Agreeing with Reflex that atheists are vulgar is not an attack.
It's a confirmation of fact.
Is the concept of ''Atheist'' necessary, let alone real?
Re: Is the concept of ''Atheist'' necessary, let alone real?
Not really Nick_A. It's a very lightly moderated forum where people can say pretty much what they like. But if you are going to describe something as an "undeniable truth", don't throw your toys out of the pram if you are challenged to support the claim with reason and evidence.Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun May 20, 2018 6:56 pm Enlightenment - the secular progressive mind - hypocrisy.
"Anyone attempting to deceive the public by equating these three variables into one undeniable truth will be convicted of disturbing the peace and shot on sight."
This proclamation has been authorized and signed by the Chairman of the Dept. of Peace and Love.
Re: Is the concept of ''Atheist'' necessary, let alone real?
cross reference: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24149&start=120#p360162uwot wrote: ↑Sun May 20, 2018 6:21 pmWell, if you have no intention of being understood, you can remove words from reality as far as you please.
That's a bullshit comment. What I've written is very clear. I would say, probably too clear. So why don't you stuff your usual bullshit game. It makes you sound like a little krunt, and not a man having a discussion.
Just saying so is not an example. Can you provide some actual evidence? It is true that there have been some cases of students refusing to allow some speakers onto campus. It is also true that some staff have been cowardly in not standing up to an assault on freedom of speech, but to infer that all of academia has more in common with Sharia than the Enlightenment is absurd. As for the media, where exactly did you get the information that the media is biased, if not from the media?
Academia and media overwhelmingly vote liberal. There's more, but that's sufficient.
More just popped up on the machine, almost by itself.
btw, first time I ever saw this website.
Ask, receive. Knock, open.
“In this article I offer new evidence about something readers of Academic Questions already know: The political registration of full-time, Ph.D.-holding professors in top-tier liberal arts colleges is overwhelmingly Democratic. Indeed, faculty political affiliations at 39 percent of the colleges in my sample are Republican free—having zero Republicans. The political registration in most of the remaining 61 percent, with a few important exceptions, is slightly more than zero percent but nevertheless absurdly skewed against Republican affiliation and in favor of Democratic affiliation. Thus, 78.2 percent of the academic departments in my sample have either zero Republicans, or so few as to make no difference.”
- Homogeneous: The Political Affiliations of Elite Liberal Arts College Faculty
Apr 24, 2018 | Mitchell Langbert
https://www.nas.org/articles/homogenous ... te_liberal
Last edited by Walker on Thu May 24, 2018 11:17 am, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Is the concept of ''Atheist'' necessary, let alone real?
I see I will have to create the sequel to the scandalous "Secular Intolerance" thread. This time it will have to include its influence into the creation of "Generation Snowflake." Such an absurd fearful reaction to the hostility of the progressive mind is undeniable truth.uwot wrote: ↑Sun May 20, 2018 8:09 pmNot really Nick_A. It's a very lightly moderated forum where people can say pretty much what they like. But if you are going to describe something as an "undeniable truth", don't throw your toys out of the pram if you are challenged to support the claim with reason and evidence.Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun May 20, 2018 6:56 pm Enlightenment - the secular progressive mind - hypocrisy.
"Anyone attempting to deceive the public by equating these three variables into one undeniable truth will be convicted of disturbing the peace and shot on sight."
This proclamation has been authorized and signed by the Chairman of the Dept. of Peace and Love.
Re: Is the concept of ''Atheist'' necessary, let alone real?
Should I take those words for reality?
Do you have any actual figures to back this up? Is it something you know, or just assume?
It's a broad topic. Can you at least point to an article that makes whatever point you think I ought to accept.
Well,
And you agreed.This is what Reflex wrote: ↑Sun May 20, 2018 8:24 amI wonder why atheists have such a propensity to be vulgar.
Tell me about it. Making a series of unsupported assertions isn't much of a debate either.
Re: Is the concept of ''Atheist'' necessary, let alone real?
Well, because this forum is both secular and tolerant, you are free to do so.
Indeed. What are you frightened of?
