Why Everyone's Bored With Atheists

[Ouroboros]

Not going through a 121 page thread to find something you cant be bothered to show me

The search function is your friend.

 

[Ouroboros]

Another straw man argument.

And yet another tiresome misuse of "straw man" from you.

 

[Ouroboros]

Who has ever made this claim?

All you need do is backstep on my post to see what my opponent clearly said. Asking me to repeat it is sealioning.

 

[Ouroboros]

On this I agree. We must keep the debate against church and religion apart from that of the debate of the existence of a god.
And we do have good evidence of the harm caused by religions and the churches.

When it comes to a god I am merely an atheist in that I lack a belief in a god and I find the reasoning flawed. But when it comes to church and religion I am a militant atheist and will strongly appose the stupidity and harm caused by institutions that do nothing more than lie and deceive for the only purpose of enriching themselves at the expense of the poor and uneducated.

But you don't think atheist philosophy could ever be abused as you say religion has been? Even setting aside Communism as an aberration (for sake of argument). on what do you base the notion that atheism would improve human relations without being used for exploitative purposes?

 

[Ouroboros]

I am not running anywhere. I am right here...hoping to have a reasonable, respectful conversation on the matter. When you get tired of that "running" nonsense, let me know and we can begin.

"Respect" is one of those things atheists don't think they owe anyone not on their side of the "fence." Yet they think their beliefs could potentially restructure society. It is to laugh.

 

[Ouroboros]

It is not a deflection to point out that cooperation between different species is both prevalent and diverse, . It is an observable fact that falls well within the definition of science. Evolution has made use of altruism as a survival factor. It benefits both the crocodile and the bird to act together.
But if you are wanting a specific materialist answer then look to the chemicals that make up the biology of the animal.
https://magazine.scienceforthepeople.org/vol24-3-cooperation/cooperation-in-animals/

How did the "cleaner-client" relationship get started? What prompted the earliest crocodile bird to express dopamine or any other chemical upon the earliest client-crocodile? Again, evolutionary theory does well with intra-species communication. Inter-species is a little tougher.

 

[Frank Apisa]

"Respect" is one of those things atheists don't think they owe anyone not on their side of the "fence." Yet they think their beliefs could potentially restructure society. It is to laugh.

Right you are, O. But I am an optimist when it comes to respectful, reasonable conversations. Perhaps I will not get it from the people who use "atheist" as a descriptor here, but I will continue to try to get it.

Your earlier comment on the possibility of atheism being abused struck a chord. The fact is that the excesses of "religion" on laws that impact all of us...often has to be constrained. It is my contention, O, that atheism often does not help in that regard (often it hurts attempts to constrain it), where the agnostic position can be of great help.

But once the atheistic and theistic positions take control of a person...that person tends to become insufferable. Not much that can be done with them except to do what you, I, and a few others here are doing...take the battle to them...BOTH SIDES.

Theism and atheism, when practiced by the extremists we see here in this form...are both blights on humanity.

Keep fighting the good fight.

 

[Quag]

I have supported every claim I have made.

You may not agree with my contentions in my support, but we can discuss that as part of our discussions.

But first...it is obvious that I am not running away from anything. And if you think starting what I would like to be a respectful conversation with suggesting "intellectual cowardice" really is a terrible start.

Let's put all that kind of nonsense aside.

I'm not even sure which of the "claims" I have made that you think I have not defended.

If you are asking me to defend, "It is possible that no gods exist or that at least one does"...that defends itself.

It is self evident. It cannot be otherwise. (CC's 1/5th of a god might exist aside)

Either there is sentient life on one of the planets circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol...or there is no sentient life on any of those planets.

Those kinds of statements need no further defense.

And that defense I have made many times here in this forum.

But perhaps it is something other than that for which you are asking a defense. Let me know...and I will defend that.

Do you do anything other than run away?
You know perfectly well what I am asking you to support and defend as you have asked and I have answered it many times
However for the benefit of others who may just be jumping into this thread the false statement/claim on your part at issue here is:
Anything thay has not been established as impossible is posssible
This has been disproven by myself with the coins and the wife scenarios and by others but you put your head in the sand and say no no no without actually explaing why excpet to dishoenstly claim that all those scenarios it is proven impossible even though the scenarios explicitly state it is not

You do not debate you try to preach only no one is buying it

 

[Quag]

Quag...let us have a decent, respectful, reasonable discussion of whatever is bothering you about my comments.

Stop with the insults. Let us show that we can be respectful and actually discuss what you are insisting you want to discuss.

