Tren Shapiro
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2022
Then you should be able to show so, so many examples.
Why are (((Atheists))) like this?
- Thread starter Matajudios
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2016
Hey, he's doing that "cries out in pain as he strikes you" thing that is all the rage these days.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2017
Atheism doesn't make any sense without a belief system to back it up, ergo, it practically always becomes a religion. Usually that belief system includes placing their faith in science. Just look at famous atheists like Carl Sagan or Stephen Hawking--it's pretty clear science was their religion. Communism is also a very popular belief system among atheists. Christopher Hitchens wrote that for most of his life, his religion was faith in communism.
To be fair, there are some professed atheists intellectually honest enough to do that. Too bad the closest thing you'll usually get is atheists who devote a lot of attention to why both Christianity AND Islam is shit and then get called far-right Islamophobes like Dick Dawkins or Sam Harris.
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2021
This isn't anything new, the leading anti Christian religious propagandist in the Soviet Union was an atheist jew by the name of Yemelyan Yaroslavsky who ironically looked a lot like G.K. Chesterton.
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Yemelyan Yaroslavsky - Wikipedia
League of Militant Atheists - Wikipedia
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2022
- Joined
- May 29, 2021
His subsequent behavior convinces me even more than this was just a soulless grift. He threw out his bait, people jumped on it, now he moves to the next step of taking down the tweet so as to monetize the criticism into video views while re-framing the narrative. If it follows the rest of the pattern, he will start blowing his dog whistles and summoning the tribe to defend him.
Nothing to do with christianity, atheism or the nashville shooting. Just another progressive socialist in it for the money.
Nothing to do with christianity, atheism or the nashville shooting. Just another progressive socialist in it for the money.
Sincere Sinner
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 10, 2021
I'm from Buenos Aires and I say KILL EM ALL!*
*Note to glowniggers: Not actually incitement to violence, I just fail to adequately describe my worldview without referencing Starship Troopers.
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2018
Oh boy, now that's a hot take.
So, me saying "I don't believe your claim, evidence please" doesn't make sense without an ideology attached to it?
OK, explain this to me.
What is your reasoning?
This is a bold fucking claim so you better have something.
Alexios
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2022
I watched the first 30 seconds of the video and I could not stand to hear his voice. He said you should be angry at mass shootings not at his mean tweet. Well okay but he is deflecting from what he wrote. If he stands by what he wrote then he should have kept the tweet up. He is playing the victim card and is angry people are using the Left's tactics against him. Well I say turnabout is fair play.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2017
Because atheism doesn't make any logical sense without a framework around it for numerous reasons. You have to answer why the universe has a beginning and why religion is found in every single culture that has ever existed. Religion, including atheism, cannot occur in a vacuum. That's why that the first atheists in ancient India (who we would call Hindus based on their beliefs) still held to a very complex belief system that simply didn't require any gods.
- Joined
- May 14, 2019
The practical difference between an atheist and an agnostic, if we're going on about this shit, is that agnostics just don't have a stance in the first place because they haven't seen a specific reason to. Your atheist can be a religion hater but they can also be one of those logic spergs that has some retarded philosophical argument for why a God can't exist (their arguments are retarded). Either way the natural default for anyone is to be an agnostic or just mindlessly parrot the religion they were raised in with a lukewarm level of commitment. People generally don't convert religions, turn anti-religion, or become a true believer of their religion without having some real reason to and it's almost never driven by logic. (Trying to reason someone into or out of following a specific religion is a fool's errand.)
Also agnosticism and atheism are religions in the sense that lack of a category is a category in and of itself.
Also agnosticism and atheism are religions in the sense that lack of a category is a category in and of itself.
I believe in a god, at least in the sense that I believe there is an entity that all of our qualia comes from and that physical reality has no meaning outside of it being perceived by something, so you can consider that first qualia-experiencing thing a "god" in that it generated the world from its mind. But I have never gotten that argument. Why does a thing need an explanation, particularly an explanation that itself doesn't have an explanation?
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2018
No, you don't.
You can just say "I don't know" instead of making shit up... because nobody knows and chances are that nobody will ever know.
Because people wanted to explain things they didn't understand as well as deal with existential questions.
The fact that there are so many religions and they differ so much shows that there isn't anything other than people's imagination creating them.
Yeah, their imagination didn't create a being responsible for everything.
