What are atheists?

[rekabis]

Remember, the Holocaust was all about ideology and politics - in any systematic destruction of a religion (religious persecution), people are able to escape persecution by converting to another religion. In Nazi Europe this was not an option -- Jews were killed whether or not they converted to Christianity, which took Religion itself out of the equation: it was a pogrom against a specific group of people, not their religion, that made them a target.

Had it been the Jewish religion that was specifically targeted, people could have simply converted to other religions to escape the persecution. However, even those who were clearly Christian and had been so from birth, but who had Jewish ancestors, were targeted for death. You don’t get that with religious pogroms, only ideological ones..

So the Jews, being distinct as both a race and religion and biblically declared as God's chosen people, were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time??

GOTT MIT UNS!!!

Do you not recall this slogan on the belt buckles, daggers and other Nazi regalia and accoutrements??

First question: Yes. If not for them, it could have just as easily been the Gypsies. Oh, wait… about that.

Remainder:
Define: Propaganda. Also see: Political Ideology. Google is your friend.

Corollary: We also sing “God Save the Queen” as one of our anthems. When we participated in the Gulf War, did that make us inherently anti-muslim? Should we have rounded up all Muslims and put them into security camps for our own safety simply because of that verse? Or should we have changed the verse to “Allah Save the Queen”?

Remember, correlation does not equal causation. Anyone properly schooled in Critical Thinking and the Scientific Method knows this, as it’s an invaluable bullshite detector.

[fluffy]

....These are the kinds of things that need to be addressed before any sort of measurement of happiness can conform to the Scientific Method.

So perhaps the scientific method falls a little short in this instance. If I were to say to you the I am happier with God in my life than I was before how would you respond to that?

[5VP]

Remember, the Holocaust was all about ideology and politics - in any systematic destruction of a religion (religious persecution), people are able to escape persecution by converting to another religion. In Nazi Europe this was not an option -- Jews were killed whether or not they converted to Christianity, which took Religion itself out of the equation: it was a pogrom against a specific group of people, not their religion, that made them a target.

Had it been the Jewish religion that was specifically targeted, people could have simply converted to other religions to escape the persecution. However, even those who were clearly Christian and had been so from birth, but who had Jewish ancestors, were targeted for death. You don’t get that with religious pogroms, only ideological ones..

So the Jews, being distinct as both a race and religion and biblically declared as God's chosen people, were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time??

GOTT MIT UNS!!!

Do you not recall this slogan on the belt buckles, daggers and other Nazi regalia and accoutrements??

First question: Yes. If not for them, it could have just as easily been the Gypsies. Oh, wait… about that.

Remainder:
Define: Propaganda. Also see: Political Ideology. Google is your friend.

Corollary: We also sing “God Save the Queen” as one of our anthems. When we participated in the Gulf War, did that make us inherently anti-muslim? Should we have rounded up all Muslims and put them into security camps for our own safety simply because of that verse? Or should we have changed the verse to “Allah Save the Queen”?

Remember, correlation does not equal causation. Anyone properly schooled in Critical Thinking and the Scientific Method knows this, as it’s an invaluable bullshite detector.

Our participation in the Gulf was minimal compared to Afghanistan. The US does not have a queen.

So; using critical thinking and scientific method; in one paragraph you use a vague analogy/corollary (anti-muslim queen?) to dodge the point that WW2 was indeed religiously motivated and then, in the next paragraph, you refer to a definition that negates the value of your own corollary?

Your BS detector and MACK truck are overdue for service.

It seems from the posts of atheists here that, "atheists" are also anti-theist and more particularly anti-christian, and schooled in the Art of Dodgery, flim flam and bafflegab...

They use a rationale that would have you believe that Charlie Sheen himself signed the Declaration of Independence under the pseudonym of Ben Franklin because there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

God is non denominational so how does referring to "God save the Queen" now, in the 21st century, 70 years removed from the event, rationalize and negate the religious purges of the Holocaust, which are documented to have occured, complete with complicity of the catholic church??

This is revisionism.

Allah hu akhbar...

[rekabis]

....These are the kinds of things that need to be addressed before any sort of measurement of happiness can conform to the Scientific Method.