Yes lets have a debate
Now try to defend your claim

 

[Quag]

The post cited clearly shows that watsup made the claim about your beliefs and then refused to take responsibility for his factual error. You then backed him up without reading the posts in question, so you abetted his action without weighing any evidence-- the very thing atheists like to claim they're good at.

Be specific this thread is 123 pages long I dont remember what specific claims we are talking about thaty is false

 

[Quag]

(1) Sealioning on your part.

Avoidance on your part

(2) No, you dismiss the possibility I raised because it hurts your argument, even though I've shown that your agreeable/disagreeable paradigm is no more provable than the proto-religion hypothesis. (3) Still not my argument.

No I pointed out that ritual does not equal religion, you however refuse to admit that possibility as it harms your claims.
May be play or may be ritual in some groups of primates (not species, groups) does not mean primates have religion or proto religion if you like
I have never said it cannot be religious but the article never claimed it was either. You are the one making thay leap then applying it to all primates.

 

[Quag]

(1) Still brought up incest to illustrate how different it is when human culture shapes behavior as opposed to the more inconsistent pre-cognitive behaviors of various animals.

But humans are not unique in incest avoidance and incest avoidance is not 100% in humans either

(2) Only in your own mind. You haven't even retracted your false rhetoric about animals' limited reasoning powers, despite the counter-examples provided. Proof of your inhabiting an echo chamber.

What false rhetoric about animals limited reasoning power?

(30 More of the same. (4) No, you chose to dismiss my citation because of an untenable distinction you made.

If you are talking about the article that said it may be ritualistic or may be play in some groups of primates means all primates have religion or proto religion then of course I dismiss it because despite your claims you have not actually shown that to be true

(5) And your definition of morals is too elastic, oriented only upon nullifying religion's cultural significance.

morals

1. standards for good or bad character and behaviour: 2. standards for good or…

dictionary.cambridge.org

standards for good or bad character and behaviour:

What definition are you using?

(6) I'm not responsible for you missing my statements.

Ok what did I miss?

(7) Still not my position, but by all means keep making the claim 'cause it's funny.

Your OP states that atheists lack morals. If atheists lack morals then clearly religion is necessary for morals or if you prefer theism is, which is I admit a broader term than religion

 

[Quag]

The search function is your friend.

I see no reason why I should do your work for you

 

[Quag]

All you need do is backstep on my post to see what my opponent clearly said. Asking me to repeat it is sealioning.

Yeah me not wanting to do your work for you is not sealioning it is just avoidance on your part

 

[Frank Apisa]

Do you do anything other than run away?

I never run away. That is a dream of yours. Too bad you cannot see it for what it is. Laughing supposedly is great for the health.

You know perfectly well what I am asking you to support and defend as you have asked and I have answered it many times
However for the benefit of others who may just be jumping into this thread the false statement/claim on your part at issue here is:
Anything thay has not been established as impossible is posssible

I have defended that many times. You simply refuse to accept my defense (which is your right), to to pretend that I have not supported and defended it is silly.

By definition "possible" is something that "can be." The only things that "cannot be" are things that are impossible.. Until they are established as impossible...they remain "possible"...even if they eventually are shown to be impossible. So my statement is not correct by dint of any logical manipulation...IT SIMPLY IS TRUE BY DEFINITION.

This has been disproven by myself with the coins and the wife scenarios and by others but you put your head in the sand and say no no no without actually explaing why excpet to dishoenstly claim that all those scenarios it is proven impossible even though the scenarios explicitly state it is not

You are claiming success where none exists.

My statement, "Anything that has not been established as impossible...is possible" is so in the same way that 2 + 2 = 4 in base 10 or "a triangle cannot have more than three angles." It definitionally is so.

You do not debate you try to preach only no one is buying it

You do not speak for everyone...so your use of "no one" is as absurd as you other arguments.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Yes lets have a debate
Now try to defend your claim

I have done so...and I have in the past.

If we are going to have a reasonable, respectful conversation...you have to stop saying that I have not defended it just because you do not agree with my defense.

 

[Quag]

I never run away. That is a dream of yours. Too bad you cannot see it for what it is. Laughing supposedly is great for the health.


I have defended that many times. You simply refuse to accept my defense (which is your right), to to pretend that I have not supported and defended it is silly.

By definition "possible" is something that "can be." The only things that "cannot be" are things that are impossible.. Until they are established as impossible...they remain "possible"...even if they eventually are shown to be impossible. So my statement is not correct by dint of any logical manipulation...IT SIMPLY IS TRUE BY DEFINITION.