Most of us atheists are simply saying "I don't believe these claims that you theists are bringing, evidence please" which doesn't require anything besides that statement alone.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2023
The way i see it is this: many people think they have morality distilled into a basic checklist where as long as they follow the checklist they are a "good" person - even when they are being outright cruel to people they consider "bad" according to not following the checklist. In reality morality is much more complicated and can take a lifetime to learn the rules and exceptions, and multiple lifetimes to refine that learning. Organized religion represents the beginning of refining that moral core, but it's the individual communities that refine it the most - passing what is learned to the younger generations who learn more and pass those on too. the faith is the framework used to explain why things are the way they are, to add cohesion to the stories and examples passed on. maybe there's something up there, maybe there isn't... religion carries on either way.
The problem is when breaks in that chain of learnings occur. The first migrants to Americas were too busy homesteading to fully pass on the moral core, leading to more extreme groups that, to put it this way, if god was a music band; Catholics would listen to it in the car to work everyday then turn the music off and carry on with their lives. Evangelicals would be the crazy fans who are Absolutely obsessed and surround themselves with made-in-china merchandise and pay big bucks to go to every concert in the hopes that they can go back stage and gobble the lead singer's cock.
That leads to people choosing to completely separate themselves from that religion, which also means rejecting that moral core. They do their best to bring as much of it with them as possible, but too much of it is intertwined with the faith they now reject and now they often end up doing weird things like worshipping fancy pebbles and basing their lives on where planets happened to be when they were born. instead of having generations of moral core refinement passed down in the community, they are largely starting from scratch. Which often means learning the hard way lessons learn so long ago they were forgotten (such as don't chop your little boy's bits off just because he plays with dolls, and maintain a set of expectations people must conform to to maintain their sanity).
The problem is when breaks in that chain of learnings occur. The first migrants to Americas were too busy homesteading to fully pass on the moral core, leading to more extreme groups that, to put it this way, if god was a music band; Catholics would listen to it in the car to work everyday then turn the music off and carry on with their lives. Evangelicals would be the crazy fans who are Absolutely obsessed and surround themselves with made-in-china merchandise and pay big bucks to go to every concert in the hopes that they can go back stage and gobble the lead singer's cock.
That leads to people choosing to completely separate themselves from that religion, which also means rejecting that moral core. They do their best to bring as much of it with them as possible, but too much of it is intertwined with the faith they now reject and now they often end up doing weird things like worshipping fancy pebbles and basing their lives on where planets happened to be when they were born. instead of having generations of moral core refinement passed down in the community, they are largely starting from scratch. Which often means learning the hard way lessons learn so long ago they were forgotten (such as don't chop your little boy's bits off just because he plays with dolls, and maintain a set of expectations people must conform to to maintain their sanity).
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2017
Except you do, because otherwise your belief is logically incoherent.
If you analyze each religion, many core traits are shared. Most religions have underworlds and heavens as well as a supreme being along with gods, demigods, or heroes who taught humans certain skills, moral codes of conduct, veneration of ancestors, rites of passage, an afterlife, impermeable forces (i.e. mana, sin). That's just the cultural universals, there's other beliefs like reincarnation which are widespread but not universal.
Saying "I don't believe in any gods" is akin to saying "I don't believe the sun is yellow." It's on you to propose how "nothing created everything" (the default atheist, otherwise you're just spouting pure nonsense.
And that's not even getting into the philosophical challenges of atheist morality, another reason why there are (almost) no real atheists. Atheism is inherently amoral (since with nothing to establish a moral code, you have no reason to not steal, rape, and kill to your hearts content), which is why atheists need to either borrow civilizational (i.e. Christian or Jewish) morality or devise their own religions like Science Worship (Darwinism, since evolution gives a moral code), communism, libertarianism (i.e. Objectivism), or environmentalism.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2023
What is a god? Would aliens with more advanced technology and/or live in hidden dimensions be considered gods?
Let's use the Simulation Theory as an example. This is something that many atheists consider a possible explanation for the universe.
Now, explain it to a mediaeval age peasant who doesn't know what a computer is, and can't even fathom the idea of a well pump. No matter how much you try to educate him on simulation theory or computers, all that's going to fit in his depreciated noggin is "gods created us" and that's what's going to be passed on.
