The Westboro Baptist Church

Originally posted by Deadline
Communism is an atheistic belief system they just don't want to admit it. The reason why they don't want to admit is because they want to point at religous people all day long and then deny that athiests can be just as bad worse.

Originally posted by Deadline
Oh by the way I'm not finished with you guys yet, I just got fed up with the dishonesty and hypocrisy.

The only hypocrisy here is from you: When a religious person commits violence in the name of their religion (which has actual roots in the religion) it's just because they're a "bad person" (whatever the f#ck that means), but when atheists commit violence it's because of their atheism. So there's much more at play for religious violence. But for atheists it's just the atheism.

That makes no sense and is completely intellectually dishonest.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
The only hypocrisy here is from you: When a religious person commits violence in the name of their religion (which has actual roots in the religion) it's just because they're a "bad person" (whatever the f#ck that means), but when atheists commit violence it's because of their atheism.

That makes no sense and is completely intellectually dishonest.

That's actually not my point. Maybe you better read my posts properly but anyway i'll get to it later.

Originally posted by Deadline
That's actually not my point. Maybe you better read my posts properly but anyway i'll get to it later.

Well, you've strongly implied it, if not directly said it, so maybe you aren't communicating well.

I'm not sensing any desire on your part to budge on even the most basic of intellectual assumptions, so this is getting quite repetitive and boring.

Originally posted by dadudemon
👆

When it comes to ubiquitous human behaviors, it is almost assuredly both genetic and learned.

The fact psychopaths have measurable differences in brain activity implies there is a biological component to morality.

I think one can learn morality, as a concept. I think one can follow morality, because of the recognition that actions have consequences (You don't want to get caught in a murder, for example.)

The part where people give a crap either way, though? A.k.a. empathy? Who can teach a feeling?

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Well, you've strongly implied it, if not directly said it, so maybe you aren't communicating well.

Nope I'm communicating just fine. I explained my stance earlier.

I already stated that religion can make people do bad thing. Not only that you understood that.

Originally posted by Deadline

Common sense indicates that if you are trying to do good and you believe that a divine force is helping you you're going to be more motivated than if you didn't. You could also maybe argue vice versa but history doesn't show that...Communists.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE

Conversely, common sense would indicate that one would be more motivated to commit heinous acts if he believe a divine being wanted him to do so. Congratulations on defeating your own argument.

.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
👆

👆

👆 😂

You see this is why I don't really want to carry on with this debate you and Adam are both hypocrites. Now you're trying to argue that I said that religion can't make people do bad things when I already explained that and you already saw it. Obvioulsy though in the above example you noted that I admitted that point but you ignored the fact that it could apply to atheism.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech

I'm not sensing any desire on your part to budge on even the most basic of intellectual assumptions, so this is getting quite repetitive and boring.

When you stop playing semantics, dodging points and misrepresenting what I'm saying unpurpose because you're losing maybe it will get interesting. To be quite honest I'm getting fed up with this but we'll see how it goes.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Okay, great. They were assholes, probably even sociopaths, but show me the atheist doctrine in the atheist holy book written by no-god that required such brutality and then you'll have an argument. 👆

This is you dodging the point. Why don't you actually go back and read what I said and actually counter my points instead of pretending you didn't see it? You don't think Communism is an athiestic belief system I explained why I think it is, why don't you address the points I made?

Originally posted by Patient_Leech

So yeah, in order for "Western intelligence agencies [to be] the primary cause" Islam would still have to have the capacity for causing otherwise good people to do evil.

This is you selectively choosing which part of my argument suits you. You're strawmanning I never said that religion can't make peoiple do bad things what I said was that it's more complicated than that and there are often other factors involved. You want to live in a more peaceful world and you're concern is the violence that religion can cause I'm proving to you that the major contributing factor is Western intelligence agencies, therefore you should be more concerned about that.

To try and make my point clearer....I think both atheism and religion can make people do good and bad things but for the most part there are other factors involved that make people do what they do. However in general I think religion is more beneficial.

