What are the Effects Of Atheism?

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

That is ridiculous. The suggestion that the discourse on iskep is more juvenile than in ordinary circumstances is bizarre.

This site is not an echo chamber, and one would think that anyone interested in critical thinking would be quick to reprimand people whose ability to address an issue is reduced to school yard taunts like "Sky daddy."

How is 'sky daddy'' any different from 'heavenly father'? It may not seem as respectful of your mythological deity as you would like, but it is accurate. It's also not a taunt as it isn't a description of you but of a literary character.

[The Big Dog]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

How is 'sky daddy'' any different from 'heavenly father'? It may not seem as respectful of your mythological deity as you would like, but it is accurate. It's also not a taunt as it isn't a description of you but of a literary character.

Are you to have us believe then that you are going to use Heavenly Father then?

Well, we will certainly believe it when you and the rest of your fellow travelers start using Heavenly Father.

[Hlafordlaes]

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

That is ridiculous. The suggestion that the discourse on iskep is more juvenile than in ordinary circumstances is bizarre.

This site is not an echo chamber, and one would think that anyone interested in critical thinking would be quick to reprimand people whose ability to address an issue is reduced to school yard taunts like "Sky daddy."

Unsurprisingly, I heartily disagree. Apparently, our definitions, frames of reference, due diligence, educational background, learning from experience, level of exposure to cultures and bodies of knowledge, and basic common sense all differ profoundly, as does skeptical commitment. Further characterization thereof does indeed seem a sterile exercise.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

Are you to have us believe then that you are going to use Heavenly Father then?

Well, we will certainly believe it when you and the rest of your fellow travelers start using Heavenly Father.

No. Because I find the character not worthy of any respect. I see God as

1. Mythological
2. Immoral
3. Brutal and not loving.
4. Petty and pathetic.
5. Dishonest
6. Cruel.

Frankly, I see the God character as a jerk. One of the worst in all fiction. If you want to explain why such a character should be treated respectfully, have at it.

[The Big Dog]

Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes

Unsurprisingly, I heartily disagree. Apparently, our definitions, frames of reference, due diligence, educational background, learning from experience, level of exposure to cultures and bodies of knowledge, and basic common sense all differ profoundly, as does skeptical commitment. Further characterization thereof does indeed seem a sterile exercise.

You heartily disagree with my suggestion that the discourse can be improved by the removal of juvenile taunts? Huh.

Well, let's agree to disagree then shall we?

[The Big Dog]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

How is 'sky daddy'' any different from 'heavenly father'? It may not seem as respectful of your mythological deity as you would like, but it is accurate. It's also not a taunt as it isn't a description of you but of a literary character.

Originally Posted by acbytesla

No. Because I find the character not worthy of any respect. .

The curious thing is that this started out with the grossly disingenuous suggestion that the use of sky daddy was anything other than pejorative taunt

How are they any different? He asks "innocently" then flat out admits that he is intentionally using to show his blatant disrespect.

To be perfectly honest, if one is unable to discuss these issues without using school yard taunts, one should not expect to have one's posts treated with respect.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

The curious thing is that this started out with the grossly disingenuous suggestion that the use of sky daddy was anything other than pejorative taunt

How are they any different? He asks "innocently" then flat out admits that he is intentionally using to show his blatant disrespect.

To be perfectly honest, if one is unable to discuss these issues without using school yard taunts, one should not expect to have one's posts treated with respect.

You never discuss them. Your feigned offense is just a dodge so you can feel superior. Actually discussing them would force you to question your beliefs and you are far too vested to do that.

I was a Christian for more then half my life and I assure you I never would have taken such a personal offense. If there is a God, don't you think he can deal with my blasphemy so why the hell would you care how I refer to it?

[The Big Dog]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

You never discuss them. Your feigned offense is just a dodge so you can feel superior. Actually discussing them would force you to question your beliefs and you are far too vested to do that.

