Thread: And the atheist movement begins...

Originally Posted by Matrixx8

What's this? Michael h has climbed off the fence and actually expressed an opinion that makes sense? Watch (if you can) as I raise my glass of Chilian wine to toast your courage!

Those have been my views right along in black and white. Honesty requires no courage ... more it requires humility and a lack of "excessive" ego / arrogance.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

I already gave the beginning answer to this in a reply to another poster. The fact that it's news to you is telling because this has been proven for a very long time.

What a copout!

Here is your original assertion:

Looks like this went down the road all subjects close to this topic does. Fact is, atheists believe in magic too because they believe in spontaneous generation of life, which is a theory that's been proven scientifically false.

Post the link where you claim to have posted evidence of the above claim. LOL! "Atheists believe in magic?" Post your evidence. Is that "some, many or all" atheists? Atheists believe in "spontaneous generation of life?" Is that "some, many or all" atheists?

Just as a matter of interest, isn't Ron Paul an atheist? After all, he named his son after one of the leading atheists in the USA, Ayn Rand.:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by fishjoel

You're making a false extrapolation and arguing a statement I never made. I never said you had to take something lacking evidence seriously neither did I say that lack of evidence should be considered evidence (though I kinda wish I did because the later would sound very Confucius of me). I'm simply saying that a lack of evidence is not enough to draw a conclusion from. It's not scientifically sound.

Really? Do the facts support this statement?

Let's see. In this post you wrote:

Originally Posted by fishjoel

Lack of evidence cannot be used as a basis to draw a conclusion. For someone that acts like they understand science that is a pretty basic mistake.

My reply was:

Originally Posted by Matrixx8

Rubbish. If there is no evidence for something, there is no reason to take it seriously. Period. One could equally posit that there is a lack of evidence that Santa Clause really eixsts. Are you seriously suggesting that anything for which there is lack of evidence should be considered evidence of something? That is an even more basic mistake

Clearly, my reference and Santa Clause example was about reaching a conclusion, not proof, based on lack of evidence.

I have no proof that Hobbits do not exist. But, based on a lack of evidence that they do exist, I have reached the conclusion that they are figments of someone's imagination. If new information comes to light (perhaps Peter Jackson knows something I don't know), I will review my conclusion.

Originally Posted by michael h

lmao, So the Chinese and Soviets weren't atheist's ... they were spiritualist's and mystic's. I guess the response to "null set" is a lengthy fairy tale I was just wondering when Peter Pan would jump on the pink unicorn?

Atheists are not really, really, really atheists because they acted irrationally by murdering a hundred million people ... to include philosophers and intellectuals.

I have proof ... hi hosey. Starting a new religion?

Have you been trying Blue Doggy's jungle drug?

Atheists murdered people in the Soviet Union and China? If you were intellectually honest, you would recognize that labels are not causitive factors, whereas religious and political ideology could be. Yours is an example of a false analogy. I doubt that you would similarly attribute the recent burning of copies of the Koran in Afghanistan to Americans, instead of to some irresponsible soldiers.

Atheism, as such, is not a belief system. It is a personal choice. It does not have consequences for others.

Here is how one leading American atheist, who was born and educated in the Soviet Union, described Soviet "atheism":

Communists, like all materialists, are neo-mystics: it does not matter whether one rejects the mind in favor of revelations or in favor of conditioned reflexes. The basic premise and the results are the same.

-- Ayn Rand

Originally Posted by Matrixx8

Have you been trying Blue Doggy's jungle drug?

Atheists murdered people in the Soviet Union and China? If you were intellectually honest, you would recognize that labels are not causitive factors, whereas religious and political ideology could be. Yours is an example of a false analogy. I doubt that you would similarly attribute the recent burning of copies of the Koran in Afghanistan to Americans, instead of to some irresponsible soldiers.

Atheism, as such, is not a belief system. It is a personal choice. It does not have consequences for others.

Here is how one leading American atheist, who was born and educated in the Soviet Union, described Soviet "atheism":

-- Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand? You mean the hypocritical POS. Shes your example of anything?

Could be? And atheism couldn't be?

Coulda, shoulda, woulda,

Originally Posted by michael h

Ayn Rand? You mean the hypocritical POS. Shes your example of anything?

Could be? And atheism couldn't be?

Coulda, shoulda, woulda,

If Adolf Hitler said that 2 plus 2 is four, would you respond by calling him a murdering Fascist? That -- and your reference to Ayn Rand -- is an ad-hominem fallacy. You attack the person, not what the person said. Far be it for me to defend many of Rand's ideas. I cited her statement about communism because she grew up under it and experienced it first hand. Her first book, We The Living, offers an interesting account of life under communist ideology. Soviet communism seems to have been closer to a theocracy than any kind of "scientific" ideology. There is nothing scientific about Soviet communism and nothing rational about substituting dogma for rational thought.

