• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Twilight Of The Godless: The Death Of Atheism?

To rudely quote myself,

to state that one doesn't personally believe in religion may be a polite way of saying that one finds the whole thing a pile of bollocks which oppresses the human spirit and blights progress.
Click to expand...

That's how a lot of people feel. They don't want an argument, they're not rebelling because there's nothing to rebel against. They're just not interested. Religion is irrelevant to them.

That's not to say that people don't have any spiritual beliefs/superstitions at all. We're only monkeys, we're not entirely rational.
 
I don't have a problem with anyone believing anything, but should they try to force their stupidity onto me, or be a self-righteous knob about it, then that's another matter. And that applies both to religious maniacs and atheist maniacs alike.
 
escargot1 said:
We're only monkeys, we're not entirely rational.
Click to expand...
Depends on the perspective one adopts.

Peoples biggest competitive advantage (vs. other species) is our ability to cooperate. Cooperation is difficult to establish and hard to maintain. The human (monkey) brain developed to resolve the issues of living in co-operative in-groups (tribes or extended family units) and decisions made on this basis favour harmony, cementing one's position in the group, consistency of behaviour, reciprocity and 'our group takes priority over all other groups'.

Being right or wrong about 'what made the best spear-head' was neither here nor there and in contrast to a group functioning well as a group, a slightly improved spear-head had a much lower survival value. In Africa 500,000 years ago anyway.

Behaviour and thinking that seems irrational or silly from an "materially logical" perspective can make perfect sense from this social in-group-interaction viewpoint.

For myself, I define 'materially logical thinking' as 'reasoning' and the 'social interaction thinking' as 'thinking'. Everybody 'thinks' all the time. Most of us hardly ever 'reason', it's a newer skill and the results often pit us against our own 'social instincts'.

It's uncomfortable and it's probably why colloquially we say 'thinking is hard work'. 'Reasoning' certainly is. It's even harder to act on it. It's why whistleblowers feel bad even when they know they're right. It's also why they get reviled by people who know the whistleblower is right as well.

I'd go further and say that this is where the great and cliched idea of technical types not apparently having social skills comes from - they spend more time reasoning (one cannot bullshit physics and flint) and it's hard to flip back and forth between 'reasoning' and 'thinking'.

Technical types are just more evolved is all. :)

This blinding flash of insight © Coal 2017
 
Last edited:
Escargot1,

...Also, to state that one doesn't personally believe in religion may be a polite way of saying that one finds the whole thing a pile of bollocks which oppresses the human spirit and blights progress...

Just about sums it up.

Coastaljames,

...Atheism always rather puzzles me. To say you don't believe in something rather suggests that there is a something to not believe in.

It's negation gives it validity.


No, what it means it that, having thought things through and considered the evidence for or against the existence of some single deity (in the normal Biblical context) an atheist has come to the conclusion that there really is nothing there.

You have to admit that organised religion is a very powerful people control system.

'Believe what we say or we will ostracize you, or even kill you' is a very direct way of saying who is boss.

And when it pertains to something that cannot be directly proven it is even more so.

INT21
 
Drbastard,


I have not heard of a case where some atheist has tried to force his or her view on anyone.

Most atheist probably don't see the point.

INT21
 
Coal,

An apparent lack of social skill amongst more technical types can be down to the fact that it is often better not to converse at all to people who have a particularly strong belief in something you do not share. even if the evidence is in your favour. Doing so may create a bad situation.

In other words, sometimes best to think carefully of the consequences before attempting to reason.

INT21
 
INT21 said:
Coal,

An apparent lack of social skill amongst more technical types can be down to the fact that it is often better not to converse at all to people who have a particularly strong belief in something you do not share. even if the evidence is in your favour. Doing so may create a bad situation.

In other words, sometimes best to think carefully of the consequences before attempting to reason.

INT21
Click to expand...
Very true. Been there done that. Should have put 'apparently' in my original post (edited it now) as I've met many who 'apparently' have no social skills, but miss nothing...just don't care to get involved in the b/s.

When you chuck in the tendency for the blindly optimistic 'norms'* to label technical people as 'negative' for having the temerity to be pragmatic, it all gets very divided.

(Should point out I designed electronics for many many years...:))

*Norm (n). One afflicted with almost no technical ability nor any ability to reason.
 
It's a contentious issue I guess isn't it - having faith or not having faith. Seems to wind a lot of people up. Never that sure why.

For me- you're a dickhead or you're not. I've met some very cool people of faith and met some dickhead people of faith. Exactly the same goes for people with no faith.

All pretty irrelevant to me. You're either a dickhead or you're not a dickhead.
 
Last edited:
The problem is that for some religions "Be a dickhead" is a religious commandment.
 
Coastaljames,

...It's a contentious issue I guess isn't it - having faith or not having faith. Seems to wind a lot of people up. Never that sure why..

I think it is because of the things that are done in the name of something that cannot be proved to exist, only believed to. Hence faith.

And, of course, some of us simple need to be sure before we accept a particular version of reality.

Reality in itself being pretty subjective.

It's a no win situation.

INT21
 


Guess what is inside angel's envelope


?


Randi's Head


For further clarification of the events of 9/11:


THE TYPICAL ATHEIST STRAWMAN ARGUMENT:


OUR RESPONSE:

https://nostradamususa.wordpress.com

https://nostradamusart.wordpress.com



It was only a question of time before this crap would trigger full-scale divine retaliation.

We love it when atheists fulfil prophecy:



You can thank RANDI!

Now for some SYMBOLIC TWO-DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS!

