• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Is your atheism predominately a science success or a theism fail?

Oh why am I confused? I wrote:

Well I also was subjected to mandatory religious education in school and it caused me a lot of pain until I managed to flush the crap out of my system. I don't think children should be subjected to this pain inducing nonsense, so will come out against theistic indoctrination whenever I can.

I don't hate theists but do hate theism and if that makes me an "atheistic reactionary" so be it.

You quote the highlighted and respond with:

No, you haven't do it yet. Religion is still there. The only things gone are some particular indoctrinated dogma and the fantastic ideation that comes with it.

"No, you haven't do it yet" (I assumed you meant done not do) you write and then when I respond:

You might think you are gifted with some remarkable insight ale, but you will have to do more than this to convince me you are so gifted.

You come back with:

I'm not trying to convince you (nothing is about you). I'm just trying to give a form to perceptions many others have regarding antitheists like you, perceptions they haven't verbalized yet. Then, they will be able to agree or not. It's their feedback what I'm looking for.

Religion is in human nature, as aggression is. You can be a religious freak or a violent criminal, or you can become a false atheist who is chasing theists and their stupid beliefs, or you can become a pacifist who hooks 100 bills and leaves them in the sidewalk, and when someone tries to grab them, reel them quickly into your garden so you can legally shoot the trespasser.

That is the kind of "pacifist", "self-controlled" dudes they are. That is how much non-theist certain "atheists" are.

Be sure I'm not particularly gifted nor you are important in this debate. We're not even a pawns. Not even the squares bellow it. Just specks of dust on the board.


Huh .... not about me??

Then you describe me as an antitheist which I am not if you read my first post. Antithesism I most certainly am.

Can't make much of your'e analogy about bills on the sidewalk, but I take exception to your comment about pawns and such. Be as self depreciating as you like but leave me out of it.
 
I'm not trying to convince you (nothing is about you). I'm just trying to give a form to perceptions many others have regarding antitheists like you, perceptions they haven't verbalized yet. Then, they will be able to agree or not. It's their feedback what I'm looking for.

Religion is in human nature, as aggression is. You can be a religious freak or a violent criminal, or you can become a false atheist who is chasing theists and their stupid beliefs, or you can become a pacifist who hooks 100 bills and leaves them in the sidewalk, and when someone tries to grab them, reel them quickly into your garden so you can legally shoot the trespasser.

That is the kind of "pacifist", "self-controlled" dudes they are. That is how much non-theist certain "atheists" are.

Be sure I'm not particularly gifted nor you are important in this debate. We're not even a pawns. Not even the squares bellow it. Just specks of dust on the board.

Yes, as an atheist I agree. Among "my brother in arms", i.e. other atheists, some of them are anti-theists and they are militant in the following sense: They fight religion, because they dislike religion; believe they are better in a rational sense; believe that religion is wrong, believe that religion can be removed using evidence, reason and logic and the worst of them believe that they are rational and have evidence all the time.

If you want to I can explain how I am religious in one sense and a-religious in another.

With regards
 
Declaring that part of the community is not not permitted to comment and to point out things like:

The headline is a false dichotomy; science and theism are not mutually exclusive, etc

all of which are on topic and quintessence of critical thinking

IIRC, no one said they were (mutually exclusive). They asked if atheists were atheists due to science or religion. My answer (which I did not give prior to this) would be both:

Religion makes no sense and it's belief system is completely and utterly silly and irresponsible as well as having a complete lack of proof for any of it's tenets. Whereas science requires logic and careful observation and experimentation as well as actual proof of it's results and has done damn well with that as it's basis.

More specifically, religion was just ignorant humans ways of explaining things that happened to them or others while the development of science allowed humans to look for real and demonstrably correct explanations for what happened to them.
 
I'm allegedly conflating things by not picking a version of a word that our correspondents would find ever so much more convenient, which (absolutely shockingly) makes me a liar.

Cripes fellas, if you have literally nothing with which to counter my arguments other than pedantic nonsense and personal attacks, why bother? Next time just run up the white flag, it'll be easier

With no offense, nobody needs a white flag to counter the beliefs you claim. It is a BIG problem with most religious people - to most of them faith always trumps observable reality.
 
Religion makes no sense and it's belief system is completely and utterly silly and irresponsible as well as having a complete lack of proof for any of it's tenets. Whereas science requires logic and careful observation and experimentation as well as actual proof of it's results and has done damn well with that as it's basis.

More specifically, religion was just ignorant humans ways of explaining things that happened to them or others while the development of science allowed humans to look for real and demonstrably correct explanations for what happened to them.


Amen to that fuelair, amen.
 
My atheism comes from a theism failure.

My incredulity forces me to reject any invisible sky deity that professes to love its creations and yet allows wars, famines, terrorism, murder etc to take place. A just God would not inflict suffering and pain on the creations it loves.

