|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Blasphemy Challenge | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
anastasia writes: Been to Hot Topic lately? Never heard of it. I was responding to your statement:
quote: I don't see any reference to a "bunch of mall-rats and rock-star wanna-bes". General statement. General rsponse. "This challenge will end when christianity ends" is like saying, "Charity will end when poverty ends." I don't see hate-mongering there. Maybe throttle back on the martyr complex just a tad. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5981 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Ringo writes: Never heard of it. Sorry, just one of those little stores which caters to the 'goth' and 'emo' kids...full of rosary beads, crosses, album covers with religious symbols and songs based on catholic chants, etc. 'Charity will end when poverty ends'. Hm. Charity, good. Poverty, bad. Atheism, good. Christianity, bad. Sounds like WAR to me. It is just a shame that militant atheism can't do anything without first referencing God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
anastasia writes: Charity, good. Poverty, bad. Atheism, good. Christianity, bad. Charity is good because poverty is bad. If you're going to draw the parallel, then an atheist "war" on bad "Christianity" would be good.
It is just a shame that militant atheism can't do anything without first referencing God. Why a "shame"? Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5981 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
RIngo writes: Charity is good because poverty is bad. If you're going to draw the parallel, then an atheist "war" on bad "Christianity" would be good. Sure, for atheists. Of course, atheism is a rebel without a cause, there is really no 'good' for which it stands. It's a non-starter. It must prove itself 'good' or better, to make christianity 'bad'. An atheist is what you call a person who can't describe themselves without first acknowledging God. The name says it all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2541 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
An atheist is what you call a person who can't describe themselves without first acknowledging God. The name says it all. kuresu writes: A theist is what you call a person who can't describe themselves without first acknowledging God. The name says it all. really, what's your point? i mean, we can stand for things that are good (and evil) just like any other group out there can. and we can describe ourselves without acknowledging God. I mean, atheism is just one of the things that describe. I'm also a bassist. guess that means I'm a person who can't describe myself without first acknowledging basses. Question. Always Question. " . . .and some nights I just pray to the god of sex and drugs and rock'n'roll"--meatloaf Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
anastasia writes: It must prove itself 'good' or better, to make christianity 'bad'. Christianity (or a subset of Christianity) could be "bad" compared to any alternative - e.g. Taoism, Wicca, Raelianism.
An atheist is what you call a person who can't describe themselves without first acknowledging God. An atheist doesn't "acknowledge" God any more than an amoral person acknowledges morality. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5981 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Ringo writes: Christianity (or a subset of Christianity) could be "bad" compared to any alternative - e.g. Taoism, Wicca, Raelianism. So what IS bad?
An atheist doesn't "acknowledge" God any more than an amoral person acknowledges morality. An amoral person is likely not acknowledging his amorality. Amoral is what moral people call him. First, morality is recognized, then immorality. So, why do atheists use a word which recognizes God first?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5981 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
kuresu writes: really, what's your point? That you all need a better publicist.
i mean, we can stand for things that are good (and evil) just like any other group out there can. and we can describe ourselves without acknowledging God. I mean, atheism is just one of the things that describe. I'm also a bassist. guess that means I'm a person who can't describe myself without first acknowledging basses. Well. sort of. You have done an excellent job of standing up for 'good' just because its good, while at the same time insisting that 'good' is in our heads and is completely relative. And yes, you obviously can't be a bassist without first acknowledging basses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2541 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
technically, atheist doesn't recognize god first. it recognizes "no" first. it recognizes the non-existance of God.
besides, how else would you neatly say you don't believe in God?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
anastasia writes: So what IS bad? Turning a blind eye to pedophilia, not speaking out against Naziism, pushing YECism into schools, discriminating against homosexuals.... I can go on if you can't come up with any examples of your own.
First, morality is recognized, then immorality. You have that backwards. Amorality is the natural state - mosquitos are amoral. Bananas are amoral. We learn morality from our culture. "Immorality" is failure to learn. Soooo... by analogy, atheism is the natural state. Mosquitos are atheists. Bananas are atheists. We can learn theism from our culture (or not). Failure to learn would be called "imtheism" if it was considered "bad".
So, why do atheists use a word which recognizes God first? They don't. That would be "aTheism". Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5981 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
kuresu writes: technically, atheist doesn't recognize god first. it recognizes "no" first. it recognizes the non-existance of God.besides, how else would you neatly say you don't believe in God? Don't mention God at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5981 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Ringo writes: Turning a blind eye to pedophilia, not speaking out against Naziism, pushing YECism into schools, discriminating against homosexuals.... I can go on if you can't come up with any examples of your own. No, Ringo, you have no proof that ANYTHING is bad except by some stupid relative moral standard. If your standard is relative, it can't be retro-active. It also can not be assumed to have been 'right' in any given situation. Oh, and christianity is a theology, not a group of priests, pastors, YEC's etc.
Amorality is the natural state - mosquitos are amoral. Bananas are amoral. Mosquitoes and bananas? You can't compare us to fruits and insects, sorry. Non-admissable.
We learn morality from our culture. "Immorality" is failure to learn. How did our culture learn morality? Why do we all fail to learn?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
anastasia writes: If your standard is relative, it can't be retro-active. I didn't say it was.
How did our culture learn morality? From generation to generation.
Why do we all fail to learn? That has been explained to you in another thread.
Mosquitoes and bananas? You can't compare us to fruits and insects, sorry. I most certainly can. If you don't like the comparison, you'll have to tell us why. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5981 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
If morality is learned from generation to generation, it is indeed relative to that generation, and not retro-active.
I have had no explanation in any other thread, save that of 'mal-function' which is quickly denied. Mosquitoes are irrelevent to any discussion of atheism, but they make great fish-food in their larval state.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
Anastasia writes: Don't mention God at all. It doesn't. A-theism is the absence of theism. It doesn't acknowledge any god or non-existence of a God, but it does acknowledge theism. It acknowledges only that some people believe in a gods or gods, then indicates the absence of that belief in the atheist. "Der Mensch kann was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will." (Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.) - Arthur Schopenhauer
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024