My point is that you're a hypocrite because you're arguing that religion can make people do bad but you're giving atheism some unique qualities and you are trying to say that it can't make people do bad. This is a load of rubbish. You're being inconsistent you can't argue that theism can make people do bad then say that theism can't. If you had said that atheism can't make people do bad and theism can't either then we wouldn't have a problem.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech

(For the record, I'm not denying that we have corruption propping up horrible regimes. Wouldn't surprise me. It probably helps keep the war machine operating.)

Oh, wait, darn. I thought it was just those damn communist atheists that commit massive atrocities, not good righteous Christian conservative capitalists..?

You kinda are you're trying to downplay their involvement because you want to blame religion.

More strawman.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech

Even if I granted you this tiny example is true, it doesn't prove a worldwide conspiracy against evidence for the supernatural. If there was good evidence for the supernatural it would be world news, Christian conservatives would broadcast it all over the place, you'd never hear the end of it. So you're still reaching.

Don't give me that crap, I could give you 20 more examples and it wouldn't be good enough. I could dig up more but I can't be bothered. I've had this debate before and actually had an article were somebody specificaly stated that atheists were rejecting the results that proved the paranormal. The fact you're trying to downplay the involvement of Intelligence agencies with Islam despite all the enidence I'm providing indicates this.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech

We don't entirely disagree, but that was not just "some article about what some individuals think about Islam." It was straight from ISIS, it's their online magazine. It's their own fu#king magazine. And in it they broadcast why they hate us and why they fight us. It's not because we have attacked them, it's not because the US has caused war and invaded. I'll spell it out for you: It's because the whole world isn't bowing the knee to Allah. They hate us because we're not Muslims. And believe it or not you can actually read the Quran and see the doctrines that support their stance. Can you acknowledge this, so we can move on? I acknowledged that Western society is contributing to the problem... so we really don't disagree all that much.

Don't get pissy with me it's not my fault you can't read. If you actually tried to comprehend my posts you would know that posting that is a waste of time. You know why? Because what I posted indicates that western inteligence agencies trained and armed the men who became Al-Qaedi and you know that organization evolved into or gave birth to ISIS. So in other words if it wasn't for Western Intelligence agencies ISIS wouldn't exist. He shoots, he scores and that's the game!

Oh and by the way eventhough there are passages in The Quran that talk about killing disbelievers there are also passages that talk about leaving them alone. Also did you know that muslims can get married to Christians and Jews? So in other words there's plenty of reasons in The Quran for him not to want to kill disbelievers but he's choosing to ignore it. See what I mean? It's a rorshach test.

Not able to copy and past so I'm going to have to improvise.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE

This is the argumentative equivalent of “Oh, yeah—well, what about you?” 1. It is not true, and 2. even if it was, it would not make your position correct or even defensible.

Sure it would, simply stating that doesn't make it right

Originally posted by Adam_PoE

Just because you can imagine a number does not mean that something of that quantity actually exists.

This is you dodging the point because you know I'm right. You said you're an athiest. You said that athiests don't believe in things that you can't directly see and stated that believing in things you can't directly see is stupid. In other words atheism is a more intelligent stance than theism. My point is that eventhough you can't directly see something doesn't mean that it's illogical and sometimes believing that it exists is the more likely conclusion.

Since you're trying to dodge the question I'm going to ask you again which one is the more likely conclusion 10 or 0? Answer the question.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE

No, you do not know what you are talking about—period. By your reasoning, Socialism is a Christian ideology, because Henri de Saint-Simon was a Christian. For every example of a Communist who is an Atheist, there are examples of adherents of both Eastern and Western religions who are Communists. Again, it is almost as if he notion or organizing society in a lateral power structure has nothing to do with whether one believes in a supreme being.

😄 This is you misrepresenting what I'm saying unpurpose because you're losing the argument. Nope you don't know what you're talking about because my argument isn't that Communism is an atheistic religion because Marx and Engels were atheists. Communism is an atheistic belief system because they created one. Telling me that you have people of different religons that adhere to Communism is a stupid argument that just means people have diferent interpretations of it. Still doesn't change the fact that Stalin and Mao were adhereing to an atheistic belief system.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE

The primary definition of supernatural according to the source you cited is “of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible, observable universe.” Congratulations on defeating your own argument—again.

