Why does Atheism seem to dominate the internet?

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]Then please, defend a secular idea of meaning. What gives an atheist's life meaning?Rhazakna

My life is given meaning by my partnership with my wife, my family, friends, my interests, pursuits, desires and in gaining knowledge. This not so much a secular idea, but an existential one.

maybe you're thinking too hard, too deep and are therefore missing the point which drives you to ask endless questions which are irrelevant in the first place. they serve no purpous except to inflame or dispute anyones belief other than your own.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

My life is given meaning by my partnership with my wife, my family, friends, my interests, pursuits, desires and in gaining knowledge. This not so much a secular idea, but an existential one.

buccomatic

maybe you're thinking too hard, too deep and are therefore missing the point which drives you to ask endless questions which are irrelevant in the first place. they serve no purpous except to inflame or dispute anyones belief other than your own.

You seem to be agreeing with me. Religion started the idea of life having "meaning". Without god, meaning becomes a subjective valuation. If you're going to reduce the concept of meaning to subjective values, then there is no more use for the concept of meaning. It's just values. The idea is superfluous and unnecessary.

Secular mysticism is clinging to religious concepts and ideas while adhering to a nonreligious or materialistic worldview.

My whole point was that western atheists are immersed and espouse cultural Christianity. I'm confining myself to western atheists because my point is about western atheists.

"New Atheism" refers to the recent resurgance of secular humanist and/or "anti-theist" authors and thinkers like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris the late Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and many others.

Gamespot is not the place for an in-depth discussion about the influence of Christian culture on modern atheist movements. In brief, however, all one has to do is listen to their lectures or read their books to see the similarities. The "Four Horsemen of Atheism" (mentioned above) have very culturally Christian ideas about morality, duty, meaning, justice, equality amongst other things.

Hitchens and Harris have both tried to synthesize atheism and objective morality. Hitchens' view in particular sounds very reminiscent of the idea that "God's law is written on your heart".

Rhazakna

I don't think I am agreeing with you. I also don't know that religions started the idea of giving life meaning. I would have thought meanings for living came before any sort of organised faith. I can't know this for sure and am surprised to hear you can.

I'm not reducing the concept of meaning - I think I'm expanding it. Your analagy between "meaning" and "values" goes over my head and I feel it is some sort of semantic get-out on your part. The idea of values and meaning are separate to me.

Your definition of secular mysticism is unsurpisingly non-descriptive. What religious concepts are you referring to? The personal existential search for meaning differs greatly with an organised faith-bound view of life and it's purpose.

I can't see how you can separate culture from Christianity in your western cultures. You once again don't seem to explain your idea - only repeat it. Again, what is cultural Christianity? When did Atheism become new - was it post Satre, Neitze, Heidegger, Russell, or somewhen else? I have no idea why you superimose ideas about morality, duty meaning and justice with Christianity, when those ideas certainly pre-date that faith.

[QUOTE="buccomatic"]

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"] You value those things, they give you joy. Why does that give you meaning? Is meaning the same thing as joy, the same thing as valuing? If so what use does the concept of meaning have? You're defending a concept that has no use in the context you're using it.Rhazakna

maybe you're thinking too hard, too deep and are therefore missing the point which drives you to ask endless questions which are irrelevant in the first place. they serve no purpous except to inflame or dispute anyones belief other than your own.

The meaning those things give me is a personal motivation to continue to live. The things that give my life meaning don't necessarily give me joy. These personal meanings to my life will not have any sugnificance to you, which underpins their subjective and profound nature to me continuing to extract personal meaning from my life.

"Eliminating God" (or rather dismissing the many differing concepts of Gods) does not reduce the concept of meaning. It frees us from the bizarre, unbelievable, untestable and frankly depressing (i.e. everlasting existance prostrating yourself before an entity that requires constant worship - or else) meanings imposed on us by one of a whole number of different faiths with different objective meanings for their adherents. It frees individuals to determine their own meanings for living instead.

[QUOTE="buccomatic"]

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"] You value those things, they give you joy. Why does that give you meaning? Is meaning the same thing as joy, the same thing as valuing? If so what use does the concept of meaning have? You're defending a concept that has no use in the context you're using it.Rhazakna

maybe you're thinking too hard, too deep and are therefore missing the point which drives you to ask endless questions which are irrelevant in the first place. they serve no purpous except to inflame or dispute anyones belief other than your own.

and also how can you kill god if god never existed in the first place and then turn around and exclaim that everything was predicated on his existence when he never actually existed anyways?

you sound like you're doing the very thing you're accusing these so called "new atheists" of.

so you're saying that life without a god is meaningless? is that correct? if so, how can the question of meaning even be entertained when if no god exists then meaning does not exist as well?

and also how can you kill god if god never existed in the first place and then turn around and exclaim that everything was predicated on his existence when he never actually existed anyways?

you sound like you're doing the very thing you're accusing these so called "new atheists" of.

buccomatic

You should probably read this:

you can argue with each other all you want but the fact of the matter is that both of you have been taught, by different doctrines, to defend your beliefs and fight eachother so asto strengthen your own beliefs and and at the same time reinforce them so as to keep them alive for the people that have created the box for you to live in so they can stay in control of you both.

you're like puppets on a string and will disagree with this when told the truth and in tun sink you deeper into the rabbit hole which you believe to be reality.

buccomatic

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="buccomatic"]why should he not value those things? why should he not have joy? why does anything have to have a concept to mean anything?

maybe you're thinking too hard, too deep and are therefore missing the point which drives you to ask endless questions which are irrelevant in the first place. they serve no purpous except to inflame or dispute anyones belief other than your own.

RationalAtheist

The meaning those things give me is a personal motivation to continue to live. The things that give my life meaning don't necessarily give me joy. These personal meanings to my life will not have any sugnificance to you, which underpins their subjective and profound nature to me continuing to extract personal meaning from my life.

"Eliminating God" (or rather dismissing the many differing concepts of Gods) does not reduce the concept of meaning. It frees us from the bizarre, unbelievable, untestable and frankly depressing (i.e. everlasting existance prostrating yourself before an entity that requires constant worship - or else) meanings imposed on us by one of a whole number of different faiths with different objective meanings for their adherents. It frees individuals to determine their own meanings for living instead.

what if there is a God and He is not like that, but instead the image of a mean vindictive god was created by cuel and hate-filled people (long ago) who knew that if they could get people to believe this they would abandon a benevolent Diety which is not at all like the crazy scrpitures they invented and altered (to keep people chained in fear through religion - not belief in God) so they could dominate their lives through religious indoctrination and turn them against eachother so as to bring their nation to ruin and overrun it from within and then rule over them as if they were gods?

if you found out this were true, would you despise those said people that did this and call upon God to see if were real?

Perhaps the people telling you god isn't real are the same people that hate you and want to ruin your life, destroy your freedom and nation as well because you are of a different race than they are.

Atheists have the production of dopamin, serotonin and endorphin as their meaning in life, as they regard science as the ultimate truth. To claim that Atheists have no meaning in life because they have no God makes no sense, as the definition of meaning in life differs among both parties. In the end, there is no denying that both parties are able to live happily.

Perhaps the people telling you god isn't real are the same people that hate you and want to ruin your life, destroy your freedom and nation as well because you are of a different race than they are.

buccomatic

This is edging very close to 'crazy'.

"everlasting existance prostrating yourself before an entity that requires constant worship - or else"

what if there is a God and He is not like that, but instead the image of a mean vindictive god was created by cuel and hate-filled people (long ago) who knew that if they could get people to believe this they would abandon a benevolent Diety which is not at all like the crazy scrpitures they invented and altered (to keep people chained in fear through religion - not belief in God) so they could dominate their lives through religious indoctrination and turn them against eachother so as to bring their nation to ruin and overrun it from within and then rule over them as if they were gods?

if you found out this were true, would you despise those said people that did this and call upon God to see if were real?

