Psychology looks at atheism and theism. Also, atheism is tenuous/non-existent/rare ..

quote:

---

This is a straw man. I clearly admitted that to my knowledge there is no definitive profesed materialist martyr (no other likely variables affecting outcome such as nationalism, politics, etc). So far, the professed materialist have not brought any definitive martyrs from their side of the aisle. There are many non-nationalist and non overtly political Christian martyrs.

---

Religion is a form of politics, Ken. Examples were offered, you have not challenged them, they stand.

TO: justincyI am glad I decided to no longer debate with you. I can see by your last post you wish to be inconsistent and unreasonable. I have no wish to twist arms.Sincerely,Ken

Do you realize that contracyle and JustinCy (me) are different people?

Sad dodge, Ken. Sad dodge.Tell you what, though... rephrase your question as "Prove you don't believe in this thing I can't describe" and we'll call it even. I guess the other six definitions are inconvenient for you.But heck, let's look at it:"A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions."The only part of this definition that really gives us any kind of "what it is" are the words "a being". The rest is all resume lines. So... a being? What kind of being is that? A sasquatch? Some form of three-toed sloth? A sentient barcolounger? An Elvis impersonator who overdosed on the toilet as a tribute to the king? Help me out Ken, I need to know what I so obviously believe in!This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 09-07-2004 09:59 AM

---

"Good evening. I'm playing the role of Jesus; a man once portrayed on the big screen by Jeffery Hunter. You may remember him as the actor who was replaced by William Shatner on Star Trek. Apparently Mr. Hunter was good enough to die for our sins, but not quite up to the task of seducing green women."
-Stewie Griffin

I thought that Ken's stubborn refusal to take anyones word for, or at least to accept that word as indicative of that persons actual beliefs, was an almost unique sort of wrong headedness. None of the other debates I have observed on this thread seem to have quite such a surreal line of argumentation, and there are some pretty bizzarely surreal ones out there.But just the other day I was reading an issue of SWIFT, the newsletter of James Randi's JREF Foundation, and came across an article which described exactly the same mindset as being widespread at least amongst those of the authors acquaintance.Margaret Ernsberger recounts

quote:

---

A revelation of sorts came after I told my family and some co-workers that I am an atheist. The response that I got was not what I expected. Every single person I have told refuses to believe it. They insist that I really believe in God, but that for some reason I am simply denying it.

---

I wonder if this is linked to the more general psychological observation that people almost always assume their own analysis and indeed their own self analysis and self-knowledge to be superior to that of other people, a trend which is probably exacerbated if it is part of an in-group/out-group conflict.TTFN,WKThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 09-07-2004 10:49 AM

It is consistent for a theist to ask for very strong evidence of atheism existence from one who professes the ideology of skepticism/atheism since he demands very strong evidence from others. It is inconsistent for one who professes the ideology of skepticism/atheism to offer weak evidence that atheim exist and to demand that theist believe it.

Krazy Ken sez,

quote:

---

It is consistent for a theist to ask for very strong evidence of atheism existence from one who professes the ideology of skepticism/atheism since [the skeptic] demands very strong evidence from others.

---

Ken, please cite any instance in which a skeptic on this board accused a believer of atheism and demanded strong evidence that the believer actually harbored his professed beliefs.Otherwise retract the claim.regards,
Esteban Hambre

Mr. Hombre,Skeptics demand by definition very strong proof from others regarding any claims made by others. Skeptics often advocate suspending judgment.In short, no retraction.

Really? Any claim?Wow. Then it should be really, really easy to give the example Hambre was asking for.So why haven't you?

---

"Good evening. I'm playing the role of Jesus; a man once portrayed on the big screen by Jeffery Hunter. You may remember him as the actor who was replaced by William Shatner on Star Trek. Apparently Mr. Hunter was good enough to die for our sins, but not quite up to the task of seducing green women."
-Stewie Griffin

Close, but no cigar.Skeptics usually accept quite quickly if someone says "I'm a Christian.". In fact, sometimes they (maybe I should say we) overreact, and read too much into that.Skeptics are however much more skeptical towards factual claims. You can believe whatever the heck you want as long as you keep it in your head, basically. But it's useless to try to dictate to others what they believe.

Ken,

quote:

---

Skeptics demand by definition very strong proof from others regarding any claims made by others.

---

I disagree, because I have never seen a skeptic accuse a believer of atheism in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary. I submit that someone's profession of belief in God is enough for a skeptic to believe that belief in God exists. I have asked you to provide an instance where a skeptic has demanded evidence that a believer actually believes his stated views. I ask you again.regards,
Esteban Hambre

You wrote:

quote:

---

I have asked you to provide an instance where a skeptic has demanded evidence that a believer actually believes his stated views. I ask you again.

---

I cite Paulk who said to me:

quote:

---

I guess you're just angry from losing so many arguments and from having your bigotry and hipocrisy exposed.

​

http://EvC Forum: Jonah and the whale - It happened! -->EvC Forum: Jonah and the whale - It happened!

---

Here is Webster's definition of hyprocrisy:

quote:

---

One entry found for hypocrisy.

​

Main Entry: hypocrisy
Pronunciation: hi-'p-kr&-sE also hI-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -sies
Etymology: Middle English ypocrisie, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, from Greek hypokrisis act of playing a part on the stage, hypocrisy, from hypokrinesthai to answer, act on the stage, from hypo- + krinein to decide -- more at CERTAIN
1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
2 : an act or instance of hypocrisy

---

Now with that said, let us stay on the topic of real evidence that atheism exist in professed atheist.Sincerely,Ken

to: ALLI believe the professed atheist would do better if they reviewed the social science literature.Sincerely,Ken

Hi Ken, I'll leave that to the "professed atheists", then; I am a a real life atheist so won't bother .Ken, you seem to have become an "a- atheist -ist". Are there any martyrs to this cause?Cheers.

TO: lindumYou are free to doubt if there are a-a-theist. In fact, if you are truly a professed skeptic/atheist I would expect this. I am not surprised you did not decisively say I was a a-a-atheist. Perhaps, you have empathy regarding my a-a-atheism. I can only speculate why. LOLBy the way, I am not in the UK but I can appreciate and dish out dry British humor as well.