Really? My argument was that it's not the only defintion. If it's in the dictionary how am I wrong? In fact if it's 2a that means it's a well known and popular defintion.

You're argument however is that this defintion was incorrect. The fact that it's in the dictionary makes you wrong....again.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE

No. There are no “Atheistic beliefs.” Atheism is a rejection of the claim that a god exists. There is no Atheist dogma, or any beliefs that all Atheists hold outside of this.

Stop making statements without being able to back it up, you're just talking right now. Atheism is a concept and since it's a concept you can build a belief system around it. Now I've already explained why this is the case. Granted you did at least try to argue against it but I've squashed you're argument so you're going to have to try again.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE

Yes, it is like that. I do not know what you think this proves. The FBI did not trick Americans into being terrorist sympathizers. They tricked Americans who were terrorist sympathizers into aiding and carrying out fake terrorist plots in order to arrest them.

Really? How did you know that? Did you directly observe this? If you didn't, how did you know? Well looks like you're wrong there.

BOOM!

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/08/family-man-accused-of-right-wing-bomb-plot-is-mentally-ill.html?gtm=top&gtm=bottom

The FBI often targeted particularly vulnerable people, including those with intellectual and mental disabilities and the indigent. The government, often acting through informants, then actively developed the plot, persuading and sometimes pressuring the targets to participate, and provided the resources to carry it out.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Science is the study of the observable universe. The notion that science should study things outside of the material world is nonsensical. It is like suggesting one should use an ice cream maker to dig a hole; it is not at all what it is designed to do. BOOM, indeed.

Good thing you're not a scientist because nobody would have built the microscope (you'll probably try and not get the point and I might have to elaborate). BOOM!

Originally posted by Deadline
Atheism is a concept and since it's a concept you can build a belief system around it.

Atheism is an absence of a thesis. If such thesis is absent from your framework would you say a concept is atheistic? Clearly science should work without the concept of God because supreme qualities are unrelated to its premise. If we admit this most concepts are atheistic even if they are exclusively employed by religious people.

You can build a belief system around nothing?

What does that belief system entail? Do we all just sorta go to Not-Church once a week and pray to not-God and hope he/she/it hears our not-Prayers?

Atheism can't be a belief system because it's only definining trait is not believing in anything.

Originally posted by MythLord
You can build a belief system around nothing?

What does that belief system entail? Do we all just sorta go to Not-Church once a week and pray to not-God and hope he/she/it hears our not-Prayers?

Atheism can't be a belief system because it's only definining trait is not believing in anything.

Technically it's possible. The absence of pain is part of a very westernized belief system and it's, essentially, the advocacy for a non-thing.

Originally posted by Deadline
Nope I'm communicating just fine. I explained my stance earlier.

I already stated that religion can make people do bad thing. Not only that you understood that.

But how long did it take us to get it out of you? You previously said this...

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
It has been secular rationality beating back the efforts of religion (again the Bible was a big obstacle in fighting slavery). You would be hard pressed to find examples of religious dogma keeping itself in check, taking a big-picture view and adjusting its stance. That's not how dogma works. It has taken forces from without (not from within) to mold and reform it to the more secular appearance it has today. The seemingly benign and charming versions of Christianity today are just the vestiges of the fearful and superstitious versions of the past. BUT even the seemingly benign versions of Christian dogma cause problems in unexpected ways: best example is the idea that zygotes have souls. It's preventing stem cell research, a potentially hugely beneficial medical treatment for myriad diseases.

Originally posted by Deadline
I don't think it has anything to with secular. It's about good or bad. Good Christians will find an excuse to use The Bible to help people bad Christians will find an excuse to hurt people.

...which does not indicate a nuanced understanding of how dogmatic religion works.

Originally posted by Deadline
My point is that you're a hypocrite because you're arguing that religion can make people do bad but you're giving atheism some unique qualities and you are trying to say that it can't make people do bad.

Okay, I think this is the biggest obstacle here.