Perhaps the people telling you god isn't real are the same people that hate you and want to ruin your life, destroy your freedom and nation as well because you are of a different race than they are.

buccomatic

That sounds like some bizarre paranoid fantasy. Where are you basing this suppposition from? At least Christians have some actual dogma to refer to.

Would I despise people from a long time ago? No. What do you mean "call upon God"? Wouldn't you need to have some religious faith to do this?

You were criticizing me for going down a "rabbit hole which I believe to be reality", then provided an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory with reference to destroying lives and ruining nations, then played the race card. Who's gone down the rabbit hole now?

[QUOTE="buccomatic"]

so you're saying that life without a god is meaningless? is that correct? if so, how can the question of meaning even be entertained when if no god exists then meaning does not exist as well?

and also how can you kill god if god never existed in the first place and then turn around and exclaim that everything was predicated on his existence when he never actually existed anyways?

you sound like you're doing the very thing you're accusing these so called "new atheists" of.

RationalAtheist

You should probably read this:

you can argue with each other all you want but the fact of the matter is that both of you have been taught, by different doctrines, to defend your beliefs and fight eachother so asto strengthen your own beliefs and and at the same time reinforce them so as to keep them alive for the people that have created the box for you to live in so they can stay in control of you both.

you're like puppets on a string and will disagree with this when told the truth and in tun sink you deeper into the rabbit hole which you believe to be reality.

buccomatic

"as they regard science as the ultimate truth"

that's why you defend science and rebuke everything else - because you have been indoctrinated to do so.

satanists.

catholics

jews

baptists

muslims

atheists

etc...

all have one thing in common. they defend their belief for the desires of the ones who have made up their belief system (for them) so as to keep those said subjects under control (while at the same time) leading them around in circles and fighting each other which strenthen their subjects indoctrinated beliefs and thus empower them all the more while (again at the same time) their subjects never realize the very ones who are feeding them the poison of their indoctrination which bends them to their will are the same ones telling them to defend the beliefs they have been given and attack those who's beliefs are different so as to continue the cycle which weakens their subjects and empowers their rulers at the same time.

I'm verbalizing that hating a group, based on the collective beliefs, and actions of that group, isn't that bad.Nibroc420

Or are you suggesting that some members of the KKK might be perfectly morally straight guys, who've got no prejudice and no intent to harm others.
My thoughts is that if you choose to associate yourself with a group, and agree with their values, you're just as bad as the group.

Likewise, If you're a part of the collective mass comprising a religion, You in a sense must agree with the ideals of that group.
One cannot be a Nazi and hate Jews, just as one cannot be Christian and hate Christ.

Unless you'd educate yourself on the horrific teachings of holy books, you wouldn't understand...

Nibroc420

yes i know as well as you that i wrote those things, but you fail to understand that you have a religion as well.

"as they regard science as the ultimate truth"

that's why you defend science and rebuke everything else - because you have been indoctrinated to do so.

satanists.

catholics

jews

baptists

muslims

atheists

etc...

all have one thing in common. they defend their belief for the desires of the ones who have made up their belief system (for them) so as to keep those said subjects under control (while at the same time) leading them around in circles and fighting each other which strenthen their subjects indoctrinated beliefs and thus empower them all the more while (again at the same time) their subjects never realize the very ones who are feeding them the poison of their indoctrination which bends them to their will are the same ones telling them to defend the beliefs they have been given and attack those who's beliefs are different so as to continue the cycle which weakens their subjects and empowers their rulers at the same time.

buccomatic

Atheism is no religion. It has no doctrine and no organization as such. I came to atheism without coercion and via independent means. I don't regard science as "the ultimate truth", but as a the best (most justified and well evidenced) means of explaining our universe. Science does not explain everything I'd like to know, but neither does religion do a good job of justifying its various differing explainations.

How does atheism keep one under control? How would you know of my indoctrination? You seem to be more indoctrinated yourself, with your unfounded conspiracy theories about subjects being strengthened while they get weakened at the same time.

If what you say is true, then levels of faith and non-belief would be fairly constant, but it is clear to see they are changing. There are no rulers in atheism. Where do you get this stuff from, or are you making it up as you go?

[QUOTE="buccomatic"]

Perhaps the people telling you god isn't real are the same people that hate you and want to ruin your life, destroy your freedom and nation as well because you are of a different race than they are.

tenaka2

This is edging very close to 'crazy'.

just like in ancient times when people believed that the sun and moon chased each other across the sky and were gods, if you were to travel back in time and show them on a laptop computer the solar system and how it worked they would either kill you for "dishonoring the gods", think you were a god and worship you or panic and lose their minds because they simply couldn't grasp the obvious truth.

or just like if 200 years ago if you were to tell people that in the future people would be able to fly into space and travel to the moon and maers or fly on giant "steel birds" (airplanes) that weighed more than a mountian and reigned down fire from the heavens like a dragon, they would have never believed you and you would have been burned at the stake for heresy.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="buccomatic"]

so you're saying that life without a god is meaningless? is that correct? if so, how can the question of meaning even be entertained when if no god exists then meaning does not exist as well?

and also how can you kill god if god never existed in the first place and then turn around and exclaim that everything was predicated on his existence when he never actually existed anyways?

you sound like you're doing the very thing you're accusing these so called "new atheists" of.

buccomatic

You should probably read this:

you can argue with each other all you want but the fact of the matter is that both of you have been taught, by different doctrines, to defend your beliefs and fight eachother so asto strengthen your own beliefs and and at the same time reinforce them so as to keep them alive for the people that have created the box for you to live in so they can stay in control of you both.

you're like puppets on a string and will disagree with this when told the truth and in tun sink you deeper into the rabbit hole which you believe to be reality.

buccomatic

"as they regard science as the ultimate truth"

that's why you defend science and rebuke everything else - because you have been indoctrinated to do so.

satanists.

catholics

jews

baptists

muslims

atheists

etc...

all have one thing in common. they defend their belief for the desires of the ones who have made up their belief system (for them) so as to keep those said subjects under control (while at the same time) leading them around in circles and fighting each other which strenthen their subjects indoctrinated beliefs and thus empower them all the more while (again at the same time) their subjects never realize the very ones who are feeding them the poison of their indoctrination which bends them to their will are the same ones telling them to defend the beliefs they have been given and attack those who's beliefs are different so as to continue the cycle which weakens their subjects and empowers their rulers at the same time.

[QUOTE="buccomatic"]

yes i know as well as you that i wrote those things, but you fail to understand that you have a religion as well.

"as they regard science as the ultimate truth"

that's why you defend science and rebuke everything else - because you have been indoctrinated to do so.

satanists.

catholics

jews

baptists

muslims

atheists

etc...

all have one thing in common. they defend their belief for the desires of the ones who have made up their belief system (for them) so as to keep those said subjects under control (while at the same time) leading them around in circles and fighting each other which strenthen their subjects indoctrinated beliefs and thus empower them all the more while (again at the same time) their subjects never realize the very ones who are feeding them the poison of their indoctrination which bends them to their will are the same ones telling them to defend the beliefs they have been given and attack those who's beliefs are different so as to continue the cycle which weakens their subjects and empowers their rulers at the same time.

RationalAtheist

Atheism is no religion. It has no doctrine and no organization as such. I came to atheism without coercion and via independent means. I don't regard science as "the ultimate truth", but as a the best (most justified and well evidenced) means of explaining our universe. Science does not explain everything I'd like to know, but neither does religion do a good job of justifying its various differing explainations.

How does atheism keep one under control? How would you know of my indoctrination? You seem to be more indoctrinated yourself, with your unfounded conspiracy theories about subjects being strengthened while they get weakened at the same time.