I was a Christian for more then half my life and I assure you I never would have taken such a personal offense. If there is a God, don't you think he can deal with my blasphemy so why the hell would you care how I refer to it?

Because it insults our intelligence obviously. If you choose to use words that makes your post sound foolish, do not expect people to treat your arguments as anything other than foolish.

By the way, sky daddy is not blasphemous, it is just unoriginal, childish and a glaring sign that a post including it will undoubtedly contain nothing of value.

But, by all means, use it! I can assure you that it will not lower my opinion of your arguments.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

Because it insults our intelligence obviously. If you choose to use words that makes your post should foolish, do not expect people to treat your arguments as anything other than foolish.

By the way, sky daddy is not blasphemous, it is just unoriginal, childish and a glaring sign that a post including it will undoubtedly contain nothing of value.

But, by all means, use it! I can assure you that it will not lower my opinion of your arguments.

You so funny. You think I care about your opinion of my posts? I know better then to believe that you could actually address any of these questions with intellectual depth. Most of the time you offer one sentence responses.

Yesterday or maybe it was the day before, you mentioned a Supreme Court case but you didn't actually reference any of the words from the opinions and discussed how it supported your argument. Nope just a line and the court case title.

So excuse me for not feeling offended that you don't think highly of my posts.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I've been on other fora where it's not a notable characteristic associated with a particular viewpoint. I've also observed it in other social settings besides fora.

That doesn't answer my question regarding a test, and is still subject to confirmation bias.

[The Big Dog]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

You so funny. You think I care about your opinion of my posts? I know better then to believe that you could actually address any of these questions with intellectual depth. Most of the time you offer one sentence responses.

Yesterday or maybe it was the day before, you mentioned a Supreme Court case but you didn't actually reference any of the words from the opinions and discussed how it supported your argument. Nope just a line and the court case title.

So excuse me for not feeling offended that you don't think highly of my posts.

You mean where I cited a United States Supreme Court opinion directly on point and cited the "holding" from the case which set forth the legal principle and ruling on the issue under discussion?

And you were not impressed.... type sky daddy, that you are good at.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

You mean where I cited a United States Supreme Court opinion directly on point and cited the "holding" from the case which set forth the legal principle and ruling on the issue under discussion?

And you were not impressed.... type sky daddy, that you are good at.

Except you didn't. You mentioned the case and that was it. You didn't reference a single word from the majority opinion by Burger or the concurring opinions by Harlan or Brennan. You also didn't mention Douglas's dissenting opinion where he decimated the majority opinion.

Thanks for proving my point.

[The Big Dog]

The dissent "decimated" the majority opinion.

If they handed out trophies to the losers, I certainly agree that you make a hell of a case that the dissent deserves one.

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

The Catholic Church is a corrupt greedy brutal immoral institution. It has caused a tremendous amount of death, destruction and misery from its inception right through to the present.

No argument with that at all - the Catholic Churches runs are on the board.

The history of the Catholic Church is a good example of the effects of theism when it gets out of hand. The extraordinary brutality and the way they
amassed such a fortune over the years is staggering. A complete lack of conscience over what happened in the past is what we are witnessing today.

Has the Catholic Church ever apologized for it's questionable practices of the past like selling "indulgences" for example?

[Slowvehicle]

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

The dissent "decimated" the majority opinion.

If they handed out trophies to the losers, I certainly agree that you make a hell of a case that the dissent deserves one.

Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1 (1989) (particularly the pluralities)

Also consider the 'god'spiel attributed to "Luke", 20:20ff.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

That doesn't answer my question regarding a test, and is still subject to confirmation bias.

Wow. I'm sorry. That must be really frustrating.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

More nonsense. I never say what others believe.

Originally Posted by acbytesla

That you believe it is better to humor their condition just shows that you suffer foolishness more then me.

Your own words, sir!

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I know you're having fun being clever, but I'm trying to make a serious point here. Atheists really do act insufferably smug a lot. You seem to be trying to reinforce that negative impression on purpose.

