Atheist Tactics that Work

[Belz...]

again, terrible analogy.
I do not doubt that a person can think of a bathroom. But to claim that thinking of the bathroom was a result of the bathroom god would require some proof outside the thought.

Even better: The fact that someone is thinking of the bathroom doesn't prove that this particular bathroom even exists.

 

[joobz]

Even better: The fact that someone is thinking of the bathroom doesn't prove that this particular bathroom even exists.

Good call.
I just enjoyed the imagery of a Bathroom god.
It's like the Golgothan from Dogma.

 

[Fnord]

I'm glad someone is.
taking notes is a sign of a willingness to learn.

Don't "you people" have a Pope or someone that can nail down the finer points of your doctrine? Not that I pay any attention to His Popeliness, Bernie the Enforcer, but I was just wondering...

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Don't "you people" have a Pope or someone that can nail down the finer points of your doctrine? Not that I pay any attention to His Popeliness, Bernie the Enforcer, but I was just wondering...

What part of "atheism is not a religion" is so difficult?

 

[joobz]

Don't "you people" have a Pope or someone that can nail down the finer points of your doctrine? Not that I pay any attention to His Popeliness, Bernie the Enforcer, but I was just wondering...

The last time I checked, Greek Orthodox follow a Patriach and not the silly pope.*

Jeez.

*I have absolutely no clue who it is currently.

 

[Foster Zygote]

People throughout history, from different cultures, different sexes, different beliefs about the world, have described such experiences in a very similar way.

Given that they all have human brains with virtually the same neurophysiology and neurochemistry how does this show that the source of the experiences is external and not internal?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

if, instead, you tried to make some substantive points, or comment on the ones I've made,... maybe bring up some objections, then we might make some progress.

I have. That you are unable, or unwilling, to understand them as such is your failing, not mine.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I've tried to address this above. But let's think of an example.
Let's say someone calls me on the phone. The experience (of answering the phone) shows what the cause of the experience was (someone wanting to speak to me).
The same with spiritual experiences, except they aren't as externally obvious and observable as someone answering the phone.

So when someone hears voices telling him to kill strangers is that God talking to him too?

 

[Foster Zygote]

you still haven't addressed how it is our non-survival system of morality came about, if moral systems developed to improve survival and reproduction.

Would you care to demonstrate how our (admittedly varied and changing) moral systems do not contribute to the survival of the human species?

 

[Fnord]

What part of "atheism is not a religion" is so difficult?

And what part of "... or someone ..." do you fail to understand?

Is there a person or group of people upon whom the "Final Authority" of all things Atheistic rests? Is there a Canon of Skeptical Standards? How about a set of rules that one must follow in order to truthfully lay claim to having a Critical Mind?

Or would you prefer to argue amongst yourselves about how many memes can dance on the head of a pin?*

(* - Figuratively speaking, of course. Memes can't dance.)

 

[ImaginalDisc]

And what part of "... or someone ..." do you fail to understand?

Is there a person or group of people upon whom the "Final Authority" of all things Atheistic rests? Is there a Canon of Skeptical Standards? How about a set of rules that one must follow in order to truthfully lay claim to having a Critical Mind?

Or would you prefer to argue amongst yourselves about how many memes can dance on the head of a pin?*

(* - Figuratively speaking, of course. Memes can't dance.)

There is no more a central authority for atheists than there is a central authority for people who don't collect butterflies.

Edited by prewitt81: 

Incivility removed.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Don't "you people" have a Pope or someone that can nail down the finer points of your doctrine? Not that I pay any attention to His Popeliness, Bernie the Enforcer, but I was just wondering...

Whom do you mean by "you people"? If you are referring to atheists then no, there is no centralized authority dictating doctrine that one must conform to in order to be recognized as an atheist. All one has to do to be an atheist is conclude that there is no evidence for the existence of gods.* Beyond that one can believe pretty much anything one wants to believe.

*Technically, all one has to do is not believe in the existence of at least one god. If a Muslim states "Ganesh does not exist" he could be considered in that respect to be atheist concerning Ganesh.