If what you say is true, then levels of faith and non-belief would be fairly constant, but it is clear to see they are changing. There are no rulers in atheism. Where do you get this stuff from, or are you making it up as you go?

and there's the indoctrination i spoke of, yet you cannot perceive it because you believe only what you have been indoctrinated into believing and therefore defend it for the sake of the ones who have programmed you to do so.

just as a computer cannot comprehend it's been programmed for a specific role or think for itself, an indoctrinated atheist (catholic, satanist, muslim, jew etc...) cannot comprehend it's being used by a "user" for a specific role or think for itslef. it only speaks the language it has been programmed with - to further the agenda of it's controller - your role as an atheist is to destroy the "old way" of belief of the "old god(s)" and to vote a certain way to make way for the next indoctrination agenda.

you won't see it now, but if you watch close while growing to an old age and remember this you will see it with the passage of time. when things change and you notice people thinking "a new way" instead of the "old way" (asmentioned above - this goes in cycles) and you become persecuted for being a dinosaur computer that can only run it's loaded programming, you will know the this is the truth, you will know you have been used because you will see it for what it is.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="buccomatic"]

yes i know as well as you that i wrote those things, but you fail to understand that you have a religion as well.

"as they regard science as the ultimate truth"

that's why you defend science and rebuke everything else - because you have been indoctrinated to do so.

satanists.

catholics

jews

baptists

muslims

atheists

etc...

all have one thing in common. they defend their belief for the desires of the ones who have made up their belief system (for them) so as to keep those said subjects under control (while at the same time) leading them around in circles and fighting each other which strenthen their subjects indoctrinated beliefs and thus empower them all the more while (again at the same time) their subjects never realize the very ones who are feeding them the poison of their indoctrination which bends them to their will are the same ones telling them to defend the beliefs they have been given and attack those who's beliefs are different so as to continue the cycle which weakens their subjects and empowers their rulers at the same time.

buccomatic

Atheism is no religion. It has no doctrine and no organization as such. I came to atheism without coercion and via independent means. I don't regard science as "the ultimate truth", but as a the best (most justified and well evidenced) means of explaining our universe. Science does not explain everything I'd like to know, but neither does religion do a good job of justifying its various differing explainations.

How does atheism keep one under control? How would you know of my indoctrination? You seem to be more indoctrinated yourself, with your unfounded conspiracy theories about subjects being strengthened while they get weakened at the same time.

If what you say is true, then levels of faith and non-belief would be fairly constant, but it is clear to see they are changing. There are no rulers in atheism. Where do you get this stuff from, or are you making it up as you go?

and there's the indoctrination i spoke of, yet you cannot perceive it because you believe only what you have been indoctrinated into believing and therefore defend it for the sake of the ones who have programmed you to do so.

just as a computer cannot comprehend it's been programmed for a specific role or think for itself, an indoctrinated atheist (catholic, satanist, muslim, jew etc...) cannot comprehend it's being used by a "user" for a specific role or think for itslef. it only speaks the language it has been programmed with - to further the agenda of it's controller - your role as an atheist is to destroy the "old way" of belief of the "old god(s)" and to vote a certain way to make way for the next indoctrination agenda.

you won't see it now, but if you watch close while growing to an old age and remember this you will see it with the passage of time. when things change and you notice people thinking "a new way" instead of the "old way" (asmentioned above - this goes in cycles) and you become persecuted for being a dinosaur computer that can only run it's loaded programming, you will know the this is the truth, you will know you have been used because you will see it for what it is.

You either a troll or insane, I cannot figure out which.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]

You seem to be agreeing with me. Religion started the idea of life having "meaning". Without god, meaning becomes a subjective valuation. If you're going to reduce the concept of meaning to subjective values, then there is no more use for the concept of meaning. It's just values. The idea is superfluous and unnecessary.

Secular mysticism is clinging to religious concepts and ideas while adhering to a nonreligious or materialistic worldview.

My whole point was that western atheists are immersed and espouse cultural Christianity. I'm confining myself to western atheists because my point is about western atheists.

"New Atheism" refers to the recent resurgance of secular humanist and/or "anti-theist" authors and thinkers like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris the late Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and many others.

Gamespot is not the place for an in-depth discussion about the influence of Christian culture on modern atheist movements. In brief, however, all one has to do is listen to their lectures or read their books to see the similarities. The "Four Horsemen of Atheism" (mentioned above) have very culturally Christian ideas about morality, duty, meaning, justice, equality amongst other things.

Hitchens and Harris have both tried to synthesize atheism and objective morality. Hitchens' view in particular sounds very reminiscent of the idea that "God's law is written on your heart".

RationalAtheist

I don't think I am agreeing with you. I also don't know that religions started the idea of giving life meaning. I would have thought meanings for living came before any sort of organised faith. I can't know this for sure and am surprised to hear you can.

I'm not reducing the concept of meaning - I think I'm expanding it. Your analagy between "meaning" and "values" goes over my head and I feel it is some sort of semantic get-out on your part. The idea of values and meaning are separate to me.

Your definition of secular mysticism is unsurpisingly non-descriptive. What religious concepts are you referring to? The personal existential search for meaning differs greatly with an organised faith-bound view of life and it's purpose.

I can't see how you can separate culture from Christianity in your western cultures. You once again don't seem to explain your idea - only repeat it. Again, what is cultural Christianity? When did Atheism become new - was it post Satre, Neitze, Heidegger, Russell, or somewhen else? I have no idea why you superimose ideas about morality, duty meaning and justice with Christianity, when those ideas certainly pre-date that faith.

I'm not sure if you understand what I'm saying. WHat I said about valuation may have gone over your head, but it's not a "get out", it's my position.

I do apologize if I'm not expressing myself better, it is 6:15 AM, and I'm both exhausted and hyper. I will try to explain more clearly, though.

My stance is that under examination, life is meaningless. The god-free justification for life having meaning usually goes like this: "My life has meaning because of happiness, love, passion, knowledge etc." My position is that those are mere emotional states that we value, that all things that give life "meaning" are just things we value. I had really passionate sex today. I could say that I find meaning in that fact, but that's all it is, one fact amongst many. I had great sex, and I'm sitting in a chair. Two facts, one that I value a great deal more because of the emotional and physical state it put me in. I just don't think that gies it any meaning.

Basically, I'm an existential nihilist and an absurdist, and I think the Nietzschean existentialist goal of forging meaning from the void is a useless endeavor.

As for cultural Christianity, I define it as ideas or cultural attitudes that either originated with, or were integral to, the more philosophical schools of Christianity, that became accepted by nonreligious (or even anti-religious) groups and thinkers.

Ideas within cultural christianity may include (but are not limited to): Objective morality, natural rights, duty ethics, equality, sexual repression, emphasis on the family unit, emphasis on gender roles and traditionalism. There are others, but those are off top. To be clear, I'm not saying that these ideas are necessarily originated with Christianity (though some did. I'm saying that how these ideas exist in the west has been heavily influenced by Christendom.

If you read the writings of the "New Atheists" they espouse many of these ideas. Humanism itself was strongly influenced by Christianity. The desire for innate morality, for free will, for equality, amongst other things is what makes the "New Atheists" culturally Christian

"New Atheism" is not my term, in fact I think it's quite stupid. The discussion of when they became new is not one to have with me. I'm not saying that Christianity is responsible for what you mentioned, I'm saying how the West relates to it has a lot to do with the history of Western Christianity. Anyone who knows about philosophical history should be aware of that.

You either a troll or insane, I cannot figure out which.

tenaka2

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="buccomatic"]

yes i know as well as you that i wrote those things, but you fail to understand that you have a religion as well.