People in general have a tendency to act insufferably smug when they think they know more than others. Atheists are far from the only group to do it. That's the point of the cartoon - theists are smug, atheists are smug, and those who chide theists and atheists for being smug are themselves also smug.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

How is 'sky daddy'' any different from 'heavenly father'? It may not seem as respectful of your mythological deity as you would like, but it is accurate. It's also not a taunt as it isn't a description of you but of a literary character.

It's juvenile and glib. Also, it is insulting towards an entity that many people believe exist, believe deserves respect, and feel very strongly about. Even if you believe that this entity is fictional (which you do, obviously), the use of terms like "sky daddy" or "delusional" is highly disrespectful of the deeply-held beliefs of those who do not, and is thereby disrespectful of them.

You cannot consistently claim that you hate theism but love theists when you use such language. You can't consistently claim that you attack only the beliefs when doing so directly insults the believers.

Like I said, this is why most antitheist arguments get absolutely nowhere with believers. Like The Big Dog here in this thread, these tactics give them an excuse to dismiss everything you say out of hand. Have you ever wondered why there are so few theists who regularly post here? This is why. They see this sort of thing and say to themselves "I see no reason to subject myself to this kind of treatment, I'm off." And the antitheists bask in the smug glow of having driven off another loser.

These are not the actions of someone who is interested in a genuine dialogue. These are not the actions of someone who is interested in coming to an understanding of the other position. These are the actions of a bully.

And they give the rest of us atheists an undeserved bad rep.

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

Because it insults our intelligence obviously. If you choose to use words that makes your post sound foolish, do not expect people to treat your arguments as anything other than foolish.

By the way, sky daddy is not blasphemous, it is just unoriginal, childish and a glaring sign that a post including it will undoubtedly contain nothing of value.

But, by all means, use it! I can assure you that it will not lower my opinion of your arguments.

This really is much ado about nothing The Big Dog but I know why you are doing it.

By continuing to harp on about this nonsense you can avoid the difficult questions that demand answers.

I, and I think many others here know what you are doing.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

This really is much ado about nothing The Big Dog but I know why you are doing it.

By continuing to harp on about this nonsense you can avoid the difficult questions that demand answers.

I, and I think many others here know what you are doing.

Atheists being difficult, or demanding answers to their questions, does not mean they have difficult questions that demand answers.

[Thor 2]

The Big Dog. As a Catholic I had hoped you would respond to the following.

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Just wondering about this in the light of the Royal Commission into child abuse that has featured so many of the Catholic Churches hierarchy and most famously Cardinal Pell.

It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy that theists are concerned about my immortal soul and this motivates them to try and convert me. Such compassion, although I believe misguided, is commendable.

There is not much show of compassion among the leadership of the Catholic Church however. It is hard to imagine Cardinal Pell wringing his hands in grief, contemplating the fate of the immortal souls of the abused children, when showing so little concern for them in this life.

I suspect the faithful, although not generally as low in compassion as Pell, are not as motivated as arthwollipot thinks, but are mainly concerned about there own immortal souls.

Quote:

No argument with that at all - the Catholic Churches runs are on the board.

The history of the Catholic Church is a good example of the effects of theism when it gets out of hand. The extraordinary brutality and the way they
amassed such a fortune over the years is staggering. A complete lack of conscience over what happened in the past is what we are witnessing today.

Has the Catholic Church ever apologized for it's questionable practices of the past like selling "indulgences" for example?

Any words in the defense of the Catholic Church?

[The Big Dog]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Atheists being difficult, or demanding answers to their questions, does not mean they have difficult questions that demand answers.

Somewhere the thread appears to have changed to "what are the effects of TBD."

SAD!

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I know you're having fun being clever, but I'm trying to make a serious point here. Atheists really do act insufferably smug a lot. You seem to be trying to reinforce that negative impression on purpose.

If we had a scale of smugness I wonder how atheists would score.