Atheism is a lack of a belief. Therefore it's the opposite of dogmatic religious faith. We have no god to appease, no belief in heavenly reward, no 70 virgins, no Jesus returning, etc. Therefore our actions are not religiously motivated in the way that religious actions are. Again using the Crusades as an example, peasants would have had much less reason to get up and go if they didn't believe they needed to help bring about the "end times," clear their sin slate, etc. I don't pray because I'm not religiously motivated to tell God what I would like to have. The religious are motivated to pray, so they do. That's religious belief motivating action.

Another way to explain it... Suppose an Atheist Pope (if such a thing could exist, which it can't) pointed to the Atheist Bible (another thing that couldn't exist) and declared that all atheists must do some task in the name of Science to help infinite food fall from the sky for all the poor people around the world. (It's ridiculous I know, but it makes the point.) Atheists would say, "No, that's stupid and it won't happen." That's because we're not religiously motivated. And of course atheists are susceptible to other corrupting forces like greed, anger, vengeance, etc. But those aren't religious motivations, they're very worldly. Even IF some powerful atheist thought it was his righteous duty to kill all believers that's not because there is an atheist doctrine that says to do that and he's not doing it to gain some otherworldy reward. So yes, I'm claiming atheism is different because it fundamentally is.

This...

Originally posted by MythLord
You can build a belief system around nothing?

What does that belief system entail? Do we all just sorta go to Not-Church once a week and pray to not-God and hope he/she/it hears our not-Prayers?

Atheism can't be a belief system because it's only definining trait is not believing in anything.

👆

Originally posted by MythLord
Don't give me that crap, I could give you 20 more examples and it wouldn't be good enough. I could dig up more but I can't be bothered.

Like I said, if good evidence existed it would be world news. It's not.

Originally posted by MythLord
Because what I posted indicates that western intelligence agencies trained and armed the men who became Al-Qaedi and you know that organization evolved into or gave birth to ISIS. So in other words if it wasn't for Western Intelligence agencies ISIS wouldn't exist. He shoots, he scores and that's the game!

I don't doubt it, we're way too cozy with Saudi Arabia. After all it seems September 11th was a collaborative effort with the Saudis.

Originally posted by MythLord
Oh and by the way eventhough there are passages in The Quran that talk about killing disbelievers there are also passages that talk about leaving them alone. Also did you know that muslims can get married to Christians and Jews? So in other words there's plenty of reasons in The Quran for him not to want to kill disbelievers but he's choosing to ignore it. See what I mean? It's a rorshach test.

Yup, some similar things could be said for the Bible, but that doesn't stop the Westboro Baptist Church (which this thread is actually about) from focusing on the obnoxious shit. Contradictions in holy books exist, but irony is lost on many religious folk. So different denominations focus on what they want to focus on. That's why it's better to throw the holy book out and start from scratch.

Originally posted by Bentley
Atheism is an absence of a thesis. If such thesis is absent from your framework would you say a concept is atheistic? Clearly science should work without the concept of God because supreme qualities are unrelated to its premise. If we admit this most concepts are atheistic even if they are exclusively employed by religious people.

A person doesn't buy into a system on their own, Bent.

If everyone was up and coming with the idea on their own, then fine. Odds are, most are getting their P's and Q's from a community, and from "how to's" from their members.

Which builds a "personality", the same as in any community.

Originally posted by Deadline
Sure it would, simply stating that doesn't make it right

Wrong.

Originally posted by Deadline
This is you dodging the point because you know I'm right. You said you're an athiest. You said that athiests don't believe in things that you can't directly see and stated that believing in things you can't directly see is stupid. In other words atheism is a more intelligent stance than theism. My point is that eventhough you can't directly see something doesn't mean that it's illogical and sometimes believing that it exists is the more likely conclusion.

By all means, quote where I stated any of those things.

Originally posted by Deadline
Since you're trying to dodge the question I'm going to ask you again which one is the more likely conclusion 10 or 0? Answer the question.

That is not how probabilities work. We have a concept of a time machine, but it does not follow from this that a time machine is possible. In order to assign a probability to whether a time machine exists, we would need to be able to compare all of the possible universes in which a time machine does exist to all the possible universes in which a time machine does exist. Since we only have access to this universe, we have no way to make such a calculation. And short of any compelling evidence, we have no reason to believe such a thing exists.