"as they regard science as the ultimate truth"

that's why you defend science and rebuke everything else - because you have been indoctrinated to do so.

satanists.

catholics

jews

baptists

muslims

atheists

etc...

all have one thing in common. they defend their belief for the desires of the ones who have made up their belief system (for them) so as to keep those said subjects under control (while at the same time) leading them around in circles and fighting each other which strenthen their subjects indoctrinated beliefs and thus empower them all the more while (again at the same time) their subjects never realize the very ones who are feeding them the poison of their indoctrination which bends them to their will are the same ones telling them to defend the beliefs they have been given and attack those who's beliefs are different so as to continue the cycle which weakens their subjects and empowers their rulers at the same time.

buccomatic

Atheism is no religion. It has no doctrine and no organization as such. I came to atheism without coercion and via independent means. I don't regard science as "the ultimate truth", but as a the best (most justified and well evidenced) means of explaining our universe. Science does not explain everything I'd like to know, but neither does religion do a good job of justifying its various differing explainations.

How does atheism keep one under control? How would you know of my indoctrination? You seem to be more indoctrinated yourself, with your unfounded conspiracy theories about subjects being strengthened while they get weakened at the same time.

If what you say is true, then levels of faith and non-belief would be fairly constant, but it is clear to see they are changing. There are no rulers in atheism. Where do you get this stuff from, or are you making it up as you go?

and there's the indoctrination i spoke of, yet you cannot perceive it because you believe only what you have been indoctrinated into believing and therefore defend it for the sake of the ones who have programmed you to do so.

just as a computer cannot comprehend it's been programmed for a specific role or think for itself, an indoctrinated atheist (catholic, satanist, muslim, jew etc...) cannot comprehend it's being used by a "user" for a specific role or think for itslef. it only speaks the language it has been programmed with - to further the agenda of it's controller - your role as an atheist is to destroy the "old way" of belief of the "old god(s)" and to vote a certain way to make way for the next indoctrination agenda.

you won't see it now, but if you watch close while growing to an old age and remember this you will see it with the passage of time. when things change and you notice people thinking "a new way" instead of the "old way" (asmentioned above - this goes in cycles) and you become persecuted for being a dinosaur computer that can only run it's loaded programming, you will know the this is the truth, you will know you have been used because you will see it for what it is.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

You either a troll or insane, I cannot figure out which.

musicalmac

Well I must admit I am curious as to who the 'Controller' is.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="buccomatic"]why should he not value those things? why should he not have joy? why does anything have to have a concept to mean anything?

maybe you're thinking too hard, too deep and are therefore missing the point which drives you to ask endless questions which are irrelevant in the first place. they serve no purpous except to inflame or dispute anyones belief other than your own.

buccomatic

and also how can you kill god if god never existed in the first place and then turn around and exclaim that everything was predicated on his existence when he never actually existed anyways?

you sound like you're doing the very thing you're accusing these so called "new atheists" of.

I'm saying that a useful concept of meaning does not exist if god does not. That secular ideas of meaning is just elevating what we value to absurd heights.

I can do that because I am a nihilist. I reject morality, meaning, intrinsic value and every other idea based on some religious notion. Exitentialism does not go far enough, and its aspiration for individualized meaning is foolhardy.

[QUOTE="musicalmac"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

You either a troll or insane, I cannot figure out which.

tenaka2

Well I must admit I am curious as to who the 'Controller' is.

just as a computer cannot comprehend it's been programmed for a specific role or think for itself, an indoctrinated atheist (catholic, satanist, muslim, jew etc...) cannot comprehend it's being used by a "user" for a specific role or think for itslef. it only speaks the language it has been programmed with - to further the agenda of it's controller - your role as an atheist is to destroy the "old way" of belief of the "old god(s)" and to vote a certain way to make way for the next indoctrination agenda.

you won't see it now, but if you watch close while growing to an old age and remember this you will see it with the passage of time. when things change and you notice people thinking "a new way" instead of the "old way" (asmentioned above - this goes in cycles) and you become persecuted for being a dinosaur computer that can only run it's loaded programming, you will know the this is the truth, you will know you have been used because you will see it for what it is.

buccomatic

I already have grown to an old age (45). How much longer should I wait? I ask again - who do you think controls the atheists? What is this vote you speak of? Thankfully, politics is mostly secular where I live.

I think your own paranioa has the better of you. All you seem to do is spout unfounded words that have no meaning outside of your own fantasy. Your analagies with computers and the human mind are weak and poorly referenced. I can't see anything to believe in what you say, since you seem to refuse to supply any basis or evidence to support your crazy ideas.

Are you saying that you are not indoctrinated? You seem like a fantasist - refusing to answer questions about your odd theory, yet getting all mystical about "the next indoctrination agenda", "being persecuted", "programmed dinosaurs", "you'll see it for what it is" and other unexplained bunkum.

If I am indoctrinated, how will I know the truth eventually? How can you see it, seeing as you would be as indoctrinated as I am, wouldn't you? I'm sorry if you think I'm ridiculing you, but your basis for belief does seem ridiculous to me, as does your grasp of history (no burning at stakes 200 years ago and manned flight happened in the late 1700's). In order not to be discounted as a nut, you should provide reasoning and/or evidence to support your view. All you seem to be doing instead is going deeper down your own rabbit hole.

A voice within, or as science would call it 'Schizophrenia'.

rastotm

[QUOTE="rastotm"]

A voice within, or as science would call it 'Schizophrenia'.

musicalmac

I'm not sure if you understand what I'm saying. WHat I said about valuation may have gone over your head, but it's not a "get out", it's my position.

I do apologize if I'm not expressing myself better, it is 6:15 AM, and I'm both exhausted and hyper. I will try to explain more clearly, though.

My stance is that under examination, life is meaningless. The god-free justification for life having meaning usually goes like this: "My life has meaning because of happiness, love, passion, knowledge etc." My position is that those are mere emotional states that we value, that all things that give life "meaning" are just things we value. I had really passionate sex today. I could say that I find meaning in that fact, but that's all it is, one fact amongst many. I had great sex, and I'm sitting in a chair. Two facts, one that I value a great deal more because of the emotional and physical state it put me in. I just don't think that gies it any meaning.

Basically, I'm an existential nihilist and an absurdist, and I think the Nietzschean existentialist goal of forging meaning from the void is a useless endeavor.

As for cultural Christianity, I define it as ideas or cultural attitudes that either originated with, or were integral to, the more philosophical schools of Christianity, that became accepted by nonreligious (or even anti-religious) groups and thinkers.

Ideas within cultural christianity may include (but are not limited to): Objective morality, natural rights, duty ethics, equality, sexual repression, emphasis on the family unit, emphasis on gender roles and traditionalism. There are others, but those are off top. To be clear, I'm not saying that these ideas are necessarily originated with Christianity (though some did. I'm saying that how these ideas exist in the west has been heavily influenced by Christendom.

If you read the writings of the "New Atheists" they espouse many of these ideas. Humanism itself was strongly influenced by Christianity. The desire for innate morality, for free will, for equality, amongst other things is what makes the "New Atheists" culturally Christian

"New Atheism" is not my term, in fact I think it's quite stupid. The discussion of when they became new is not one to have with me. I'm not saying that Christianity is responsible for what you mentioned, I'm saying how the West relates to it has a lot to do with the history of Western Christianity. Anyone who knows about philosophical history should be aware of that.

Rhazakna

What "examination" do you apply to make life meaningless? Are you talking about objective meaning? I agree that there is no explicit meaning to (the vast majority of peoples') life, but there are implicit ones, as I've described. The meaning to my life is more than attaining emotional states or ideas of satiation. I derive meaning from attaining and trying to subscribe to my personal set of values, but these values (or the emotional payback from thier attainment) are not necessarily implicit in giving my life meaning, nor do they direct it. Don't you see that personal meaning and values are different things? values are nebulous concepts, but meaning is tangible, attainable, goal focused, worth working towards, extending and worth enduring hardship for. I can't see how you've integrated both in your scant explanation.

How can you be a nihilist and an absurdist? Isn't that a contradiction? I veer towards absurdism myself.

