparent (even according to Mirriam-Webster) that -ism can have different meanings. In the context of atheism, theism, polytheism, etc. as used by Leumas, it seems reasonable to accept the meaning of 'ideology' appropriate for the discussion.