Originally posted by Deadline
😄 This is you misrepresenting what I'm saying unpurpose because you're losing the argument. Nope you don't know what you're talking about because my argument isn't that Communism is an atheistic religion because Marx and Engels were atheists. Communism is an atheistic belief system because they created one. Telling me that you have people of different religons that adhere to Communism is a stupid argument that just means people have diferent interpretations of it. Still doesn't change the fact that Stalin and Mao were adhereing to an atheistic belief system.

Communism is not Atheistic, because rejection of the claim that a god exists is not necessary to the ideology, as evident by the existence of theistic communists. At most, Communism is non-theistic, because it does not presume, nor is it reliant upon, the existence of a god.

Originally posted by Deadline
Really? My argument was that it's not the only defintion. If it's in the dictionary how am I wrong? In fact if it's 2a that means it's a well known and popular defintion.

You're argument however is that this defintion was incorrect. The fact that it's in the dictionary makes you wrong....again.

Your reading comprehension is as poor as your reasoning. I did not state that your definition was incorrect. I stated that—according to the source you cited—the definition you listed is 1.) not the primary definition, and 2.) that the primary definition defeats your own argument.

Originally posted by Deadline
Stop making statements without being able to back it up, you're just talking right now. Atheism is a concept and since it's a concept you can build a belief system around it. Now I've already explained why this is the case. Granted you did at least try to argue against it but I've squashed you're argument so you're going to have to try again.

That the only position all atheists hold is a rejection of the claim a god exists is axiomatic: If you believe a god exists you are a theist; If you do not believe a god exists, you are an atheist. That is it. There is nothing to qualify, because that is the only qualifier.

Originally posted by Deadline
Really? How did you know that? Did you directly observe this? If you didn't, how did you know? Well looks like you're wrong there.

BOOM!

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/08/family-man-accused-of-right-wing-bomb-plot-is-mentally-ill.html?gtm=top&gtm=bottom

The FBI often targeted particularly vulnerable people, including those with intellectual and mental disabilities and the indigent. The government, often acting through informants, then actively developed the plot, persuading and sometimes pressuring the targets to participate, and provided the resources to carry it out.

Just because someone lays a trap for you, it does not mean you have to step in it. People are not tempted to commit crimes they otherwise would not do if there were no consequences.

Originally posted by Deadline
Good thing you're not a scientist because nobody would have built the microscope (you'll probably try and not get the point and I might have to elaborate). BOOM!

Microscopic organisms exist in the material world. Scientists had evidence of their existence, and built microscopes to be able to directly observe them. There is nothing “outside of the observable universe” about them. BOOM, indeed. You sound like a complete idiot.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
But how long did it take us to get it out of you? You previously said this...

Exactly. This is kinda what I'm talking about here, it's not about atheism or theism it's about feeling better about yourself. See how I caught you red handed, you stated that I was arguing that religous people couldn't be religously motivated to be evil. I showed you with a quote this was not the case and not only that I showed you how you even acknowledged my argument.

So this isn't really about theism or atheism it's about you and how you can never admit that you're wrong because you're too arrogant. If you want to argue that it took me long to get to that point I can show you a quote that I made even earlier from a previous post.

Originally posted by Deadline

Sure they would...Communists. It's a really simplistics argument human beings will always create excuses to kill one another you don't need religion. Eventhough I think you can brainwash people with religion for the most part I think people use relgion as an excuse.

And at that point we had pretty much just started really getting into a debate.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech

...which does not indicate a nuanced understanding of how dogmatic religion works.

Translation: I don't agree with you therefore I don't understand.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech

Okay, I think this is the biggest obstacle here.

Atheism is a lack of a belief. Therefore it's the opposite of dogmatic religious faith. We have no god to appease, no belief in heavenly reward, no 70 virgins, no Jesus returning, etc. Therefore our actions are not religiously motivated in the way that religious actions are. Again using the Crusades as an example, peasants would have had much less reason to get up and go if they didn't believe they needed to help bring about the "end times," clear their sin slate, etc. I don't pray because I'm not religiously motivated to tell God what I would like to have. The religious are motivated to pray, so they do. That's religious belief motivating action.