How can you apply cultural standards to a Christian religion, when they preceded it? If those ideas of morality, ethics, equlity and the family have influenced Christianity, they are still independent from it. I think you aply too much glory to Christianity when you attach cultural Christianity to ideas that pre-date it. I can't see the point you try and make with this approach.

If you think a term is stupid, why use it? "New Atheism" is a meaningless term to me. There does not seem to be anything new about it, or any particular movement you can identify it with. It is meaningless to me as your opening statement still is: "Any atheist who thinks life has a "point" or meaning is being inconsistent and possibly irrational." Camus would ask you to embrace your absurdist condition, while conversely continuing to explore and search for meaning.

[QUOTE="buccomatic"]

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Atheism is no religion. It has no doctrine and no organization as such. I came to atheism without coercion and via independent means. I don't regard science as "the ultimate truth", but as a the best (most justified and well evidenced) means of explaining our universe. Science does not explain everything I'd like to know, but neither does religion do a good job of justifying its various differing explainations.

How does atheism keep one under control? How would you know of my indoctrination? You seem to be more indoctrinated yourself, with your unfounded conspiracy theories about subjects being strengthened while they get weakened at the same time.

If what you say is true, then levels of faith and non-belief would be fairly constant, but it is clear to see they are changing. There are no rulers in atheism. Where do you get this stuff from, or are you making it up as you go?

tenaka2

and there's the indoctrination i spoke of, yet you cannot perceive it because you believe only what you have been indoctrinated into believing and therefore defend it for the sake of the ones who have programmed you to do so.

just as a computer cannot comprehend it's been programmed for a specific role or think for itself, an indoctrinated atheist (catholic, satanist, muslim, jew etc...) cannot comprehend it's being used by a "user" for a specific role or think for itslef. it only speaks the language it has been programmed with - to further the agenda of it's controller - your role as an atheist is to destroy the "old way" of belief of the "old god(s)" and to vote a certain way to make way for the next indoctrination agenda.

you won't see it now, but if you watch close while growing to an old age and remember this you will see it with the passage of time. when things change and you notice people thinking "a new way" instead of the "old way" (asmentioned above - this goes in cycles) and you become persecuted for being a dinosaur computer that can only run it's loaded programming, you will know the this is the truth, you will know you have been used because you will see it for what it is.

You either a troll or insane, I cannot figure out which.

it's simple. it goes in cycles and you're part of the cycle. the only way to break out of the cycle is to recognize it. it's like not seeing the bottle of ketchup on the refrigerator shelf that is right infront of your eyes, it's there but for some reason you're mind won't let it register and you don't see it. you look and look and don't find it, then when you relax and just look, POOF there it is and then you know.

it works like this:

in ancient times people were very superstitious because they had no understanding and no education, they worshipped what they did not understand and some were smarter than others and there was no morality

so:

some people were greedy and manipulative, they didn't want to fight for land, food or resources so they made up a story for others to believe in so that they would hand those things over to them and they would be rich and rule over them as though they were gods and not mere men.

they said to the dumber ones, "see the moon is a god it glows with power of light to drive away the darkness and keep the shadows from attacking you, worship it, it will keep you safe!" and "see! the sun makes your plants grow, it gives live, worship it so you have life!" and "see! the running waters wind like a serpent through the lush valley, the serpent gives food for crops and life wherever it flows, so worship the serpent and have food and life!" so the dumb people worshipped those things thinking it gave thems success in those areas and they were under the control of the ones who made all that BULL$H!T up.

then ages passed and they said, "see this great rock which looks like a fish, it will make you fertile if you worship it!", so the dumb people worshipped it and their wives naturally became pregnant and they believed it was the rock that looked like a fish which caused them to become pregnant. they also said "make offerings to it with gold and food and gems and other precious things, our priests will look over them for you! (the preists would steal their gold and gems and eat their food) and the dumb people became more superstitious and more dependent on the priests an rulers and people who took hold of their money.

then as the ages passed on and on and they had gained a lot of power (and slaves and gold) and they said, "see, look at this great statue that of the owl that has made you're people wise! come worship it and become wise, if not you become dumb! (they were already dumb but didn't know it and didn't know they were being used) so they worshipped it and then they were taugh how to carve stone and then thought the stone owl had made them wise not the artisan education.

then ages passed on and the rulers said "see! look at this statue of the man gods baljoeweth, himeaneth and manaroth! you great ancestors of old! they are gods and are the one who gave you everything you have (but he was really only speaking of his great, great, great gradfathers and grandmothers who stole all the money and gems from everyone while tricking them into worshipping, moons, sun, serpents, staues etc.. through the years) and so the dumb people did so and gave the controlling rulers even more power.

then kingdoms were set up all across the earth and the rulers from this one family had installed themselves into everyones land and had the uneducated masses worship these man made things in all lands and all kingdoms which they presided over. this is why all the ancient "gods" (statues of the grant grandfathers and grandmothers) have the same powers and likenesses but different names (different names for different language speaking peoples - same statues), because they were created by the same people for the same purpous, to control the lives of their conquered subjects to make them unwitting but willing slaves.

then the people became educated and began to understand what was happening and there was a revolt. there were too many non believers for they knew the truth and they overpowered the former rulers and installed themselves as the new gods and rulers over their own people. there was a problem though. the people still believed in those statues as if they were gods and they feared that if they stopped worshipping them that they would be cursed or cast off into hellena. so the ones who overthrew the old rulers had to let them continue to worship them or there would be panic and anarchy. so they hid the truth...

years went buy and eventually the new rulers became so tyrannical that they spread out over western europe and dominated the pagans of western europe and forced them into worshippoing the same gods and goddess they already worshipped but with different names, the pagans of europe knew this so they devised s plot to infiltrate the "royal" priesthood and overthrow them step by step for thousands of years

eventually they won and then used the gold of the organizaions they had infiltrated to explore the world and see what was hidden from them all this time and then eventually america was born.

as the years passed the cold war came because the old rulers wanted their power back because they believed they had birth right to rule over everyone. they now believe their own BS just like the "royal imperials" did before they were overthrown.

now in todays world people don't think prayng to a statue is very smart but the same evil old rulers still have all the money and still want to remain in power, so they spoke to the gullible people once more and said, "see! there is no gods and goddesses, the priests are lying to you! (they don't mention they had made it sall up originally) we are tryingto have understanding so we offer you wisdom of psychology and freedom from slavery of money and capitalism! hand it over and liberate yourselves, socializethe ecconomy and feed the poor and strip the powerful of all their gold I (they want to strip the 2nd and 3rd rulers of their power, the ones who overthrew them long ago) power to the people! there are no gods or goddesses! atheism is the way, let us guide you!"and the people fell for it once and again and things are getting crazy and sh!tty once again and everyone is broke...

the more things change, the more they stay the same...

bump.

you need to read that (above).