So perhaps the scientific method falls a little short in this instance. If I were to say to you the I am happier with God in my life than I was before how would you respond to that?

I would say: good for you. Clearly, engaging in that activity makes you feel happier and more fulfilled as a person. If God is really the largest factor in your ability to be happier, then it is working out for you.

However, beyond what I would say to you directly, I should point out that there are many things that can replace God as the largest factor of happiness for many people. Some would find greatest happiness in helping others (nurses, etc.), others in inventing new things, and others would find it in exploring the universe and making discoveries (many scientists fit this category). And yet others would find their greatest happiness raping women and killing children. Are these models for happiness appropriate? No. Not all of them. And that is why measuring and quantifying happiness will always fail: because the measure of happiness is always dependent on the individual being measured, and that invalidates it as a benchmark to be used for comparison between people.

I do not have a problem with a personal belief in God. You want to believe in him? Go ahead. What I have a problem with is when people who believe in God try to spin that belief off as a “truth”. It is NOT a truth. It is a belief, nothing more. A “truth” (or in Scientific terms, an accurate model of Reality) is something which can be defined, measured and tested for without any input or opinion from a sentient being. In fact, such a Scientific Model requires a lack of a sentient being in these processes, otherwise the sentient being “contaminates” the process with their own belief structure, rendering the “truth” invalid by default.

And that is how you can determine what is really Scientific Fact and what is Pseudoscience/Fantasy: the former will be completely independent from opinion and belief, and can be tested to that premise; the latter will in some way rely on opinion or belief (usually both) and will fall apart when tested for using the Scientific Method.

Remember, in Science there is no belief, only a certain amount of trust owing from, and in proportion to, the amount, breadth and variety of previous experimentation that utilizes the Scientific Method.

[rekabis]

Remember, the Holocaust was all about ideology and politics - in any systematic destruction of a religion (religious persecution), people are able to escape persecution by converting to another religion. In Nazi Europe this was not an option -- Jews were killed whether or not they converted to Christianity, which took Religion itself out of the equation: it was a pogrom against a specific group of people, not their religion, that made them a target.

Had it been the Jewish religion that was specifically targeted, people could have simply converted to other religions to escape the persecution. However, even those who were clearly Christian and had been so from birth, but who had Jewish ancestors, were targeted for death. You don’t get that with religious pogroms, only ideological ones..

So the Jews, being distinct as both a race and religion and biblically declared as God's chosen people, were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time??

GOTT MIT UNS!!!

Do you not recall this slogan on the belt buckles, daggers and other Nazi regalia and accoutrements??

First question: Yes. If not for them, it could have just as easily been the Gypsies. Oh, wait… about that.

Remainder:
Define: Propaganda. Also see: Political Ideology. Google is your friend.

Corollary: We also sing “God Save the Queen” as one of our anthems. When we participated in the Gulf War, did that make us inherently anti-muslim? Should we have rounded up all Muslims and put them into security camps for our own safety simply because of that verse? Or should we have changed the verse to “Allah Save the Queen”?

Remember, correlation does not equal causation. Anyone properly schooled in Critical Thinking and the Scientific Method knows this, as it’s an invaluable bullshite detector.

Our participation in the Gulf was minimal compared to Afghanistan. The US does not have a queen.

So; using critical thinking and scientific method; in one paragraph you use a vague analogy/corollary (anti-muslim queen?) to dodge the point that WW2 was indeed religiously motivated and then, in the next paragraph, you refer to a definition that negates the value of your own corollary?

Your BS detector and MACK truck are overdue for service.

It seems from the posts of atheists here that, "atheists" are also anti-theist and more particularly anti-christian, and schooled in the Art of Dodgery, flim flam and bafflegab...

They use a rationale that would have you believe that Charlie Sheen himself signed the Declaration of Independence under the pseudonym of Ben Franklin because there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

God is non denominational so how does referring to "God save the Queen" now, in the 21st century, 70 years removed from the event, rationalize and negate the religious purges of the Holocaust, which are documented to have occured, complete with complicity of the catholic church??

This is revisionism.

Allah hu akhbar...

Aaaah… looks like someone ran out of ammunition for a logical debate, and has decided to descend into a full-blown, fly-off-the-handle Ad Hominen attack (one of the worst of the logical fallacies, IMHO).