Besides, if this sky deity really exists, where is it? Point to it and show me what it looks like.
Mine was simpler and when I was much younger. I was a voracious reader (still am) and while reading an issue of Reader's Digest (mid- 1950's so 4th or 5th grade) read in one of the sets of anecdotes people sent in (all supposedly true) about a little girl in a hospital with a medical problem that kept her hospitalized. Some ******* asked her if she had prayed for the god thing to heal her and her response was "Yes - but god said no." My mental response was essentially "That motherraping ******* should be in hell!!" (When I say I read a lot, I did, from Seuss on up to books for big people - especially fantasy, SF and mysteries, science, mythology & related).
 
wait a minute, you delieberately deleted part of a sentence to make some kind of position statement. That is amazing.

Here was the whole sentence "There is no requirement that love, hope, beauty, empathy, good taste, hell political beliefs have evidence or verification."

You deleted part of it, THEN you slapped down a link to a tome without ever trying to explain what it meant, and now you are complaining that I have misrepresented your point which was based on you having deliberately deleted part of my sentence? Wow.

Seems like someone is getting hoisted by one's own petard.....

You misspelled deliberately there!!! Or is that a punishment........
 
But when you foist your faith and beliefs on others, or try to persuade others that there is a god, then you had better have evidence to back up your position if you don't want to be laughed off the stage.

I wonder why you and Fudbucker are even posting in this thread at all. The subject of the thread is

"Is your atheism predominately a science success or a theism fail?"

You are both obviously rampant god-botherers, so the question ynot has posed isn't even directed at you, and is one you cannot possibly answer.

Some people neglect to read the questions carefully before answering them I have been told!!!
 
As I have tried to point out several times before, the two aren't as easily separable as you wish they were. You have consistently refused to acknowledge that point, though.
Rubbish! I have many good, long-term friends that are theists (and other paranormal believers). I don't hate them, but I do hate their theism (and I tell them so). You have consistently refused to acknowledge that point, though.

Hating people smoking is not hating the people that smoke. I'm not going to lie and pretend that I like theism or smoking just to be "nice" to theists and smokers. Their theism and smoking isn't them being "nice" to me.
 
Last edited:
As I have tried to point out several times before, the two aren't as easily separable as you wish they were. You have consistently refused to acknowledge that point, though.


As ynot so succinctly put it ^ this is rubbish and how can I acknowledge a point that hasn't been made?

I have friends and family who are religious and I am not anti them but am anti the dogma that afflicts them. Beneath the smiling faces I can see the dilemma they are in and the anguish.

Can you tell me that you, as an atheist, are not anti the religious muscle that impacts the lives of so many - possibly even yourself? Can you tell me that you, as an atheist, are not appalled at the efforts of the Catholic Church to stop the use of condoms in Africa, to give just one example? If you answer yes then you too are antitheism. And no, you wouldn't feel any antagonism, toward the poor deluded African folk who are taken in by this crap.
 
Well, if the anecdote my mother tells is accurate, then my atheism is a theism fail. The claim is that when I was somewhere between the ages of 3 and 6 (I don't know exactly, but the story is attached to us living in a particular place, and those are the ages between which I lived there) I proudly declared to her that I didn't believe in God. She acknowledged this with a maternal "that's nice, dear" kind of response. Later she was talking to a friend of the family who was a Rabbi and repeated what I'd said in a "kids say the darndest things" kind of way. The Rabbi told her that I'd gone to see him without her knowledge and had grilled him about the existence or non-existence of God. He said that I'd asked deeper, more thoughtful, and more probing questions than the majority of adults he'd spoken to on the subject, including fellow Rabbis. "If that child," so the story goes he said, "tells you he doesn't believe in God - you believe him".

I have no memory of this whatsoever, and I take it with a huge pinch of salt, personally, given that it's being told from the perspective of a proud mother but it's the only account of its kind that I have, and I have no memory of ever being anything other than an atheist. Well, except for a vague memory of one afternoon in the same place and therefore around the same age when a fellow kid told me about hell and scared me enough to Pascal's Wager myself into belief for a couple of hours until I told my mother (again), and she asked me whether that's what I really believed, to which the obvious and immediate answer was "no".

Again, take that anecdote with a pinch of salt, as it's from the perspective of a very young child from longer ago than I'd care to admit, and I know how tricky memory can be and therefore how likely it is for even major details of that memory being wrong.