You are claiming success where none exists.

My statement, "Anything that has not been established as impossible...is possible" is so in the same way that 2 + 2 = 4 in base 10 or "a triangle cannot have more than three angles." It definitionally is so.

You do not speak for everyone...so your use of "no one" is as absurd as you other arguments.

Repition isnt defending the claim and by definition you are wrong.

Now will you try to actually defend it or just run as usual?

 

[Frank Apisa]

Repition isnt defending the claim and by definition you are wrong.

I am not wrong...and you simply repeating that charge does not make it so.

Now will you try to actually defend it or just run as usual?

I have never run away, which anyone can see.

But your denial that I am here responding to you each time you post is fun. As has been pointed out by others...you dedicated atheists are very entertaining.

And since you are so sure I am wrong...

...why don't you show at least one example of something that is "not possible: but that has not been shown to be impossible.

Just do it.

I have no problem acknowledging when I am wrong if I am shown to be wrong.

 

[watsup]

The post cited clearly shows that watsup made the claim about your beliefs and then refused to take responsibility for his factual error. You then backed him up without reading the posts in question, so you abetted his action without weighing any evidence-- the very thing atheists like to claim they're good at.

Geez, quit whining! It gets so old!

 

[watsup]

Theism and atheism, when practiced by the extremists we see here in this form...are both blights on humanity.

Says the agnostic extremist.

 

[Revelation]

Theism and atheism, when practiced by the extremists we see here in this form...are both blights on humanity.

Keep fighting the good fight.

in your eyes, was Jesus extreme?

Says the agnostic extremist.

Jesus loves me this i know, for the Bible tells me so.





...an then Little Boy understands the 'extremist's message'.


do you?


.

 

[Frank Apisa]

in your eyes, was Jesus extreme?

I am accepting you question with the reservation that...

...one, a single person, Jesus, may never have existed...

...two, I do not know what Jesus was like, I just read about what others report f him.

In any case, I think not. The reporting indicated he was, at times, zealous...and at times the reports have him flirted with being extreme. But he was careful...and most of the agenda he promoted was advanced for his time. I have no trouble with incorporating much of what he preached into my personal agenda.

Jesus loves me this i know, for the Bible tells me so.

View attachment 67552461.

This is a slogan I suspect even Jesus would have found silly.

..an then Little Boy understands the 'extremist's message'.


do you?.

I think a huge number of American Christians are hypocrites. If the Christians of today actually followed, in any reasonable manner, the thrust of the teachings attributed to Jesus...

...they would even be welcomed by the staunchest atheists.

 

[soylentgreen]

But you don't think atheist philosophy could ever be abused as you say religion has been? Even setting aside Communism as an aberration (for sake of argument). on what do you base the notion that atheism would improve human relations without being used for exploitative purposes?

I would argue that there is not any philosophy that cannot be misinterpreted and in some fashion become abusive.
I would also argue that atheism has no other use other than as a counter argument to theism. I only use atheist arguments when confronted by a theist trying to prove their god or religion is true. Other than that it does not even get me a cup of coffee.

It's theists who make claims about the morality an actions of atheists. Atheists would argue that their actions and morality are governed by other codes of conducts than by a badly written book of contradicting morality.

 

[soylentgreen]

How did the "cleaner-client" relationship get started? What prompted the earliest crocodile bird to express dopamine or any other chemical upon the earliest client-crocodile? Again, evolutionary theory does well with intra-species communication. Inter-species is a little tougher.

There is a long standing and still hard to get rid of belief that nature , evolution is combative that plants and animals compete with each other. . The prey and predator cliche. But it is far more true to say that nature, evolution is cooperative rather than combative.
The realationship between bird and crocodile is only a mystery if your view of nature is that it is combative. Looked at in a different light of cooperation and it becomes less a mystery and more as another example of how differing species depend on each other for survival.

If this was an isolated and unusual example of crocodile and bird a cooperation that was not evidenced by similar acts by other creatures. then you might have a point. But instead your example is only one of many such examples.

 

[Frank Apisa]

I would argue that there is not any philosophy that cannot be misinterpreted and in some fashion become abusive.
I would also argue that atheism has no other use other than as a counter argument to theism. I only use atheist arguments when confronted by a theist trying to prove their god or religion is true. Other than that it does not even get me a cup of coffee.

It's theists who make claims about the morality an actions of atheists. Atheists would argue that their actions and morality are governed by other codes of conducts than by a badly written book of contradicting morality.

I suspect that is why atheists want to argue with theists rather than agnostics.

It is so much easier.