Whelp, I guess it looks like it’s time for the following warning about 5VP:

DontFeedTheTroll.jpg

Clearly, the emotionally enraged spittle is flying from 5VP’s incensed lips, so I’m gonna stand back until he calms down enough to post rationally again. Until then, I seriously doubt anything productive is gonna get done around here… I’ll check back in a day or two.

[fluffy]

If God is really the largest factor in your ability to be happier...

I didn't say that though, did I?

I do not have a problem with a personal belief in God. You want to believe in him? Go ahead. What I have a problem with is when people who believe in God try to spin that belief off as a “truth”. It is NOT a truth. It is a belief, nothing more.

I have the same sort of reaction to those who would use science to ridicule the beliefs of others simply because they do not share them. It's kind of the same as those who browbeat others with biblical quotes.

A “truth” (or in Scientific terms, an accurate model of Reality) is something which can be defined, measured and tested for without any input or opinion from a sentient being. In fact, such a Scientific Model requires a lack of a sentient being in these processes, otherwise the sentient being “contaminates” the process with their own belief structure, rendering the “truth” invalid by default.

You speak from the presumption that God is a sentient being. This is not always the case, it is possible to hold a concept of God that does not fit the traditional mold.

And that is how you can determine what is really Scientific Fact and what is Pseudoscience/Fantasy: the former will be completely independent from opinion and belief, and can be tested to that premise; the latter will in some way rely on opinion or belief (usually both) and will fall apart when tested for using the Scientific Method..

What about the areas where the science is incomplete, or virtually non-existent? Does a lack of research/testing/scientific proof automatically assume that a given concept is false? If the scientific method is supposed to begin with theorizing, what happens with concepts that are currently beyond our slightest comprehension?

It's possible to view prayer as a distant parallel to the scientific method. Where one begins with theorizing, prayer often begins with the asking of a question, and the simple act of framing that question in our minds often opens the path to an answer or solution. Many are prejudiced against the concepts of God and religion, and tend to close their minds as soon as a hint of either enters the playing field, choosing to opt for alternatives without even considering the possible benefits. This is sometimes called "contempt prior to investigation" and is not a wholly uncommon character flaw.

I put it to you that if the ultimate goal is truth, that God and science are merely two different paths to the same destination, paths that might not be as far apart as some assume.

[5VP]

Remember, the Holocaust was all about ideology and politics - in any systematic destruction of a religion (religious persecution), people are able to escape persecution by converting to another religion. In Nazi Europe this was not an option -- Jews were killed whether or not they converted to Christianity, which took Religion itself out of the equation: it was a pogrom against a specific group of people, not their religion, that made them a target.

Had it been the Jewish religion that was specifically targeted, people could have simply converted to other religions to escape the persecution. However, even those who were clearly Christian and had been so from birth, but who had Jewish ancestors, were targeted for death. You don’t get that with religious pogroms, only ideological ones..

So the Jews, being distinct as both a race and religion and biblically declared as God's chosen people, were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time??

GOTT MIT UNS!!!

Do you not recall this slogan on the belt buckles, daggers and other Nazi regalia and accoutrements??

First question: Yes. If not for them, it could have just as easily been the Gypsies. Oh, wait… about that.

Remainder:
Define: Propaganda. Also see: Political Ideology. Google is your friend.

Corollary: We also sing “God Save the Queen” as one of our anthems. When we participated in the Gulf War, did that make us inherently anti-muslim? Should we have rounded up all Muslims and put them into security camps for our own safety simply because of that verse? Or should we have changed the verse to “Allah Save the Queen”?

Remember, correlation does not equal causation. Anyone properly schooled in Critical Thinking and the Scientific Method knows this, as it’s an invaluable bullshite detector.

Our participation in the Gulf was minimal compared to Afghanistan. The US does not have a queen.

So; using critical thinking and scientific method; in one paragraph you use a vague analogy/corollary (anti-muslim queen?) to dodge the point that WW2 was indeed religiously motivated and then, in the next paragraph, you refer to a definition that negates the value of your own corollary?

Your BS detector and MACK truck are overdue for service.