Another way to explain it... Suppose an Atheist Pope (if such a thing could exist, which it can't) pointed to the Atheist Bible (another thing that couldn't exist) and declared that all atheists must do some task in the name of Science to help infinite food fall from the sky for all the poor people around the world. (It's ridiculous I know, but it makes the point.) Atheists would say, "No, that's stupid and it won't happen." That's because we're not religiously motivated. And of course atheists are susceptible to other corrupting forces like greed, anger, vengeance, etc. But those aren't religious motivations, they're very worldly. Even IF some powerful atheist thought it was his righteous duty to kill all believers that's not because there is an atheist doctrine that says to do that and he's not doing it to gain some otherworldy reward. So yes, I'm claiming atheism is different because it fundamentally is.

This...

👆

The biggest obstacle here is you. This is a logical fallacy, all you're doing is describing to me what atheism is, showing me how it's different from theism then coming to the false conclusion that you can't make a belief system out of it. This is like describing to me what a bat is showing me how it's different from a dog and then assuming it's not a mammal because it's different. What you don't seem to understand is that atheism isn't nothing, just like theism it's a concept.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/concept

A concept is an idea or abstract principle.

When somebody says atheism electric signals go to your brain and you conceptualize what atheism is in your head. People write books on atheism then you want to argue that it's nothing and you can't build a belief system around it. facepalm

Let me try and explain this further to you....we know how you can build a system around theism that's because from their belief in god or gods other beliefs are derived, for example there is a god so there is divine judgement. See how that works? One belief leads into another. So for example an atheists doesn't believe in god so therefore doesn't believe in divine jidgement..because there is no god. See how that works? Your faulty logic is arguing because there isn't a god telling people what to do in a book that you can't derive a belief system from it. In an atheistic belief system other beliefs are derived from the concept of atheism not from a god. The atheist has a view on what atheism means to him and then he comes to certain conclusions about the universe, mankind and nature. Another example is that Karl Marx essentialy said that mankind was god, why did he say that? Because there is no god! Can you see how a belief in atheism can spawn another belief? That's how you build a belief system around atheism.

Another thing to add at one point all athiests believed in god or gods and they live in a world were most people believe in god or gods. So what happens is that when a person becomes an atheist his beliefs and view of the world change because god or gods are no longer in his belief system. Another way of putting it is that a lot of beliefs that atheists have come indirectly from theism. Atheism to a lot of theists is like the anti-theism in the sense that once you become an atheist you come to the conclusion that certain things are illogical. Atheists actively compare what religous people believe and what atheist believe. I guess what I'm trying to say is this....theism can give birth to atheism. So atheism is an idea which was grown from another idea so how it can it be nothing? Atheism does not exist in a vacuum it exists relative to other ideas.

Also I hope you're not playing semantics with me. A disbelief can still be a belief, lack of belief can be a belief. You can say I have a disbelief that God is real or you can have a strong belief[b] that God isn't real, or you can say that you have a lack of belief in God or god. Just semantics.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
[B]
Like I said, if good evidence existed it would be world news. It's not.

I'll give you this, you're the most civil athiest I've ever met but atheists are the most obnoxious, self-righteous people I've ever met. They would admit to nothing and that is a lie. As I demonstrated earlier you can't even admit when you're wrong.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech

I don't doubt it, we're way too cozy with Saudi Arabia. After all it seems September 11th was a collaborative effort with the Saudis.

And the point is that you're exaggerating the contribution of religon to Islamic terrorism. Oh and I could go back further and point out that British Intelligence founded the Saudi Royal Family.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech

Yup, some similar things could be said for the Bible, but that doesn't stop the Westboro Baptist Church (which this thread is actually about) from focusing on the obnoxious shit. Contradictions in holy books exist, but irony is lost on many religious folk. So different denominations focus on what they want to focus on. That's why it's better to throw the holy book out and start from scratch.

Yes but you're not acknowledging the point. The point is that if you have plenty of passages to give you a reason not to kill people who are not part of you're religion then you can't argue strongly that religion is the cause of their actions. It's a choice, they decide what they're going to do not religion.

Oh by the way Adam Poe I'm ignoring you. I might read what you've posted later but right now not really in the mood to have my time wasted, and wasting my time is probably what you're doing.

