|
Author
|
Topic: The Blasphemy Challenge
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
Message 6 of 134 (381401)
01-30-2007 8:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 5 by anastasia
01-30-2007 7:13 PM
|
|
anastasia writes: It has nothing to do with atheism, except in that atheists might be ignorant of Biblical language. Most Christians are ignorant Of Biblical language too. They just memorize their Five Easy Pieces of doctrine. Which is worse: to "blaspheme" what you don't believe or to not bother learning about what you do "believe"?
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 5 by anastasia, posted 01-30-2007 7:13 PM | | anastasia has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 7 by anastasia, posted 01-30-2007 9:46 PM | | ringo has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 27 of 134 (382508)
02-05-2007 12:56 AM
|
Reply to: Message 26 by anastasia
02-04-2007 11:56 PM
|
|
anastasia writes: I, at least, did not have mockery of other religions as part of my religious training. It's really very common. I was brought up in a pretty anti-Catholic environment. You might notice the remnants of that training once in a while. 
... such statements as 'this challenge will end when christianity ends' turns atheism to a hate-mongering religion of its own.... I'm not convinced that intellectual attempts to end an ideology constitute "hate-mongering".
... and will probably only fire more zeal in the hearts of christians. That's not a very good source of zeal.
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 26 by anastasia, posted 02-04-2007 11:56 PM | | anastasia has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 31 of 134 (382622)
02-05-2007 2:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 29 by anastasia
02-05-2007 2:18 PM
|
|
anastasia writes: Been to Hot Topic lately? Never heard of it. I was responding to your statement:
quote:
It is rather lovely that this group sees christianity as its main threat...and making such statements as 'this challenge will end when christianity ends' turns atheism to a hate-mongering religion of its own, and will probably only fire more zeal in the hearts of christians.
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 29 by anastasia, posted 02-05-2007 2:18 PM | | anastasia has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 33 of 134 (382647)
02-05-2007 4:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 32 by anastasia
02-05-2007 3:27 PM
|
|
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 32 by anastasia, posted 02-05-2007 3:27 PM | | anastasia has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 36 of 134 (382662)
02-05-2007 5:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 34 by anastasia
02-05-2007 5:13 PM
|
|
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 34 by anastasia, posted 02-05-2007 5:13 PM | | anastasia has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 40 of 134 (382666)
02-05-2007 5:57 PM
|
Reply to: Message 37 by anastasia
02-05-2007 5:44 PM
|
|
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 37 by anastasia, posted 02-05-2007 5:44 PM | | anastasia has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 43 of 134 (382671)
02-05-2007 6:30 PM
|
Reply to: Message 42 by anastasia
02-05-2007 6:24 PM
|
|
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 42 by anastasia, posted 02-05-2007 6:24 PM | | anastasia has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 46 of 134 (382677)
02-05-2007 7:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 44 by anastasia
02-05-2007 6:37 PM
|
|
anastasia writes: If morality is learned from generation to generation, it is indeed relative to that generation, and not retro-active. I have not said that morality is "retroactive". Why do you harp on that?
I have had no explanation in any other thread, save that of 'mal-function' which is quickly denied. That's the explanation. Your denial doesn't make it go away.
Mosquitoes are irrelevent to any discussion of atheism.... They are entirely relevant. Again: Your claim was that "morality comes first, then immorality". I countered that amorality comes first - witnessed by the fact that "lower" forms of life have no "moral sense". Morality is learned. You have not countered that. "Immorality" is nothing but a malfunction in the learning process. You have not countered that. I'm claiming that amorality/morality is analogous to atheism/theism. You have done nothing but handwaving to counter the validity of the analogy. Again: I'm claiming that atheism is the natural state - witnessed by the fact that "lower" forms of life have no "god sense". I'm claiming that theism is learned. You have not countered that. Edited by Ringo, : Spelling.
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 44 by anastasia, posted 02-05-2007 6:37 PM | | anastasia has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 52 of 134 (382697)
02-05-2007 7:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 47 by anastasia
02-05-2007 7:33 PM
|
|
anastasia writes: ... "lower" forms of life have no "god sense". And higher forms do? No, I don't think they do. But some of them think they do.