It seems from the posts of atheists here that, "atheists" are also anti-theist and more particularly anti-christian, and schooled in the Art of Dodgery, flim flam and bafflegab...

They use a rationale that would have you believe that Charlie Sheen himself signed the Declaration of Independence under the pseudonym of Ben Franklin because there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

God is non denominational so how does referring to "God save the Queen" now, in the 21st century, 70 years removed from the event, rationalize and negate the religious purges of the Holocaust, which are documented to have occured, complete with complicity of the catholic church??

This is revisionism.

Allah hu akhbar...

Aaaah… looks like someone ran out of ammunition for a logical debate, and has decided to descend into a full-blown, fly-off-the-handle Ad Hominen attack (one of the worst of the logical fallacies, IMHO).

Whelp, I guess it looks like it’s time for the following warning about 5VP:

DontFeedTheTroll.jpg

Clearly, the emotionally enraged spittle is flying from 5VP’s incensed lips, so I’m gonna stand back until he calms down enough to post rationally again. Until then, I seriously doubt anything productive is gonna get done around here… I’ll check back in a day or two.

So is your above conjecture scientifically provable?

I spent too many years in the military to ever be out of ammo...

I can debate the logical, logically, but...

Did WW2 even happen in your revised reality rekabis or is your clipped and edited science now showing otherwise??

Still shaking my head about your holocaust comments...

What about the areas where the science is incomplete, or virtually non-existent? Does a lack of research/testing/scientific proof automatically assume that a given concept is false? If the scientific method is supposed to begin with theorizing, what happens with concepts that are currently beyond our slightest comprehension?

It's possible to view prayer as a distant parallel to the scientific method. Where one begins with theorizing, prayer often begins with the asking of a question, and the simple act of framing that question in our minds often opens the path to an answer or solution. Many are prejudiced against the concepts of God and religion, and tend to close their minds as soon as a hint of either enters the playing field, choosing to opt for alternatives without even considering the possible benefits. This is sometimes called "contempt prior to investigation" and is not a wholly uncommon character flaw.

I put it to you that if the ultimate goal is truth, that God and science are merely two different paths to the same destination, paths that might not be as far apart as some assume.

Exactly.

Putting all your eggs in the basket of science is not a wise policy...

[1nick]

Thats a two way street.

[fluffy]

Thats a two way street.

It sure is, there is no shortage of those who would dispute proven scientific fact in favour of some ancient folk tale, the creationism/evolution argument is a prime example. I see it as another reason for a flexible belief system, one capable of constant revision whenever new information comes to light, yet one that remains open to the mystery of the as-yet undiscovered.

[Cubedweller]

What is an atheist?

An atheist is a person who, for any number of reasons, lacks a belief in a deity.

For example: I am an atheist because there is currently insufficient evidence to convince me to believe in any deity.

Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity.

I don't know why there is so much confusion about the subject. Atheism is a religious belief in the same way that 'non-stamp collecting' is a hobby, or 'bald' is a hair colour.

If we want to be a bit more specific, there are generally two 'types' of atheism out there: gnostic atheism and agnostic atheism.

Agnostic atheism: I lack sufficient evidence to justify a belief in deity 'X', but if evidence were presented that was sufficiently convincing, I would consider altering my lack of belief accordingly.

Gnostic atheism: I know that there is no deity. I believe that I can prove - either logically or empirically - that there is no such being as deity 'X'.

That's it, that's all. 'Where do atheists obtain their morals?' That's a different question. 'What do atheists believe?' Also a different question.
If one has any specific questions about atheism or my particular brand of atheism, I'd be more than happy to answer them.

[Born_again]

You're wasting your time, Cubedweller. Good post though, and its message has been expounded here for years with absolutely no success. It seems that Truth has more authority than truth for some weird reason(well, it's not that weird as we know full well why it is so!).
Welcome to the boards.

[fluffy]

What is an atheist?

An atheist is a person who, for any number of reasons, lacks a belief in a deity.

Lately there is a proliferation of varying degrees between atheism and agnosticism. I've always been okay with the dictionary definitions of both, where a true atheist flatly does not believe in a deity or deities, and the agnostic is uncommitted either way due to lack of evidence. I'm not sure why many who would label themselves "atheist" want to temper the dictionary definition to move away from absolute disbelief towards a more agnostic viewpoint, but I don't suppose it's really important in the big picture, we all manage to find our place somehow.