I used the words "could be" because it would not be accurate to claim that ALL religious or political ideologies actually resulted in oppression.

I coulda attacked you personally, I shoulda ignored your posts and I woulda done so except for the fact that you probably have something important to say. I'm just speculating at this point, of course.

Originally Posted by michael h

Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand did indeed believe in a diety...Ayn Rand

Originally Posted by darth omar

But the lesson with Russia and China is this: Any society that lays claim to being ‘scientific’ or rational based will end up abusing both science and its people. Science was never intended to provide a basis for government. Science becomes an -ism in that instance.

In reviewing this post, it occurred to me that I should provide some context for my "I agree" with it statement. What I agree with is that any society that "lays claim" to being a "scientific or rational ideology" is very dangerous -- as the Soviet Union and China have shown. Scientific ideology is a contradiction in terms. Rationality does not flourish in the face of ideological dogma. Thiose two contradictions have destroyed communism for all intents and purposes.

Oh yeah, I forgot...Ayn Rand, from Jew to Atheist.
Another phony athiest who couldn't get into high Christian inner circles without leaving her religion behind.

While I can see that Atheist organizations in the US haven't exactly helped their own cause and are way more vocal and just downright annoying than I'd like I really struggle to understand why so many Americans really don't like atheists. Maybe it's because I've never understood the whole God thing but why does me just saying "I don't believe in God" make so many people angry?

Originally Posted by USCitizen

Oh yeah, I forgot...Ayn Rand, from Jew to Atheist.
Another phony athiest who couldn't get into high Christian inner circles without leaving her religion behind.

Here we see evidence of the right-side of the brain clouding your objectivity. Rand an accidental atheist? Ha!

Atheism

Every argument for God and every attribute ascribed to Him rests on a false metaphysical premise. None can survive for a moment on a correct metaphysics . . . .
Existence exists, and only existence exists. Existence is a primary: it is uncreated, indestructible, eternal. So if you are to postulate something beyond existence—some supernatural realm—you must do it by openly denying reason, dispensing with definitions, proofs, arguments, and saying flatly, “To Hell with argument, I have faith.” That, of course, is a willful rejection of reason.
Objectivism advocates reason as man’s sole means of knowledge, and therefore, for the reasons I have already given, it is atheist. It denies any supernatural dimension presented as a contradiction of nature, of existence. This applies not only to God, but also to every variant of the supernatural ever advocated or to be advocated. In other words, we accept reality, and that’s all.

Biography

Originally Posted by Matrixx8

If Adolf Hitler said that 2 plus 2 is four, would you respond by calling him a murdering Fascist? That -- and your reference to Ayn Rand -- is an ad-hominem fallacy. You attack the person, not what the person said. Far be it for me to defend many of Rand's ideas. I cited her statement about communism because she grew up under it and experienced it first hand. Her first book, We The Living, offers an interesting account of life under communist ideology. Soviet communism seems to have been closer to a theocracy than any kind of "scientific" ideology. There is nothing scientific about Soviet communism and nothing rational about substituting dogma for rational thought.

I used the words "could be" because it would not be accurate to claim that ALL religious or political ideologies actually resulted in oppression.

I coulda attacked you personally, I shoulda ignored your posts and I woulda done so except for the fact that you probably have something important to say. I'm just speculating at this point, of course.

When a person "preaches" something they should probably practice what they preach. Surely having grown, experienced such ideologies, preached against would only further resolve one not to practice them?

coulda shoulda below.

I am an atheist. You are a theist with opposing beliefs. I feel I have less "power over my society" with your beliefs existing. I must kill you or reeducate you to have the same beliefs as me. Religion is a scourge to mankind and society and must be eliminated ... so a more rational society can be formed. You place God 1st in your life.

I am a theist. You are an atheist with opposing beliefs. I feel I have less "power over my society" with your beliefs existing. I must kill you or reeducate you to have the same beliefs as me. Atheism is a scourge to mankind and society and must be eliminated ... so a more faithful society can be formed. You do not place God 1st in your life

Originally Posted by PeterUK75

While I can see that Atheist organizations in the US haven't exactly helped their own cause and are way more vocal and just downright annoying than I'd like I really struggle to understand why so many Americans really don't like atheists. Maybe it's because I've never understood the whole God thing but why does me just saying "I don't believe in God" make so many people angry?

Why does saying I do believe in God make people so angry?