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

You either a troll or insane, I cannot figure out which.

buccomatic

it's simple. it goes in cycles and you're part of the cycle. the only way to break out of the cycle is to recognize it. it's like not seeing the bottle of ketchup on the refrigerator shelf that is right infront of your eyes, it's there but for some reason you're mind won't let it register and you don't see it. you look and look and don't find it, then when you relax and just look, POOF there it is and then you know.

it works like this:

in ancient times people were very superstitious because they had no understanding and no education, they worshipped what they did not understand and some were smarter than others and there was no morality

so:

some people were greedy and manipulative, they didn't want to fight for land, food or resources so they made up a story for others to believe in so that they would hand those things over to them and they would be rich and rule over them as though they were gods and not mere men.

they said to the dumber ones, "see the moon is a god it glows with power of light to drive away the darkness and keep the shadows from attacking you, worship it, it will keep you safe!" and "see! the sun makes your plants grow, it gives live, worship it so you have life!" and "see! the running waters wind like a serpent through the lush valley, the serpent gives food for crops and life wherever it flows, so worship the serpent and have food and life!" so the dumb people worshipped those things thinking it gave thems success in those areas and they were under the control of the ones who made all that BULL$H!T up.

then ages passed and they said, "see this great rock which looks like a fish, it will make you fertile if you worship it!", so the dumb people worshipped it and their wives naturally became pregnant and they believed it was the rock that looked like a fish which caused them to become pregnant. they also said "make offerings to it with gold and food and gems and other precious things, our priests will look over them for you! (the preists would steal their gold and gems and eat their food) and the dumb people became more superstitious and more dependent on the priests an rulers and people who took hold of their money.

then as the ages passed on and on and they had gained a lot of power (and slaves and gold) and they said, "see, look at this great statue that of the owl that has made you're people wise! come worship it and become wise, if not you become dumb! (they were already dumb but didn't know it and didn't know they were being used) so they worshipped it and then they were taugh how to carve stone and then thought the stone owl had made them wise not the artisan education.

then ages passed on and the rulers said "see! look at this statue of the man gods baljoeweth, himeaneth and manaroth! you great ancestors of old! they are gods and are the one who gave you everything you have (but he was really only speaking of his great, great, great gradfathers and grandmothers who stole all the money and gems from everyone while tricking them into worshipping, moons, sun, serpents, staues etc.. through the years) and so the dumb people did so and gave the controlling rulers even more power.

then kingdoms were set up all across the earth and the rulers from this one family had installed themselves into everyones land and had the uneducated masses worship these man made things in all lands and all kingdoms which they presided over. this is why all the ancient "gods" (statues of the grant grandfathers and grandmothers) have the same powers and likenesses but different names (different names for different language speaking peoples - same statues), because they were created by the same people for the same purpous, to control the lives of their conquered subjects to make them unwitting but willing slaves.

then the people became educated and began to understand what was happening and there was a revolt. there were too many non believers for they knew the truth and they overpowered the former rulers and installed themselves as the new gods and rulers over their own people. there was a problem though. the people still believed in those statues as if they were gods and they feared that if they stopped worshipping them that they would be cursed or cast off into hellena. so the ones who overthrew the old rulers had to let them continue to worship them or there would be panic and anarchy. so they hid the truth...

years went buy and eventually the new rulers became so tyrannical that they spread out over western europe and dominated the pagans of western europe and forced them into worshippoing the same gods and goddess they already worshipped but with different names, the pagans of europe knew this so they devised s plot to infiltrate the "royal" priesthood and overthrow them step by step for thousands of years

eventually they won and then used the gold of the organizaions they had infiltrated to explore the world and see what was hidden from them all this time and then eventually america was born.

as the years passed the cold war came because the old rulers wanted their power back because they believed they had birth right to rule over everyone. they now believe their own BS just like the "royal imperials" did before they were overthrown.

now in todays world people don't think prayng to a statue is very smart but the same evil old rulers still have all the money and still want to remain in power, so they spoke to the gullible people once more and said, "see! there is no gods and goddesses, the priests are lying to you! (they don't mention they had made it sall up originally) we are tryingto have understanding so we offer you wisdom of psychology and freedom from slavery of money and capitalism! hand it over and liberate yourselves, socializethe ecconomy and feed the poor and strip the powerful of all their gold I (they want to strip the 2nd and 3rd rulers of their power, the ones who overthrew them long ago) power to the people! there are no gods or goddesses! atheism is the way, let us guide you!"and the people fell for it once and again and things are getting crazy and sh!tty once again and everyone is broke...

the more things change, the more they stay the same...

bump.

you need to read that (above).

buccomatic

Unfortuntely, I can't ever unread it.

It's like you're describing a fever-dream you had, rather than explaining your thinking with any evidence or justification.

Because in most societies, in real life it is more accepted to be religious and thus if you're an atheist the only outlet you have where you can freely express anything you believe is the internet.

Simple, no?

Teenaged

Because it's the only place they can go to feel like they can "dominate" other people's opinions. They wouldn't dare do anything like that to someones face.

lo_Pine

I am an Atheist myself but the hate on religious people is disgusting and funny all the same, because it proves that people get "muscles" when they are as far away from someone as they possibly can.

The reason is simple.

The internet is your portal to the greater world community. Within your social group, specially if you're in the states, odds are most of the people aorund you are believers. And event he ones who aren't aren't likely to engage you in philosophicla debates.

On the internet you are exposed to a wider set of views and opinions, and on forums board otherwise known as DISCUSSION baords, you are likely to be engaging wiht people much more willing to debate/discuss these topics with you.

So I think it's a matter of it simply being a different environment.

These. They can talk and say what they want here because they are safe behind their computers, they would never say it in front of people because would get their asses kicked in a second.cfstar

I've given school assemblies on atheism when I used to teach. Do atheist ideas make you so mad that you'd threaten violence? You must be well-hard.

[QUOTE="buccomatic"]

bump.

you need to read that (above).

RationalAtheist

Unfortuntely, I can't ever unread it.

It's like you're describing a fever-dream you had, rather than explaining your thinking with any evidence or justification.

[QUOTE="cfstar"]These. They can talk and say what they want here because they are safe behind their computers, they would never say it in front of people because would get their asses kicked in a second.RationalAtheist

I've given school assemblies on atheism when I used to teach. Do atheist ideas make you so mad that you'd threaten violence? You must be well-hard.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Because in most societies, in real life it is more accepted to be religious and thus if you're an atheist the only outlet you have where you can freely express anything you believe is the internet.

Simple, no?

cfstar

Because it's the only place they can go to feel like they can "dominate" other people's opinions. They wouldn't dare do anything like that to someones face.

lo_Pine

I am an Atheist myself but the hate on religious people is disgusting and funny all the same, because it proves that people get "muscles" when they are as far away from someone as they possibly can.

LOL!

Spoken like a true believer.

Violence is always the answer with many of them. Not sure why you'd approve of that.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Because in most societies, in real life it is more accepted to be religious and thus if you're an atheist the only outlet you have where you can freely express anything you believe is the internet.

Simple, no?

cfstar

Because it's the only place they can go to feel like they can "dominate" other people's opinions. They wouldn't dare do anything like that to someones face.

lo_Pine

I am an Atheist myself but the hate on religious people is disgusting and funny all the same, because it proves that people get "muscles" when they are as far away from someone as they possibly can.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]

I'm not sure if you understand what I'm saying. WHat I said about valuation may have gone over your head, but it's not a "get out", it's my position.

I do apologize if I'm not expressing myself better, it is 6:15 AM, and I'm both exhausted and hyper. I will try to explain more clearly, though.

My stance is that under examination, life is meaningless. The god-free justification for life having meaning usually goes like this: "My life has meaning because of happiness, love, passion, knowledge etc." My position is that those are mere emotional states that we value, that all things that give life "meaning" are just things we value. I had really passionate sex today. I could say that I find meaning in that fact, but that's all it is, one fact amongst many. I had great sex, and I'm sitting in a chair. Two facts, one that I value a great deal more because of the emotional and physical state it put me in. I just don't think that gies it any meaning.

Basically, I'm an existential nihilist and an absurdist, and I think the Nietzschean existentialist goal of forging meaning from the void is a useless endeavor.

As for cultural Christianity, I define it as ideas or cultural attitudes that either originated with, or were integral to, the more philosophical schools of Christianity, that became accepted by nonreligious (or even anti-religious) groups and thinkers.

Ideas within cultural christianity may include (but are not limited to): Objective morality, natural rights, duty ethics, equality, sexual repression, emphasis on the family unit, emphasis on gender roles and traditionalism. There are others, but those are off top. To be clear, I'm not saying that these ideas are necessarily originated with Christianity (though some did. I'm saying that how these ideas exist in the west has been heavily influenced by Christendom.