[/stir]

[5VP]

I would say: good for you. Clearly, engaging in that activity makes you feel happier and more fulfilled as a person. If God is really the largest factor in your ability to be happier, then it is working out for you.

However, beyond what I would say to you directly, I should point out that there are many things that can replace God as the largest factor of happiness for many people. Some would find greatest happiness in helping others (nurses, etc.), others in inventing new things, and others would find it in exploring the universe and making discoveries (many scientists fit this category). And yet others would find their greatest happiness raping women and killing children. Are these models for happiness appropriate? No. Not all of them. And that is why measuring and quantifying happiness will always fail: because the measure of happiness is always dependent on the individual being measured, and that invalidates it as a benchmark to be used for comparison between people.

This is where people miss the boat about the GOD thing...

Sure, God is the largest factor in our lives. He created our bodies from the earth in his image just as we now emulate God's creative abilities and similarly create our own devices from the earth including creating and dabbling with biological processes of living forms.

If we can do it God certainly can.

God is a creative factor in our lives to be sure; but the rest of the billions of factors that make up our day to day spirit lives is up to us to decide upon.

Our spirit lives our God's gift, not only to us, but also to himself.

The walking waterbags we call our bodies come from the earth but our souls and freewill mindsets are derived from heaven and manifest in each of us as the holy spirit.

The good and evil things you describe as elements of various human forms of "happiness" are the result of the countless decisions made by all ancestral freewill humanity over the eons of our existence.

That is the spirit in "action, reaction and random interaction" (Neil Peart).

The earth began as the garden of Eden but was quickly subsumed by Satan because he saw the flaw in our human design (we have egos) which has allowed him to manipulate our freewill.

He saw that though our bodies are created in God's image from the earth, some humans, or more specifically some freewill human souls are prone to being lazy and selfseeking, competitive against others, brutal and murderous and could be influenced by the temptations of iniquity if not directly by sin and satan has been working hard ever since to lay claim to as much of the heavenly spirit he lost, after being cast from heaven, as possible.

As a counterfoil to this atheo-Satanism and failure of the Garden of Eden, God eventually destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and when mankind still didn't take heed, he chose the Jews and gave Moses the 10 Commandments. When mankind still didn't give heed, he sent his son, (the archangel Michael) Jesus "the Christ", to prove to the father that was possible for heavenly spirit to be imbued into human bodies, live a full life by god's wishes and complete the redemption of the soul to heaven upon our deaths.

Had that mission failed I'm sure we would have all been smote and replaced (again) by dinosaurs and not now debating God's existence on internet forums.

Luckily for us, the Christ Michael was brave enough to prove this.

The race for our souls has been on since "the beginning" described in the Book of Genesis.


Are you ready??

[5VP]

What is an atheist?

An atheist is a person who, for any number of reasons, lacks a belief in a deity.

For example: I am an atheist because there is currently insufficient evidence to convince me to believe in any deity.

Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity.

I don't know why there is so much confusion about the subject. Atheism is a religious belief in the same way that 'non-stamp collecting' is a hobby, or 'bald' is a hair colour.

If we want to be a bit more specific, there are generally two 'types' of atheism out there: gnostic atheism and agnostic atheism.

Agnostic atheism: I lack sufficient evidence to justify a belief in deity 'X', but if evidence were presented that was sufficiently convincing, I would consider altering my lack of belief accordingly.

Gnostic atheism: I know that there is no deity. I believe that I can prove - either logically or empirically - that there is no such being as deity 'X'.

That's it, that's all. 'Where do atheists obtain their morals?' That's a different question. 'What do atheists believe?' Also a different question.
If one has any specific questions about atheism or my particular brand of atheism, I'd be more than happy to answer them.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

Atheism easily fits into the same rules or definitions as any other established set of beliefs or guiding rules including those of science.

Saying atheism is distinct from religion is like saying that, the pigskin football is not related to the rules of the game of football.

You can't have one without the other...

[DerKaiser]

...
Luckily for us, the Christ Michael was brave enough to prove this.
...

The who???