That means that atheism is not the natural state for humans, because we DO have 'god sense'. I am saying that theism is something "unnatural" that is learned - like, say, drinking alcohol. Those who never learn are atheists. I think that makes sense because learning is a process that we understand fairly well. You are saying that atheism is "unnatural" in that there is something "missing". I think that doesn't make sense unless you can explain what the "god sense" is and how it is removed from some people.
As it stands, atheists have a 'god-sense' or they couldn't begin to deny God any more than a mosquito could. But most of them don't deny God, any more than a mosquito does.
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 47 by anastasia, posted 02-05-2007 7:33 PM | | anastasia has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 62 of 134 (382715)
02-05-2007 8:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 58 by anastasia
02-05-2007 8:27 PM
|
|
anastasia writes: Whether you think humans have a god-sense or not is bunk, because you are discussing one. I can discuss Kennedy-assassination conspiracy theories even if there was no conspiracy. I can also discuss god-sense theories even if there is no god-sense.
So, is christianity a crutch or an indulgence, huh? Not necessarily. Sometimes.
But most of them don't deny God, any more than a mosquito does. But the ones in this topic DO What poster in this thread has denied God?
... if atheism wants to have a name for itself, it will speak out against these outrages. As far as I know, atheism doesn't want to make a name for itself.
Where are all the atheists who denounce having to mention a God they don't believe in? **shrug** You believe in 'em. You find 'em.
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 58 by anastasia, posted 02-05-2007 8:27 PM | | anastasia has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 67 of 134 (382724)
02-05-2007 9:01 PM
|
Reply to: Message 65 by anastasia
02-05-2007 8:52 PM
|
|
anastasia writes: YOU are the one who said there was a 'god-sense' in higher life-forms. I don't know where you got that from. I stated pretty plainly that I don't think there is one. I used "lower" life forms as an example that "god-sense" is not natural.
Choice, please? Crutch or indulgence? For some people it's a crutch, for some an indulgence. Maybe some people switch off on alternate Tuesdays. I said "not necessarily" because there might be other possibilities too. I dont think natural, built-in "god-sense" is one of the possibilites.
As far as I know, atheism doesn't want to make a name for itself. Please review the OP. As far as I know, the OP doesn't represent atheists any more than Long John Silver represents Christians.
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 65 by anastasia, posted 02-05-2007 8:52 PM | | anastasia has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 75 of 134 (382740)
02-05-2007 9:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 74 by anastasia
02-05-2007 9:16 PM
|
|
anastasia writes: And yes, 'god-sense' is not natural. So you agree that god-sense is not natural? Do you also agree that it is learned?
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 74 by anastasia, posted 02-05-2007 9:16 PM | | anastasia has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 81 of 134 (382749)
02-05-2007 9:44 PM
|
Reply to: Message 80 by anastasia
02-05-2007 9:40 PM
|
|
anastasia writes: If we start out without god-sense, as a lower life form, we have nothing to teach. That's why people who are not taught don't have a god-sense. That's also why some are able to unlearn it.
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 80 by anastasia, posted 02-05-2007 9:40 PM | | anastasia has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 85 of 134 (382764)
02-05-2007 11:02 PM
|
Reply to: Message 84 by anastasia
02-05-2007 10:56 PM
|
|
anastasia writes: Doesn't explain where it comes from though, does it? Unless, of course, the teacher is God. The teacher could be anybody. The first teachers were shamans who made up gods to fool the gullible. I suspect that priesthoods have always contained more hucksters than "true believers".
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 84 by anastasia, posted 02-05-2007 10:56 PM | | anastasia has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 87 of 134 (382774)
02-05-2007 11:23 PM
|
Reply to: Message 86 by Doddy
02-05-2007 11:14 PM
|
|
Doddy writes: I think it more likely that the shamans were the most gullible of the lot. That's entirely possible. The fooler-to-foolee ratio could go either way.
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 86 by Doddy, posted 02-05-2007 11:14 PM | | Doddy has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2