If you read the writings of the "New Atheists" they espouse many of these ideas. Humanism itself was strongly influenced by Christianity. The desire for innate morality, for free will, for equality, amongst other things is what makes the "New Atheists" culturally Christian

"New Atheism" is not my term, in fact I think it's quite stupid. The discussion of when they became new is not one to have with me. I'm not saying that Christianity is responsible for what you mentioned, I'm saying how the West relates to it has a lot to do with the history of Western Christianity. Anyone who knows about philosophical history should be aware of that.

RationalAtheist

What "examination" do you apply to make life meaningless? Are you talking about objective meaning? I agree that there is no explicit meaning to (the vast majority of peoples') life, but there are implicit ones, as I've described. The meaning to my life is more than attaining emotional states or ideas of satiation. I derive meaning from attaining and trying to subscribe to my personal set of values, but these values (or the emotional payback from thier attainment) are not necessarily implicit in giving my life meaning, nor do they direct it. Don't you see that personal meaning and values are different things? values are nebulous concepts, but meaning is tangible, attainable, goal focused, worth working towards, extending and worth enduring hardship for. I can't see how you've integrated both in your scant explanation.

How can you be a nihilist and an absurdist? Isn't that a contradiction? I veer towards absurdism myself.

How can you apply cultural standards to a Christian religion, when they preceded it? If those ideas of morality, ethics, equlity and the family have influenced Christianity, they are still independent from it. I think you aply too much glory to Christianity when you attach cultural Christianity to ideas that pre-date it. I can't see the point you try and make with this approach.

If you think a term is stupid, why use it? "New Atheism" is a meaningless term to me. There does not seem to be anything new about it, or any particular movement you can identify it with. It is meaningless to me as your opening statement still is: "Any atheist who thinks life has a "point" or meaning is being inconsistent and possibly irrational." Camus would ask you to embrace your absurdist condition, while conversely continuing to explore and search for meaning.

I typed that sentence about absurdism all wrong. I meant to group absurdism with Niezschean existentialism, not my position. I am a nihilist.

Values are not necessarily nebulous at all. They can be, but they can also be concrete, depends on the person and the value. How is something that is "goal focused" and "attainable" distinct from one's values? If you work toward a goal it's because you value reaching it. If you work toward attaining something, its because you value attaining it. Why does working toward a goal give life meaning? Once again, it's just another fact amongst an endless stream of facts. The only reason you derive meaning from it is because of your values.

I think you're wrong about Christianity and those concepts. I would argue that notions of equality in the West is a very Christian idea. The equality of souls eventually became the equality of people. Just look at industrial countries without a Christian history compared to those that do, see which culture values equality more. The idea of innate morality within each person is at least Abrahamic, if not Christian (I would argue against morality itself as an authoritarian and religious concept, but that's a whole other discussion). The idea of an intrinsic code of morals that everyone has (god's law is written on your heart) seems to have its origins in Christendom. While it is true that an emphasis on the family predates Christianity, the cultural norm of the ultramonogomous, dutiful "nuclear family" has its origins in conservative Christian communalism. I'm not giving Christianity any glory, because I oppose and reject all of these concepts.

But even if all of these things are separate and do pre-date Christianity, it doesn't matter. I was discussing how the West relates to these issues which is heavily rooted in the Christian religion. I don't think anyone can deny that. The west was born from Christian culture, you cannot separate one from the other.

I used the term "New Atheism" because I thought someone with the name RationalAtheist would be familiar with it. You may be the only person on the internet with "Atheist" in their username who hasn't heard the term. The reason that they're called that, according to the people who bestowed the label (media, mostly) is because they're very vocal and sometimes vitriolic in their rejection of god. This is "new" because that wouldn't be tolerated in Europe or America in the early-mid 20th century. A more descriptive term would be loud-internet-community-based-secular-humanists, but "New Atheists" is catchier.

well, i explained it pretty clearly and of it metaphorically. if you were paying attention you would see the obvious truth of it all (which could help you to retain your freedom and wealth) but more than likely the old rulers have sold you the new statue to worship and you have listened to them (like all the other dumb people of ages past who failed to learn from history) and therefore are indoctrinated to reject the truth for your loss and their gain just as i described over and over in the cycles.

buccomatic

Using metaphores does not mean you explain things clearly - usually the opposite. You've provided no evidence, or justification, or answered any of my questions on your words.

If the truth is so obvious, why can't more people see it?

Who are these peole you talk about? It is rich you talking about learning from history, when you've already shown history isn't your strong suit.

When are you going to reveal the lizard men are behind all this? Can't you see it? You're soooo indoctrinated!

I typed that sentence about absurdism all wrong. I meant to group absurdism with Niezschean existentialism, not my position. I am a nihilist.

Values are not necessarily nebulous at all. They can be, but they can also be concrete, depends on the person and the value. How is something that is "goal focused" and "attainable" distinct from one's values? If you work toward a goal it's because you value reaching it. If you work toward attaining something, its because you value attaining it. Why does working toward a goal give life meaning? Once again, it's just another fact amongst an endless stream of facts. The only reason you derive meaning from it is because of your values.

I think you're wrong about Christianity and those concepts. I would argue that notions of equality in the West is a very Christian idea. The equality of souls eventually became the equality of people. Just look at industrial countries without a Christian history compared to those that do, see which culture values equality more. The idea of innate morality within each person is at least Abrahamic, if not Christian (I would argue against morality itself as an authoritarian and religious concept, but that's a whole other discussion). The idea of an intrinsic code of morals that everyone has (god's law is written on your heart) seems to have its origins in Christendom. While it is true that an emphasis on the family predates Christianity, the cultural norm of the ultramonogomous, dutiful "nuclear family" has its origins in conservative Christian communalism. I'm not giving Christianity any glory, because I oppose and reject all of these concepts.

But even if all of these things are separate and do pre-date Christianity, it doesn't matter. I was discussing how the West relates to these issues which is heavily rooted in the Christian religion. I don't think anyone can deny that. The west was born from Christian culture, you cannot separate one from the other.

I used the term "New Atheism" because I thought someone with the name RationalAtheist would be familiar with it. You may be the only person on the internet with "Atheist" in their username who hasn't heard the term. The reason that they're called that, according to the people who bestowed the label (media, mostly) is because they're very vocal and sometimes vitriolic in their rejection of god. This is "new" because that wouldn't be tolerated in Europe or America in the early-mid 20th century. A more descriptive term would be loud-internet-community-based-secular-humanists, but "New Atheists" is catchier.

Rhazakna

First I'm agreeing with you, then I'm not understanding you. The you say you're absurdist, then you say you're not absurdist. I'll be honest; you're not making it easy to discuss things with you. Why would you group absurdism with Nietzchean existentialism anyway?

Valuing things and having values are different things. Why would valuing things deny you personal meaning? I've noticed this confusion in your wording before. Working towards a goal to create personal meaning is not "facts amongst streams of facts". I wonder why you would say this. Personal meaning is based on experience and aspiration for me and not facts. I rather think this is only more wriggling over semantics to cover your originally preposterous and indefensible assertion.

I'm not sure Chrtistianity does go hand-in-hand with equality. Many non Christian societies valued equality more than early Christian ones, which were ditinctly unequal. Morality must have pre-dated religion, else society would never have formed as we moved from hunter-gatherers to social farming in our evolution as cooperative societies. The nuclear family has it's roots in human evolution - as well as in other species of animal. How you'd make an appeal for Christian-inspired monogamy is mind-blowingly short-sighted in my view, especially given the natural evidence.

My name isn't RationalNewAtheist, so I wonder why you'd make that leap of logic. You still haven't really described what it is exactly, and what seperates the "new" ones from the "old" ones. Atheism existed well before the 20th century in Europe. Secularism and humanism are hardly "new" ideas either, as aren't bad reactions to them. I still have no idea of your purpose in making that distinction. Did it help?