I think atheists may have a higher self esteem than theists in general, partly because theists, (well the Christian variety anyway), have this fixation taught them about being miserable sinners. Atheists may also feel a strong sense achievement, because they have managed to discard and rise above all that nonsense. The bulk of use are of course, ex theists, so we have a good idea what it was like to be in that bubble, or hole, and feel we have accomplished something by climbing out.

In the light of this it is understandable, that atheists could feel a sense of superiority, over those still grovelling on their knees and paying homage, to a mythical being and institution. It is amazing to me that Christians can show delight in singing songs that describe themselves as miserable sinners.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

I think it would be more useful to hear from former belivers, than an argument amongst the two groups.

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller

I think it would be more useful to hear from former belivers, than an argument amongst the two groups.

The bulk of atheist here are former believers I would suggest.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

The bulk of atheist here are former believers I would suggest.

Probably. There are some who clearly state that they were raised with no religion right from the get go, but I suspect that is a minor subset.

Personally, I was raised RCC, but abandoned it around the same time as Santa Claus.

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by abaddon

Probably. There are some who clearly state that they were raised with no religion right from the get go, but I suspect that is a minor subset.

Personally, I was raised RCC, but abandoned it around the same time as Santa Claus.

You did better than me, I didn't shake the faith until I was 16 with the help of Bertrand Russel ....... God bless him.

[Slowvehicle]

Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller

I think it would be more useful to hear from former belivers, than an argument amongst the two groups.

You have been hearing, vocally, from at least one...

[The Big Dog]

Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller

I think it would be more useful to hear from former belivers, than an argument amongst the two groups.

After re-reading the OP, I am at a loss to understand your position.

It seems like more on point would be people who had become less connected from Faith and returned after being exposed to anti-theists

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

After re-reading the OP, I am at a loss to understand your position.

It seems like more on point would be people who had become less connected from Faith and returned after being exposed to anti-theists

Interesting. Do you know many like this The Big Dog.

From my experience it seems more of a one way street, and those that return to faith after leaving it, are rather thin on the ground. Global trends about the rise of atheism seem to bear this out.

You do keep on about anti-theists don't you, in spite of others and I saying we are anti-theism not anti-theists.

[Beady]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Interesting. Do you know many like this The Big Dog.

From my experience it seems more of a one way street, and those that return to faith after leaving it, are rather thin on the ground. Global trends about the rise of atheism seem to bear this out.

You do keep on about anti-theists don't you, in spite of others and I saying we are anti-theism not anti-theists.

I know of one person who was Christian, became an atheist, then "reverted" to Islam. Does she count?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by Beady

I know of one person who was Christian, became an atheist, then "reverted" to Islam. Does she count?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

I guess we have to score you one for that. Mind you I think that women who embrace Islam usually only do so because they have fallen for a Muslim guy. Without this I cannot see how a woman would voluntarily go that way.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

You did better than me, I didn't shake the faith until I was 16 with the help of Bertrand Russel ....... God bless him.

Doesn't bother me if anyone did not escape the fetters until they were 56, 66, 76, 86 That is not a big deal. The important part is that one gets out at whatever age it might be.

It so happens that I apparently escaped at a slightly earlier age than you. What of it? There is no imaginary atheist score cards upon which points and penalties are levied.

To you, or me for that matter, this may seem a trivial point, and I certainly do not mean to patronise you.

Nevertheless, it is an important point. There exists a sub-set of believers who really think that is how atheism works. Some of them right here. Rightly or wrongly, I feel that if one can get it out in black and white, it is worth the trivial effort of typing for a few minutes even if only a single individual came to toss belief in favour of knowledge.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

I think atheists may have a higher self esteem than theists in general, partly because theists, (well the Christian variety anyway), have this fixation taught them about being miserable sinners.

I believe that you're taking this "miserable sinners" idea and assuming that it applies to all Christians, which it doesn't. It certainly applies to the Lutheran/Calvinist end of the spectrum, but that's only one small part of the picture.