Is he wrong for believing that? The terminology used is different, but the end result is that there's something out there that may have had influence in the past. Maybe something real intervened back then, or maybe it's just Santa Clause threatening naughty kids with coal. The end result is the same, but having faith gives you a foundation to build upon. if you reject that foundation you have little more then a cobbled together raft that leaves you at the mercy of the flow of fads. What's the longest lived atheist community you're aware of? Eventually they all develop legends that become gods.
Let's use the Simulation Theory as an example. This is something that many atheists consider a possible explanation for the universe.
Now, explain it to a mediaeval age peasant who doesn't know what a computer is, and can't even fathom the idea of a well pump. No matter how much you try to educate him on simulation theory or computers, all that's going to fit in his depreciated noggin is "gods created us" and that's what's going to be passed on.
Is he wrong for believing that? The terminology used is different, but the end result is that there's something out there that may have had influence in the past. Maybe something real intervened back then, or maybe it's just Santa Clause threatening naughty kids with coal. The end result is the same, but having faith gives you a foundation to build upon. if you reject that foundation you have little more then a cobbled together raft that leaves you at the mercy of the flow of fads. What's the longest lived atheist community you're aware of? Eventually they all develop legends that become gods.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2021
Do you know the sad story of multiple devas in hidnuism?
It would be harsh, but universe needs no reason to exists. It just exists. If you say 'god made it' you need to answer who made god or from which place he came.
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2018
If one truly just believes that a religion is false you're simply a non believer. Most likely non religious.
To state you know for certain no god exists, that requires some degree of faith.
To call yourself an atheist, adopt atheist symbols, beliefs and causes. Well now it's starting to become a religion. They have conventions, everytime some christian tries to have an afterschool activity or group activity sanctioned by the state atheists demand they to get to prostelytise as well. They form internet communities and mock religions so they can socialize with other true believers.
They dislike agnostics because they see them as heretical fence sitters.
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2018
Explain.
This is a really big claim, you have to follow it up with something.
Most religions?
Are you including the thousands of them that didn't get widespread and got lost to time or regional ones?
Or just the big ones that got adopted by empires and spread through conquest?
That makes no sense.
I don't have to have any explanations since I'm not making claims, I'm just rejecting claims.
I'm not proposing any system in place of a theistic one, I'm just saying I'm not convinced by it.
It's up to the theists to provide evidence of their extraordinary claims.
This is an old theistic tactic of shifting the burden of proof, I've seen it many times before.
I can easily make a case for those being something you avoid.
I don't want to have my stuff stolen, nobody I've ever met wants their stuff stolen, therefore it's safe to assume people in general don't want their stuff stolen.
I don't want to be raped, nobody I've ever met wants to be raped, therefore it's safe to assume that people in general don't want to be raped.
I don't want to be killed, nobody I've ever met wants to be killed, therefore it's safe to assume people in general don't want to be killed.
See? I don't need an old book to tell me those things are wrong, I can just figure it out from looking at the world around me.
Are you saying that if an old book didn't tell you that theft, rape and murder are wrong... you would perform those acts?
Who is the amoral one here?
Well, that's what the A in Atheist stands for.
Atheist means non-theist.
What atheist symbols?
Some person somewhere made some symbols and established some causes but that means precisely jack shit to most atheists.
Who's they?
You seem to think atheists are a monolith.... they're not.
Those conventions and everything else you've mentioned, only a very small minority of atheists participates in that.
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2018
There's an ocean between "I don't believe in your God", "I don't believe in any faith", and "I believe no God or gods exist", the latter is based to some degree on faith, and a lot of the rethoric shared by self professed atheists come from the lunatics who make symbols and try to replace religious holidays with days where we praise science or other concepts they worship.
I personally don't believe in any organised faith, but I would rather not be grouped in with a group as silly and dogmatic as the atheists
WhiskeyJack
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2022
If your response to "why the universe has a beginning" is simply "I don't know", then you're an agnostic at best, not an atheist.
An Atheist would say "I don't know, but I do know God didn't do it." That's the issue with Atheism and why it is ultimately a belief system: it's a belief in God not existing, and every metaphysical question has to be answered with some form of "God didn't do it", because any answer that leaves God's influence as a possibility is simply not Atheism.
Based on your other responses, you're actually just an agnostic, but keep using the wrong label for some reason or other, probably a personal bias.