 

[Foster Zygote]

There is no more a central authority for atheists than there is a central authority for people who don't collect butterflies.

Edited by prewitt81: 

Incivility removed.

Which is why they will be all the easier to conquer. Number 21, release the butterflies!

 

[Fnord]

Whom do you mean by "you people"? If you are referring to atheists then no, there is no centralized authority dictating doctrine that one must conform to in order to be recognized as an atheist. All one has to do to be an atheist is conclude that there is no evidence for the existence of gods.* Beyond that one can believe pretty much anything one wants to believe.

*Technically, all one has to do is not believe in the existence of at least one god. If a Muslim states "Ganesh does not exist" he could be considered in that respect to be atheist concerning Ganesh.

That's it?

Is there, anywhere in the definition, a clause that states: "... and must ridicule and give insult to those who do believe in the existance of gods"?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

That's it?

Is there, anywhere in the definition, a clause that states: "... and must ridicule and give insult to those who do believe in the existance of gods"?

Has anyone here suggested that such a quality is necessary, or are you just trying to build a strawman?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

That's it?

Is there, anywhere in the definition, a clause that states: "... and must ridicule and give insult to those who do believe in the existance of gods"?

Please get over your martyr complex. We're not making fun of you because you're a Christian,

Edited by prewitt81: 

Incivility removed.

.

ImaginalDisc, attack the argument, not the member making it.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: prewitt81

 

[Fnord]

Has anyone here suggested that such a quality is necessary, or are you just trying to build a strawman?

No need to build a strawman, one need only look no further than the post that followed yours...

Please get over your martyr complex. We're not making fun of you because you're a Christian,

Edited by prewitt81: 

Incivility removed.

.

While the insult and ridicule may not be necessary, it certainly seems to be intrinsic.

Or is it part of the "Atheist Tactics That Work" doctrine?

 

[Foster Zygote]

That's it?

Is there, anywhere in the definition, a clause that states: "... and must ridicule and give insult to those who do believe in the existance of gods"?

There are many atheists on this forum who do no such thing. If you wish to construct a straw man atheist based on the behavior of those who have offered you offense then you do an injustice to all the rest. I would suggest that you judge people as individuals and not as a group label. Implying that all atheists ridicule and insult theists is no more valid than implying that all Muslims are suicide bombers or that all Christians are Bible thumping prudes.

 

[Fnord]

There are many atheists on this forum who do no such thing. If you wish to construct a straw man atheist based on the behavior of those who have offered you offense then you do an injustice to all the rest. I would suggest that you judge people as individuals and not as a group label. Implying that all atheists ridicule and insult theists is no more valid than implying that all Muslims are suicide bombers or that all Christians are Bible thumping prudes.

Darn straight.

Just as it takes a few "Bible-Thumping Prudes" to make all Christians look like idiots, so too does it take just a few insults from a minority of Atheists to make the all Atheists look like bullies.

With that in mind, how about trying to form a more friendly relationship with those people you are trying to convert to your point of view?

By "you" I mean anyone with a viewpoint; Atheist, Theist, or whatever.

By "friendly relationship" I mean getting to know a person as a person, rather than as a narrowly-defining label.

Just as I've tried to impress upon lay evangelists that saying something like "Nice to meet you! Did you know that you're going to Hell?" is no way to win converts to Christianity, so too am I saying that "Drop the martyr complex, you idiot, don't you know it's all a pack of lies?" is no way to convert someone to an atheistic view.

 

[joobz]

Just as I've tried to impress upon lay evangelists that saying something like "Nice to meet you! Did you know that you're going to Hell?" is no way to win converts to Christianity, so too am I saying that "Drop the martyr complex, you idiot, don't you know it's all a pack of lies?" is no way to convert someone to an atheistic view.

Rock on!


Although, I reserve the right to frustrate/mock/pick on/be a complete goober to anyone who displays behaviors that violate the decency which your statement attempts to establish.