Re: Is the concept of ''Atheist'' necessary, let alone real?
So why the vulgarity? Is it an expression of hopelessness? immaturity? fear? what?
“Freedom” has sometimes been used by atheists as an excuse for their atheism. It sounds good to those with the temperament of a two-year-old, but license masquerading in the garments of freedom is the forerunner of abject bondage because unbridled self-will and unregulated self-expression equal unmitigated selfishness. True liberty is the associate of genuine self-respect; false liberty is the consort of self-admiration. True liberty is the fruit of self-control; false liberty, the assumption of self-assertion. Self-maintenance builds society, but unbridled self-gratification unfailingly destroys civilization.
Thanks in no small part to atheism, the legitimate social aims of self-maintenance are rapidly translating themselves into base and threatening forms of self-gratification.
Re: Is the concept of ''Atheist'' necessary, let alone real?
_______
As an interesting (or not) sidebar to this conversation about uwot's potty mouth
, I happened upon a YouTube lecture by Dr. Michael Shermer (here - https://youtu.be/0pOI2YvVuuE).
Shermer is the executive director of The Skeptics Society and is the founding publisher of Skeptic magazine. He is often paired up with the likes of Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins in arguments against those who hold opposite views from theirs.
The following is a slightly paraphrased version of something I wrote in the comments section below the video (and yes, I have no life
):
If Shermer’s intention in pushing his atheistic agenda is to make humanity better, then I suggest that he inadvertently shot himself in the foot.
Starting at around 4:40, Shermer makes the point of how some humans tend to imbue everything (even invisible things) with life and intentional agency.
One of his examples revolves around a psychological experiment involving children as young as 2 or 3, wherein they are given a somewhat difficult task of tossing a Velcro covered ball (over their shoulder) at a target situated behind them.
The problem is that when they were left alone to perform the task (unsupervised), they simply turned around and stuck the ball on the target in a location of their choice.
However, in the second phase of the experiment, they are told that there is an “invisible princess” sitting in a chair next to the target and she can see everything they do. In which case, the children no longer cheated and thus performed the task as directed.
Now the point that Shermer was attempting to covey is that if the “instinctual” default mode of the children is to see things that are not actually there...
(simply by someone suggesting that there is something there)
...then it is an indication of humanity’s inherent propensity to be taken-in (duped) by religions and their non-existent deities and spiritual whatnots.
Now with that being said, I suggest that the true moral of Shermer’s story is that, real or not, the idea of an invisible entity (i.e., God) keeping track of our actions tends to make humans more honest and trustworthy (generally speaking).
Therefore, in his (mocking) attempt to offer some kind of anecdotal scientific evidence for why humans believe in the existence of God, I don’t think he realized that his argument actually implied a very good reason for maintaining the belief.
(And I’m pretty sure that Kant would agree with me on this.)
_______
As an interesting (or not) sidebar to this conversation about uwot's potty mouth
, I happened upon a YouTube lecture by Dr. Michael Shermer (here - https://youtu.be/0pOI2YvVuuE).Shermer is the executive director of The Skeptics Society and is the founding publisher of Skeptic magazine. He is often paired up with the likes of Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins in arguments against those who hold opposite views from theirs.
The following is a slightly paraphrased version of something I wrote in the comments section below the video (and yes, I have no life
):If Shermer’s intention in pushing his atheistic agenda is to make humanity better, then I suggest that he inadvertently shot himself in the foot.
Starting at around 4:40, Shermer makes the point of how some humans tend to imbue everything (even invisible things) with life and intentional agency.
One of his examples revolves around a psychological experiment involving children as young as 2 or 3, wherein they are given a somewhat difficult task of tossing a Velcro covered ball (over their shoulder) at a target situated behind them.
The problem is that when they were left alone to perform the task (unsupervised), they simply turned around and stuck the ball on the target in a location of their choice.
However, in the second phase of the experiment, they are told that there is an “invisible princess” sitting in a chair next to the target and she can see everything they do. In which case, the children no longer cheated and thus performed the task as directed.
Now the point that Shermer was attempting to covey is that if the “instinctual” default mode of the children is to see things that are not actually there...