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]

I typed that sentence about absurdism all wrong. I meant to group absurdism with Niezschean existentialism, not my position. I am a nihilist.

Values are not necessarily nebulous at all. They can be, but they can also be concrete, depends on the person and the value. How is something that is "goal focused" and "attainable" distinct from one's values? If you work toward a goal it's because you value reaching it. If you work toward attaining something, its because you value attaining it. Why does working toward a goal give life meaning? Once again, it's just another fact amongst an endless stream of facts. The only reason you derive meaning from it is because of your values.

I think you're wrong about Christianity and those concepts. I would argue that notions of equality in the West is a very Christian idea. The equality of souls eventually became the equality of people. Just look at industrial countries without a Christian history compared to those that do, see which culture values equality more. The idea of innate morality within each person is at least Abrahamic, if not Christian (I would argue against morality itself as an authoritarian and religious concept, but that's a whole other discussion). The idea of an intrinsic code of morals that everyone has (god's law is written on your heart) seems to have its origins in Christendom. While it is true that an emphasis on the family predates Christianity, the cultural norm of the ultramonogomous, dutiful "nuclear family" has its origins in conservative Christian communalism. I'm not giving Christianity any glory, because I oppose and reject all of these concepts.

But even if all of these things are separate and do pre-date Christianity, it doesn't matter. I was discussing how the West relates to these issues which is heavily rooted in the Christian religion. I don't think anyone can deny that. The west was born from Christian culture, you cannot separate one from the other.

I used the term "New Atheism" because I thought someone with the name RationalAtheist would be familiar with it. You may be the only person on the internet with "Atheist" in their username who hasn't heard the term. The reason that they're called that, according to the people who bestowed the label (media, mostly) is because they're very vocal and sometimes vitriolic in their rejection of god. This is "new" because that wouldn't be tolerated in Europe or America in the early-mid 20th century. A more descriptive term would be loud-internet-community-based-secular-humanists, but "New Atheists" is catchier.

RationalAtheist

First I'm agreeing with you, then I'm not understanding you. The you say you're absurdist, then you say you're not absurdist. I'll be honest; you're not making it easy to discuss things with you. Why would you group absurdism with Nietzchean existentialism anyway?

Valuing things and having values are different things. Why would valuing things deny you personal meaning? I've noticed this confusion in your wording before. Working towards a goal to create personal meaning is not "facts amongst streams of facts". I wonder why you would say this. Personal meaning is based on experience and aspiration for me and not facts. I rather think this is only more wriggling over semantics to cover your originally preposterous and indefensible assertion.

I'm not sure Chrtistianity does go hand-in-hand with equality. Many non Christian societies valued equality more than early Christian ones, which were ditinctly unequal. Morality must have pre-dated religion, else society would never have formed as we moved from hunter-gatherers to social farming in our evolution as cooperative societies. The nuclear family has it's roots in human evolution - as well as in other species of animal. How you'd make an appeal for Christian-inspired monogamy is mind-blowingly short-sighted in my view, especially given the natural evidence.

My name isn't RationalNewAtheist, so I wonder why you'd make that leap of logic. You still haven't really described what it is exactly, and what seperates the "new" ones from the "old" ones. Atheism existed well before the 20th century in Europe. Secularism and humanism are hardly "new" ideas either, as aren't bad reactions to them. I still have no idea of your purpose in making that distinction. Did it help?

I haven't slept for over 30 hours and I'm not exactly sober (that's all I'll say). Any lack of clear communication can be blamed on my mental state. I grouped them together because both ideas, while different, claim that the personal quest for meaning is valuable, a premise I reject.

I'm not saying that valuing things denies you personal meaning, I'm questioning why valuation gives things meaning. If valuing X more than Y gives X meaning, then a shot of heroin could be more meaningful than the life of your child. If you aspire to do or be something, that is a fact. If you had an experience, that is a fact.

Fact A: You had a wonderful experience last night.

Fact B: You have a rock in your shoe.

You derive personal meaning from Fact A because of how much you value it. I'm questioning why that gives it meaning in the first place. It's basically a non-cognitivist argument. I reject the idea that personal meaning has any conceptual worth.

Arguing that the concept of meaning is non-cognitive is not semantics. I may have overstated things in my initial post, but I do thinki nihilism is the worldview most consistent with atheism, which is why I'm a nihilist.

I'm not arguing that Christian societies were ever equal or anything like that. It also took them a long time to get from "soul equality" to "human equality". That being said, the idea of equality as a primary societal goal does come from Christendom. It's only nations with Christian history that apply ideals like that.

The Nuclear Family has its roots in evolution? Maybe in the sense that everything we do has roots in evolution. The advent of the Nuclear Family was during industrialization. Increases in living standards is what made that family model possible, as opposed to the models with more family members. Monogamy may not be exclusively Christian, but it is rooted in religion. There's lots of anthropological and sociological research that suggests many tribal societies had a minority of men monoplizing the sexual reproduction with the majority of women. I'd love to see something that suggests the Nuclear Family is something throughout human evolutionary history, because that contradicts every piece of sociology that claims it started in the 19th century.

It's hardly a leap of logic to assume that someone who advertises themselves as an atheist online would be familiar with what's going on in the online atheist community. Also, the vast majority just identify as "Atheists". In fact, I've never heard anyone self-identify as a "New Atheist". I never claimed secularism or humanism were new. I brought up the "New Atheists", because for most people who keep up with modern philosophy it would summon images of Dawkin and Hitchens and the like. You've never heard the term, so it didn't. The label is irrelevant. You've been going on about this after I already said it was a colloquialism, and you accuse me of "semantic wriggling". I would think a man in his 40s would be more aware of his condecension, but alas.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

I'm verbalizing that hating a group, based on the collective beliefs, and actions of that group, isn't that bad.musicalmac

Or are you suggesting that some members of the KKK might be perfectly morally straight guys, who've got no prejudice and no intent to harm others.
My thoughts is that if you choose to associate yourself with a group, and agree with their values, you're just as bad as the group.

Likewise, If you're a part of the collective mass comprising a religion, You in a sense must agree with the ideals of that group.
One cannot be a Nazi and hate Jews, just as one cannot be Christian and hate Christ.

Unless you'd educate yourself on the horrific teachings of holy books, you wouldn't understand...

Nibroc420

If it is any better, im a theist using the internet..

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

I think christians miss the good old days.

There was a time when chritians could just set you on fire if you didn't believe in god.

RationalAtheist

Perhaps it is people like yourself, with comments like that, that give atheism a bad name.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

I think christians miss the good old days.

There was a time when chritians could just set you on fire if you didn't believe in god.

ShadowsDemon

Perhaps it is people like yourself, with comments like that, that give atheism a bad name.

He is a little ...'rude' you could say, but his posts are usually pretty damn accurate :P

[QUOTE="CondorCalabasas"] I'd like to see them myself. This guy is such an idiot. It's like he's got aspurgus through text...CondorCalabasas

Your ego that massive that you can't get over being wrong? Its okay dude, who cares if you didn't understand it, we will probably never meet once our entire lives. Who cares if you didn't understand some silly comment I made on a gaming forum? Its like you are trying to make me laugh right now, and you are doing a good job.CondorCalabasas

So much rage in this post

and why are you talking to yourself in the first place?

:?

[QUOTE="CondorCalabasas"][QUOTE="CondorCalabasas"] [QUOTE="CondorCalabasas"] Your ego that massive that you can't get over being wrong? Its okay dude, who cares if you didn't understand it, we will probably never meet once our entire lives. Who cares if you didn't understand some silly comment I made on a gaming forum? Its like you are trying to make me laugh right now, and you are doing a good job.Bane_09

So much rage in this post

and why are you talking to yourself in the first place?

:?

He's a repeat ban dodger troll...on dozens of websites