On the TIMELINE:

0 min 33 sec Randi in the RED SHIRT – signifying the *bl..dy deed* that is about to happen.

1 min 18 sec Banachek talks about respect for the claimant and then they mock “these kind” of people in the final part.

3 min 20 sec The test of the power bracelet that increases a person’s energy and balance. Notice our challenge is all about POWER & BALANCE, proving the existence of a HIGHER POWER.

5 min 15 sec TEST BEGINS. Skeptics one by one stand in CRUCIFIXION POSE.

1 hr 10 min 21 sec Test is ended in failure.

1 hr 10 min 30 sec Request is made to make change to the PROTOCOL.

1 hr 10 min 51 sec Applause is made by all those who wanted him to fail from the very beginning.

1 hr 25 min 39 sec Now they talk about the Nightline clip that was filmed in Manhattan, also the scene of the 9/11 event.

1hr 28 min 42 sec They talk about make-shift tests. They think that because no one can win the prize that psychic phenomena does not exist.

1 hr 29 min 45 sec Banachek says “the majority of ‘these’ people.” A contemptuous reference that occurs repeatedly.

1 hr 31 min 53 sec The reference to envelopes. Remember the 911 in Angel’s envelope!

1 hr 37 min 11 sec Swiss says he is not worried about a paranormal event happening. Little does he know what is actually taking place.

1 hr 39 min 50 sec The mocking of SPIRITS!

1 hr 40 min 27 sec Reference made to the TERROR of witnessing a supernatural event, i.e, the blood leaving the face.

1 hr 41 min 15 sec Reference to “these people” once again.

1 hr 41 min 40 sec Belief in the supernatural is claimed to be a psychological defence mechanism to cope with reality. Swiss talks about how desperate the psychics become when debunked. Little does he know what is happening to the skeptics!

1 hr 42 min 11 sec WHEN PROPHECY SUCCEEDS! KABOOM…

A OR B – A veiled reference to the pseudodemocratic American political process, which they don’t have a clue in the world about…

now you know the origins of the “ATHEIST STRAWMAN”



The last item was placed there just for you, Randi...


ENJOY THE...



AATTTTAAACK!
 
Welcome to the message board, hitman.

We'd appreciate some kind of narrative overview of what you are setting out to prove and how these videos you have posted help to do this.

Your post makes me feel like I've walked in on a conversation halfway through and I'm not really sure what the topic is.
 
The links I provide give a full explanation. Obviously too much to be dealt with here on this forum.
 
hitman said:
The links I provide give a full explanation. Obviously too much to be dealt with here on this forum.
Click to expand...

Be polite --we approved your membership earlier and can remove it and post your IP address, email address and location to spam-fighting services in a matter of minutes.

We get a lot of YouTube spammers with silly claims about aliens, Jesus and 9/11. Users here do not drop posts like yours because this is a discussion board.

So let's try again: what would you like to discuss?
 
This is the problem:

"We get a lot of YouTube spammers with silly claims about aliens, Jesus and 9/11."

WHO ARE YOU TO DECIDE WHAT ARE SILLY CLAIMS? APPARENTLY, ONLY YOU AND YOUR TYPE KNOW WHAT IS REAL OR NOT. PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO BELIEVE WHATEVER THEY WANT AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT SERIOUSLY HARM ANYONE.
 
hitman said:
This is the problem:

"We get a lot of YouTube spammers with silly claims about aliens, Jesus and 9/11."

WHO ARE YOU TO DECIDE WHAT ARE SILLY CLAIMS? APPARENTLY, ONLY YOU AND YOUR TYPE KNOW WHAT IS REAL OR NOT. PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO BELIEVE WHATEVER THEY WANT AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT SERIOUSLY HARM ANYONE.
Click to expand...

Staying long?
 
It's called Freedom of Speech, Something people have forgotten in the totalitarian age. Atheism would flatten reality to an inescapable singular dimension. The times and prevailing ideology mirror each other.
 
You can delete this post, which we totally expect. But it only proves our point.
 
hitman said:
... WHO ARE YOU TO DECIDE WHAT ARE SILLY CLAIMS? APPARENTLY, ONLY YOU AND YOUR TYPE KNOW WHAT IS REAL OR NOT. PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO BELIEVE WHATEVER THEY WANT AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT SERIOUSLY HARM ANYONE.
Click to expand...

Conversely ... Who are you to decide what manner of chaotically concatenated collages pass for coherent contributions to this forum?

You're welcome to believe whatever you wish. You're not welcome to assume we are obligated to accept, much less tolerate, outright rants.

How about you state what your position(s) / agenda(s) may be, so that others have a clue what you're ranting about.
 
We need a permanent and wide-spread record of these idiots so as to prevent future tragedies of this sort from occurring. You will obviously try to do everything in your power to distort, destroy, and defame this damning evidence. You basically have dug your own graves.

We want the facts out there and to speak for themselves and let the people decide.
 
hitman said:
... We want the facts out there and to speak for themselves and let the people decide.
Click to expand...

What 'we' do you represent, and what facts do you so obviously find 'speaking to you'?
 
hitman said:
We need a permanent and wide-spread record of these idiots so as to prevent future tragedies of this sort from occurring. You will obviously try to do everything in your power to distort, destroy, and defame this damning evidence. You basically have dug your own graves.

We want the facts out there and to speak for themselves and let the people decide.
Click to expand...

We're listening, genuinely.

If there's a thesis you wish to discuss or a theory you want to explain, do so without the peevish throat-clearing and we'll hear you out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top