(simply by someone suggesting that there is something there)
...then it is an indication of humanity’s inherent propensity to be taken-in (duped) by religions and their non-existent deities and spiritual whatnots.
Now with that being said, I suggest that the true moral of Shermer’s story is that, real or not, the idea of an invisible entity (i.e., God) keeping track of our actions tends to make humans more honest and trustworthy (generally speaking).
Therefore, in his (mocking) attempt to offer some kind of anecdotal scientific evidence for why humans believe in the existence of God, I don’t think he realized that his argument actually implied a very good reason for maintaining the belief.
(And I’m pretty sure that Kant would agree with me on this.)
_______
Last edited by seeds on Sun May 20, 2018 11:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Is the concept of ''Atheist'' necessary, let alone real?
Well put. Without objective standards it is every man for himself under the excuse of freedom. Without the feeling for objective standards tyranny is the inevitable resultReflex wrote: ↑Sun May 20, 2018 9:29 pmSo why the vulgarity? Is it an expression of hopelessness? immaturity? fear? what?
“Freedom” has sometimes been used by atheists as an excuse for their atheism. It sounds good to those with the temperament of a two-year-old, but license masquerading in the garments of freedom is the forerunner of abject bondage because unbridled self-will and unregulated self-expression equal unmitigated selfishness. True liberty is the associate of genuine self-respect; false liberty is the consort of self-admiration. True liberty is the fruit of self-control; false liberty, the assumption of self-assertion. Self-maintenance builds society, but unbridled self-gratification unfailingly destroys civilization.
Thanks in no small part to atheism, the legitimate social aims of self-maintenance are rapidly translating themselves into base and threatening forms of self-gratification.
None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrong looks like right in their eyes.
-Johann von Goethe
Re: Is the concept of ''Atheist'' necessary, let alone real?
Humour. In case anyone missed it, this is what the snowflakes are whingeing about:
uwot wrote: ↑Sun May 20, 2018 7:15 amThat's what it means.So you meet a Welshman who fucked a sheep and suddenly all Welshmen are sheep-shaggers.Is there a term for someone who tars all atheists with the same brush? Atheistist is a bit unwieldy.You're doing it again: 'Theists might be snarling and mean spirited, but atheists are even more snarling and mean spirited.'I don't believe either.Sorry: I don't fucking believe either.
On what planet do you need an excuse not to believe in invisible things?
I'll take your word for it.
Reflex, I salute you. You are much funnier than me.Reflex wrote: ↑Sun May 20, 2018 9:29 pm...but license masquerading in the garments of freedom is the forerunner of abject bondage because unbridled self-will and unregulated self-expression equal unmitigated selfishness. True liberty is the associate of genuine self-respect; false liberty is the consort of self-admiration. True liberty is the fruit of self-control; false liberty, the assumption of self-assertion. Self-maintenance builds society, but unbridled self-gratification unfailingly destroys civilization.
Thanks in no small part to atheism, the legitimate social aims of self-maintenance are rapidly translating themselves into base and threatening forms of self-gratification.
Re: Is the concept of ''Atheist'' necessary, let alone real?
Can those who are more than human learn to use quote tags correctly after years of forum chat?
Looks very human to me. Along with some delusions of grandeur, which is also very human.
Sorry Reflex, you are not "more" or "better" than me by virtue of embracing Abrahamic mythology. We are both just humans, like anyone else, even Nick.
Re: Is the concept of ''Atheist'' necessary, let alone real?
I suspect you don't mean objective, rather you mean the wishes of some god you cannot prove exists, who just happens to have the same political ambitions as you.
There's a thing called the law. In a functional democracy, it doesn't claim to be objective, but it has the virtue of being democratically mandated. It is when that is replaced by, say, the moral code of bronze age or medieval theocrats, that everything goes pear shaped and you get tyranny.
Re: Is the concept of ''Atheist'' necessary, let alone real?
Reflex! Again I salute you; this is comedy gold and the variations are endless. How about 'To be truly a bicycle is to be more than a bicycle'? Whaddya think?