Some denominations teach that while people are inherently sinful, they can find joy and accomplishment in rising above their sinful nature. It's a source of self-esteem, not a hindrance to it.

Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller

I think it would be more useful to hear from former belivers, than an argument amongst the two groups.

I am a former believer. Hi, I'm arthwollipot and I've been free of religion for twenty-five years.

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by abaddon

Doesn't bother me if anyone did not escape the fetters until they were 56, 66, 76, 86 That is not a big deal. The important part is that one gets out at whatever age it might be.

It so happens that I apparently escaped at a slightly earlier age than you. What of it? There is no imaginary atheist score cards upon which points and penalties are levied.

To you, or me for that matter, this may seem a trivial point, and I certainly do not mean to patronise you.

Nevertheless, it is an important point. There exists a sub-set of believers who really think that is how atheism works. Some of them right here. Rightly or wrongly, I feel that if one can get it out in black and white, it is worth the trivial effort of typing for a few minutes even if only a single individual came to toss belief in favour of knowledge.

Not sure I am with you on the point of "how atheism works" but I am with you on the motivation of trying to get theists to toss belief. I've had some success in the past of doing this, although to be honest the subjects were tethering on the edge at the time.

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I believe that you're taking this "miserable sinners" idea and assuming that it applies to all Christians, which it doesn't. It certainly applies to the Lutheran/Calvinist end of the spectrum, but that's only one small part of the picture.

Some denominations teach that while people are inherently sinful, they can find joy and accomplishment in rising above their sinful nature. It's a source of self-esteem, not a hindrance to it.

Are your serious?

Don't the Catholics chant "Oh forgive me father for I have sinned" as they enter the confessional? Isn't the central idea of Christianity that we are miserable sinners, (tainted with original sin), as we are born?

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Are your serious?

I am completely serious.

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Don't the Catholics chant "Oh forgive me father for I have sinned" as they enter the confessional? Isn't the central idea of Christianity that we are miserable sinners, (tainted with original sin), as we are born?

Once again I am speaking from my experience in a Protestant Evanglical church and have little direct knowledge of Catholicism. What you say may well be true. Catholicism is merely the largest sect, and it differs from Protestantism in many quite significant ways.

If your argument is that Lutherans, Calvinists and Catholics fixate on being miserable sinners, then yeah, there's no way I'd disagree with that. But that does not even remotely represent the full spread of Christianity.

The central idea of Christianity - inasmuch as it can be reasonably said that there even is one - is that Jesus died to absolve people of their sins. Let's not get into the whole not-dying thing again since we've just done that in the other thread.

For me - speaking from direct, personal, lived experience here, which is something that a lot of opinionated people don't have - the realisation that I could sin but choose not to was definitely a source of self-esteem. The feeling that I was able to rise above it and be righteous despite the inherent sinful nature of all humans was an absolute joy. It meant that I felt worthy of God's love. That I was actively doing something to deserve it.

And I believe that this feeling would be common to any of the Christians I know - even the Catholic ones - and not just the members of the particular sect that I was a part of. Though I admit I have never asked them this specific question directly because quite frankly it strikes me as a bit dickish.

Am I making any sense here? Do you understand the idea that I'm trying to convey? I know it goes contrary to what you think you understand about being a Christian, but I assure you that it's true.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Snip...I am a former believer. Hi, I'm arthwollipot and I've been free of religion for twenty-five years.

Hi arthwollipot! How has your atheism affected you?

[Slowvehicle]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Are your serious?

Don't the Catholics chant "Oh forgive me father for I have sinned" as they enter the confessional? Isn't the central idea of Christianity that we are miserable sinners, (tainted with original sin), as we are born?

"Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa...pecavii visu, auditu, gustu, odoratu et tactu,et moribus, vitiis meis malis".

(In my fault, in my fault, in my grievous fault...I have sinned by sight, hearing, taste, smell and touch, and in my behaviour, my evil vices.)