Originally posted by Deadline
Oh by the way Adam Poe I'm ignoring you. I might read what you've posted later but right now not really in the mood to have my time wasted, and wasting my time is probably what you're doing.

That’s a wise course of action. Adam mostly regurgitates psuedo- intellectualism to make himself seem sophisticated, when in reality he is a whiny little ogre.

Originally posted by MythLord
You can build a belief system around nothing?

What does that belief system entail? Do we all just sorta go to Not-Church once a week and pray to not-God and hope he/she/it hears our not-Prayers?

Atheism can't be a belief system because it's only definining trait is not believing in anything.

Faith entails a myriad of beliefs.

Faith.

Originally posted by Deadline
So this isn't really about theism or atheism it's about you and how you can never admit that you're wrong because you're too arrogant. If you want to argue that it took me long to get to that point I can show you a quote that I made even earlier from a previous post.

Originally posted by Deadline
Translation: I don't agree with you therefore I don't understand.

Feel free to leave out bullshit like this. We’re having a debate, so obviously we think the other is wrong.

Originally posted by Deadline
The biggest obstacle here is you. This is a logical fallacy, all you're doing is describing to me what atheism is, showing me how it's different from theism then coming to the false conclusion that you can't make a belief system out of it.

I didn’t say you couldn’t possibly add beliefs to it, but atheism on its own does not come with a bunch of belief baggage like various religions do. Atheism, which is just a lack of belief in god(s) is fundamentally different from religions with their holy books that require belief to be included in the club. How is that not a fundamental difference? (that’s to say nothing of the weird, violent, barbaric nonsense in said books).

Originally posted by Deadline
This is like describing to me what a bat is showing me how it's different from a dog and then assuming it's not a mammal because it's different. What you don't seem to understand is that [b]atheism isn't nothing, just like theism it's a concept. [/B]

False analogy. And “atheism isn't nothing … theism it's a concept.” This says nothing concrete. It sounds like semantics that you keep wanting to complain about.

Originally posted by Deadline
Your faulty logic is arguing because there isn't a god telling people what to do in a book that you can't derive a belief system from it. [b]In an atheistic belief system other beliefs are derived from the concept of atheism not from a god. [/B]

That difference matters a lot, holy book vs. no holy book. Of course people can add beliefs to whatever they want. But that’s not atheism because atheism fundamentally requires no beliefs, just a lack of belief in God/gods.

Originally posted by Deadline
Another way of putting it is that a lot of beliefs that atheists have come indirectly from theism. [/B]

I’m aware of the connected yin/yang relationship. That’s why “atheism” is sort of a term that shouldn’t need to exist. It only exists because of the need to distinguish itself from the alternative. As the great Sam Harris puts it, “We don’t have a word for non-Tennis players” (or whatever example he used).

Originally posted by Deadline
Also I hope you're not playing semantics with me. A disbelief can still be a belief, lack of belief can be a belief. [/B]

Very wrong there. It is a very different thing asserting, “There is no god” vs “lacking a belief in god.” Then the burden of proof shifts. The burden is on the believer to prove their claim that God does exist. It is not the atheist’s burden to prove that he does not. The classic example of the celestial teapot comes to mind.

Originally posted by Deadline
I'll give you this, you're the most civil athiest I've ever met but atheists are the most obnoxious, self-righteous people I've ever met.

Well thanks, I guess. But that complaint gets old. It says nothing about the truth or falsity of atheism. It’s a red herring. There’s nice Christians and dickhead Christians, but it’s not relevant.

Originally posted by Deadline
Yes but you're not acknowledging the point. The point is that if you have plenty of passages to give you a reason not to kill people who are not part of you're religion then you can't argue strongly that religion is the cause of their actions. It's a choice, they decide what they're going to do not religion.

Of course people bring their own interpretations to scripture and cherry pick. But the salient problem is that Holy Scripture that can’t be changed exists in the first place. The problem is not “does the ‘peaceful stuff’ outnumber the ‘violent stuff.’” The problem is “God said it” so that dogma can always be rebooted (so to speak).

Originally posted by Deadline

😄 This is you misrepresenting what I'm saying unpurpose because you're losing the argument. Nope you don't know what you're talking about because my argument isn't that Communism is an atheistic religion because Marx and Engels were atheists. Communism is an atheistic belief system because they created one. Telling me that you have people of different religons that adhere to Communism is a stupid argument that just means people have diferent interpretations of it. Still doesn't change the fact that Stalin and Mao were adhereing to an atheistic belief system.

Originally posted by Adam_Poe
Communism is not Atheistic, because rejection of the claim that a god exists is not necessary to the ideology, as evident by the existence of theistic communists. At most, Communism is non-theistic, because it does not presume, nor is it reliant upon, the existence of a god.

Also Communism is a “governing style,” not a “religion.” Atheism (like Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, etc) involve the discussion of the supernatural. It’s like saying “Capitalism is a Christian belief system.” Does that make any sense? No.

Leech:

Of course people bring their own interpretations to scripture and cherry pick. But the salient problem is that Holy Scripture that can’t be changed exists in the first place. The problem is not “does the ‘peaceful stuff’ outnumber the ‘violent stuff.’” The problem is “God said it” so that dogma can always be rebooted (so to speak).

This is true. Religion can have people do good, or it can have people perform atrocities.

But at least with religion, you can say it can have a beneficial side. "Do not steal/kill/sleep with your neighbors wife" is a good thing, no?

An atheist (Or even any individualist), what keeps them in line? If someone could get away with stealing, why wouldn't they? If they can get away with killing, and greatly profit from it, what stops them from doing so?

A moral code? WHAT moral code? Who even claims to believe in universal moral principles anymore?

Which is where religion at it's best comes in. They DO insist on universal moral principles. It doesn't matter if you rationalize it as helping a greater good, lying is wrong. Period.

It doesn't matter if you frame murder as necessary. Killing is wrong.

Whether or not people actually follow these moral doctrines is another argument, but there mere fact they exist at all introduces an imperative that you simply won't find in an intellectual exercise on moral philosophy. Breaking a hypothetical moral code makes no one feel guilty, from a rational standpoint. Breaking a religious code DOES.

Originally posted by cdtm
Leech:

This is true. Religion can have people do good, or it can have people perform atrocities.

But at least with religion, you can say it can have a beneficial side. "Do not steal/kill/sleep with your neighbors wife" is a good thing, no?

An atheist (Or even any individualist), what keeps them in line? If someone could get away with stealing, why wouldn't they? If they can get away with killing, and greatly profit from it, what stops them from doing so?

A moral code? WHAT moral code? Who even claims to believe in universal moral principles anymore?

Which is where religion at it's best comes in. They DO insist on universal moral principles. It doesn't matter if you rationalize it as helping a greater good, lying is wrong. Period.

It doesn't matter if you frame murder as necessary. Killing is wrong.

Whether or not people actually follow these moral doctrines is another argument, but there mere fact they exist at all introduces an imperative that you simply won't find in an intellectual exercise on moral philosophy. Breaking a hypothetical moral code makes no one feel guilty, from a rational standpoint. Breaking a religious code DOES.

Ah, the old moral superiority of religion argument. First, our morals were not handed down by God on Mt. Sinai. They evolved in groups of 100-150 people or so because you saw those people all the time and you had a mutual understanding that you don't want to live in a tribe with stealing, murder, etc. And for further discussion I'll just copy and paste what I wrote in This Thread:

"...There aren't a lot of genuinely "bad people," but there are a lot of bad ideas that are contagious (just think of how ISIS gets recruits).

...it's entirely possible that belief in unsubstantiated religion could help some otherwise psychopath be more moral, but the truth is that people generally do not need such unsubstantiated beliefs to be moral. And to imply otherwise is... intellectually dishonest.

The reason most of the Conservative Christian folks all around me (I live in the Bible belt) are generally moral people is not because they believe certain things from Christianity. They're generally moral because we evolved to be that way. And somehow that general sense of morality gets wrongly attributed to religion.

Who is morally superior, the person who doesn't steal, rape, murder etc because of delusional fear of punishment and hope for reward, or the person who avoids those things from a more inward and practical mindset having no belief of punishment or reward? The latter is more at peace, more grounded, more genuinely moral in my opinion."