I suppose the science success aspect comes in a little later in life. When I was a teenager I had a very vague belief in some New-Age stuff like reading runes, doing Tarot, crystals, the existence of auras, and that kind of nonsense. But it was only vague, and I never really gave it much thought - I didn't really think of any of that as more than a kind of game, I don't think. And there was plenty of that kind of stuff I just simply didn't find even remotely credible even then - like ghosts, or ouija boards, to give two examples I remember off the top of my head. I don't even know when I stopped even that vague belief, but I'd wager it likely coincided with learning more about logic and empiricism. Since those beliefs don't stand up to any even slight scrutiny, it's not a stretch to think that the increase of the one led to the decrease in the other, even if I didn't actually put much conscious thought into it and instead they just sort of vaguely faded from the background of my mind.

So that's me. Not very interesting, and with no big moments of any kind, just a sort of bunch of stuff.
 
Can you tell me that you, as an atheist, are not appalled at the efforts of the Catholic Church to stop the use of condoms in Africa, to give just one example? If you answer yes then you too are antitheism.

I think you can be anti-specific-aspects-of-theism (or, perhaps more accurately, anti-specific-aspects-of-specific-kinds-of-theism), such as the quoted example, without being anti-everything-theistic. In fact, being anti-one-aspect-of-Catholicism doesn't even necessarily imply that that person is anti-Catholic.

To illustrate, using an example from outside of religion, I am anti-death penalty. The USA has the death penalty. I am not anti-USA. I am certainly not anti-country, or anti-law.
 
Can you tell me that you, as an atheist, are not anti the religious muscle that impacts the lives of so many - possibly even yourself?
I can tell you that.

Can you tell me that you, as an atheist, are not appalled at the efforts of the Catholic Church to stop the use of condoms in Africa, to give just one example? If you answer yes then you too are antitheism. And no, you wouldn't feel any antagonism, toward the poor deluded African folk who are taken in by this crap.
Not the point. In fact once again, you have completely bypassed my point and are arguing against some other point that I never made.

It's exactly - exactly - like arguing with a religious person.
 
I can tell you that.

Not the point. In fact once again, you have completely bypassed my point and are arguing against some other point that I never made.

It's exactly - exactly - like arguing with a religious person.


So, you are not concerned when the message given in the churches and mosques is that homosexuals should be demonised and even killed. You are not concerned when women are locked up if they are suspected of having an abortion. You are not concerned ........

Your position is either dishonest or callous.

I don't know what your point is and it would seem ynot doesn't either.

"Like arguing with a religious person" ??? Trying to be insulting now are we?
 
Not the point. In fact once again, you have completely bypassed my point and are arguing against some other point that I never made.
Thor 2 didn't bypassed your "point" at all! You bypassed the part of Thor 2's post that addressed your "point".
I have friends and family who are religious and I am not anti them but am anti the dogma that afflicts them.


It's exactly - exactly - like arguing with a religious person.
Pot > kettle > black!
 
Last edited:
Insulting religious people is hardly playing "nice" with them (which seems to be arthwollipot's actual point).


Yes sometimes these points can be tricky to nail down.

Well I do try to be nice to religious folk but it's hard to tackle the dicy dogma with any degree of respect. Mind, I do slip up at times when things get a little heated, as I am only human without divine guidance to aid me.:)
 
Yes sometimes these points can be tricky to nail down.

Well I do try to be nice to religious folk but it's hard to tackle the dicy dogma with any degree of respect. Mind, I do slip up at times when things get a little heated, as I am only human without divine guidance to aid me.:)

or, to be more precise, they think they get divine guidance but they do not!!!
 
Last edited:
So, you are not concerned when the message given in the churches and mosques is that homosexuals should be demonised and even killed.
I am concerned that this is the message given in some churches and mosques. And I am also concerned that you demonise all churches and mosques because of the attitudes of some.

Seriously, Thor. I'm kind of tired of trying to tell you that there are good, socially progressive and responsible churches that do not promote these messages - and that there are a lot more of them than you have ever acknowledged. You see only the worst of the worst, and assume that they're all like that. You have always done it, ever since you started posting on these topics, and though I have called you out on it every time, you refuse to even consider an alternative point of view. To you, all religion and expression of religion is by definition evil and irredeemable. Apart from anything else, that's just factually incorrect, and to continue to cling to it despite all available evidence is poor thinking.

I don't know what your point is and it would seem ynot doesn't either.
I don't know why, because I've explained my point to you any number of times. Oh wait, I do know why. It's because you just can't understand anything that contradicts your preferred narrative.

"Like arguing with a religious person" ??? Trying to be insulting now are we?
Apparently for you, the label of "religious" is an insult. Okay. Aren't you therefore deliberately insulting people every time you refer to someone as religious? How do you reconcile that with your claim that you "love the believer, hate the belief".

By the way, you know what that's very close to, right? Why do we give you a pass when we don't let religious people "love the sinner, hate the sin"?

Now, are you going to accuse me of supporting paedophiles and extremists again? Because if you are, we're done.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom