Originally posted by Bigdavo

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Bigdavo

 

Well it's a shame you've had to do that, he used to make intelligent posts and I didn't mind reading his opinion but now it's just marxist this, socialist that, utter drivel and always the same old rhetoric. I can see why you would put him on ignore.

 

He put me on ignore because I got him to admit that he doesn't read books, because he thinks they are "outdated." Now I chastise the him for that. It upsets him, so he put me on ignore.

As everyone knows, ignore = PWNage.

Now, as to my "rhetoric," am not just using rhetoric. The discussion of ideas and concepts is not rhetoric. Do you know what the word actually means?

As another act of grace in this thread, I will share with you a basic definition of rhetoric to correct your misuse of the word.

 

Main Entry: rhet·o·ric
Pronunciation: \?re-t?-rik\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English rethorik, from Anglo-French rethorique, from Latin rhetorica, from Greek rh?torik?, literally, art of oratory, from feminine of rh?torikos of an orator, from rh?t?r orator, rhetorician, from eirein to say, speak — more at word
Date: 14th century

1 : the art of speaking or writing effectively: as a : the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times b : the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion
2 a : skill in the effective use of speech b : a type or mode of language or speech; also : insincere or grandiloquent language
3 : verbal communication : discourse

 

 

Now, I am thankful you feel I speak effectively, find it hard that you consider it an insult to say so (pretty weird actually), but discussing concepts, ideas, intellectual pedigrees, and the like is more than just HOW one speaks about something. The words have concepts tied to them, and I feel they are worth discussing.

Anyway, you're welcome in advance for helping you stop sliding down the path into the illitaracy we so often see on these boards.

 

Rhetoric (countable and uncountable; plural rhetorics)

1.The art of using language, especially public speaking, as a means to persuade.

2.Meaningless language with an exaggerated style intended to impress.

It’s only so much rhetoric.

---

Don't try to be a smartass because you're not. You knew exactly what I meant and there is a definition to back it up, I'll concede it has multiple meanings. And before you complain about it being a wiki link there are numerous other websites where I can find a similar definition.

Note the 'meaningless language', you're avid use of the words marxist and socialist may have strong meanings but the context in which you often use them are pointless, therefore I stand by my original statement - 'same old rhetoric'.

However, I always define my terms and attempt to use them very carefully. I have studied marxism my whole life, began my studies in  earnest over twenty years ago under David H. DeGrood, a well known Marxist philosopher. He can be googled. His books can be read. That which I know I started out with him and I use HIS terminology.

I always use the terms, the ideas, and all associations very carefully and as precisely as I can. As all philosophers are supposed to do, I make sure my definitions and my usage are as consistent as possible.

Please, instead of throwing childish, meaningless attacks, SHOW how I am using the terms I use incorrectly. Share your expertise, show it is greater than mine, and make your case. Prove me wrong. Show how I am using "meaningless language."

Originally posted by Fishermage

 

making the world a better place i the social context would be ending slavery, bringing forth democratic government, equality of the sexes, equality of the races, tolerance of differing views, charity, loving one's neighbor, and all the things humans do to simply make the world a better place.

I can't think of ANY big atheists who are of this type.

Atheists tend to sit all these things out, and instead concentrate on the physical sciences.

When we look at the people who have changed society for the better, we see religious people all over the place.

In the sciences we see both types, and every thing in between.

However, when atheists sit down to make a government, every time they have tried, they have reinvented the human slaughterhouse. I know of no society started by atheists -- based upon philosophical principles developed by atheists,  that is not of this type.

 

All of that is complete bullshit. If you really think that there were never atheists who hadn't participated in the aforementioned, then you are simply forcing yourself to ignore all of the facts.

Theism was so intolerant of other beliefs that it wouldn't permit ANYTHING BUT theism for hundreds of years; atheism could not coexist with many of those movements, because it had been nearly illegal to be an atheist. When they finally stopped burning witches and slaying heretics, the few who did dare to question religious practices were ostracized.

See, just because you can't think of any doesn't mean that there weren't any. That is true arrogance, not stating that people who don't have much education are relegated to using religion as point of reference when nothing else is available to them.

It actually is easy to try do the right thing: The difference between the efficacy of the atheist and the theist is that the theist has popularity on his/her side . All of what you had mentioned required nothing but politics; there was no grind, or sweat spent to implement those reforms, but political power. Many of those things are already intuitive for a rational human being; you don't need religion to empathize and sympathize with others.

Right now atheists are in charge of governments that more than fit your bill of enlightenment (see Scandinavia).

I still disagree that your social contributions are even half as noteworthy as those in science: Gender equality, abolition and everything else comes intuitively to most human beings, but technological advances that required lifetimes of dedication and devotion do not.

Originally posted by //\\//\\oo

Originally posted by Fishermage

 

making the world a better place i the social context would be ending slavery, bringing forth democratic government, equality of the sexes, equality of the races, tolerance of differing views, charity, loving one's neighbor, and all the things humans do to simply make the world a better place.

I can't think of ANY big atheists who are of this type.

Atheists tend to sit all these things out, and instead concentrate on the physical sciences.

When we look at the people who have changed society for the better, we see religious people all over the place.

In the sciences we see both types, and every thing in between.

However, when atheists sit down to make a government, every time they have tried, they have reinvented the human slaughterhouse. I know of no society started by atheists -- based upon philosophical principles developed by atheists,  that is not of this type.

 

 

All of that is complete bullshit. If you really think that there were never atheists who hadn't participated in the aforementioned, then you are simply forcing yourself to ignore all of the facts.

Theism was so intolerant of other beliefs that it wouldn't permit ANYTHING BUT theism for hundreds of years; atheism could not coexist with many of those movements, because it had been nearly illegal to be an atheist. When they finally stopped burning witches and slaying heretics, the few who did dare to question religious practices were ostracized.

See, just because you can't think of any doesn't mean that there weren't any. That is true arrogance, not stating that people who don't have much education are relegated to using religion as point of reference when nothing else is available to them.

It actually is easy to try do the right thing: The difference between the efficacy of the atheist and the theist is that the theist has popularity on his/her side . All of what you had mentioned required nothing but politics; there was no grind, or sweat spent to implement those reforms, but political power. Many of those things are already intuitive for a rational human being; you don't need religion to empathize and sympathize with others.

Right now atheists are in charge of governments that more than fit your bill of enlightenment (see Scandinavia).

I still disagree that your social contributions are even half as noteworthy as those in science: Gender equality, abolition and everything else comes intuitively to most human beings, but technological advances that required lifetimes of dedication and devotion do not.

Actually, it is you who is handing people complete bullshit, and evading everything I am saying, then bringing forth the usual bullshit against religion -- that I again has nothing to do with what we are talking about. There are and have been plenty of bad religious people, bad religious actions. However, EVERYTHING good in the social context has been brought forth by men and women of some religion or another trying to act out their faith. Sure atheists partuciplate but NONE are original in their ideas, Every mral principle they act upon came from some religion.

However, I am willing to actually listen to your case.

Please, show me ANY atheist who has created a workable ethic that was not borrowed from some religion. Share one atheist philosopher who has done this. I am aware of two: Rand and Marx. Both are failures.

Originally posted by Precusor

Originally posted by Sabiancym

I'm looking forward to this religion spreading.  Christianity is on the decline in this country and it's getting boring arguing with them.  I need a new invisible magic man to denounce.

 

Yeah right..  militant atheists are too chicken shit to go after Islam and those brave ones that do gets this

 

German Publisher, Fearing Muslim Retaliation, Cancels Honor-Killing Novel

A German book publisher has canceled a novel about Islamic "honor killings," fearing that the book would offend the Muslim community and put him in danger. Critics of the decision call it a cowardly move, but others say the publisher is simply being responsible.

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,563380,00.html

 

 

The reason why Atheists go after christianity more is because christianity has a much bigger presence in the west and because of that, is a much bigger threat than Islam is.

When atheists attack the existance of a deity, they are refering to all of them, not just the one of christianity.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Actually, it is you who is handing people complete bullshit, and evading everything I am saying, then bringing forth the usual bullshit against religion -- that I again has nothing to do with what we are talking about. There are and have been plenty of bad religious people, bad religious actions. However, EVERYTHING good in the social context has been brought forth by men and women of some religion or another trying to act out their faith. Sure atheists partuciplate but NONE are original in their ideas, Every mral principle they act upon came from some religion.

However, I am willing to actually listen to your case.

Please, show me ANY atheist who has created a workable ethic that was not borrowed from some religion. Share one atheist philosopher who has done this. I am aware of two: Rand and Marx. Both are failures.

 

 

   They're not failures: The implementations were the failures (arguably). Philosophy is merely the art of creating something that agrees with a set of morals; there is nothing technical about it, so it really can't be taken seriously.

  No philosophy is rigorous enough to tackle real optima instead of making conventions and following them consistently, since people with the necessary background usually have better things to do (see science). The fact of the matter is that philosophy does not look at the bigger picture, but prescribes based on what it deems is right and wrong; the only thing mathematical about it is the need for consistency, however, like anything else in art it's entirely based on arbitrary conventions.

  Who is to say what society's goals should be? Should an economic approach be taken with everybody's utility taken into account, or should a biological approach be taken where everything is optimized around the survival of the species? Perhaps the religious approach, where ancient texts and myths are assumed which necessitate rituals and other rites for eternal bliss.

  There is absolutely no logical way to determine which one is more valid than the other (similarly to how Gödel showed that there are unprovable statements in consistent languages that can construct the natural numbers); a language can't prove itself.

   Maybe the universe is inconsistent and the nonsense lies in the fact that everything we do is based on notions of consistency. Nobody knows for sure and anybody who thinks they are entirely certain through perfect reasoning is merely fooling himself/herself. 

   So there is my answer: Marx, Rand and who gives a fuck about philosophy.

Originally posted by Gameloading

 

Just because a lot of people misunderstand how science works doesn't make it in any sense a religion. Nobody follows science because there is nothing to follow. Believing something does not equal religion.

True religion is usually associated by adherence to spiritual matters.

But also it's a devotion to a particular idea or concept.

So yes by believing in something and strictly adhering to it without bothering with anything else can and is classified as such.

Most people don't misunderstand anything, the believe firmly that science can fix anything or it is the solution to everything. And they are zealots about it even when they are not scientists themselves. Just because they replaced a "God" with a power tool doesn't change the basic concept.

Originally posted by sniperg

Originally posted by Gameloading

 

Just because a lot of people misunderstand how science works doesn't make it in any sense a religion. Nobody follows science because there is nothing to follow. Believing something does not equal religion.

True religion is usually associated by adherence to spiritual matters.

But also it's a devotion to a particular idea or concept.

So yes by believing in something and strictly adhering to it without bothering with anything else can and is classified as such.

Most people don't misunderstand anything, the believe firmly that science can fix anything or it is the solution to everything. And they are zealots about it even when they are not scientists themselves. Just because they replaced a "God" with a power tool doesn't change the basic concept.

You are using the word religion in an entirely different context. The religion you describe is not the same thing as spiritual religion such as christianity, islam etc. It's something entirely different.

You can somewhat compare it to the word fighting.
Fighting can refer to a competition in combat.
But Fighting can also refer to a person struggling for his life in a hospital.

Both are entirely different things, but it's the same term.

Science isn't a way of life or teaching. So to say " Science can fix anything" is not understanding what science really is. To say science is a religion but just replaced god with a power tool is downright incorrect.

Science is a method. Nothing more.

Originally posted by Fishermage

However, EVERYTHING good in the social context has been brought forth by men and women of some religion or another trying to act out their faith. Sure atheists partuciplate but NONE are original in their ideas, Every mral principle they act upon came from some religion.

Have you even read religious scripture? Let's just pick on slavery for starters...

"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

Just two quotes there and not only do we have slavery being endorced we have murder and racism. This is a religious scripture, what certain religious folk believe to be the word of their god, and todays society would be completely against this. Surely the religious people among us would have resisted and opposed the changes in society that have clearly brought us further away from god by outlawing slavery because as god has said it is their god given right to have slaves?

The answer here, which any atheist, agnostic, ignostic or moderate religious person can conclude without struggle is that society has moved on and secular ethics have replaced the outdated morals of the time when exodus was written. "Where do secular ethics come from?" You may ask, they can come from anyone (you might even say atheists are most likely to encourage these secular changes as they don't fear their totalitarian, thought policing, dictator god) but they are certainly not from religious scripture.

Originally posted by //\\//\\oo

Originally posted by Fishermage

Actually, it is you who is handing people complete bullshit, and evading everything I am saying, then bringing forth the usual bullshit against religion -- that I again has nothing to do with what we are talking about. There are and have been plenty of bad religious people, bad religious actions. However, EVERYTHING good in the social context has been brought forth by men and women of some religion or another trying to act out their faith. Sure atheists partuciplate but NONE are original in their ideas, Every mral principle they act upon came from some religion.

However, I am willing to actually listen to your case.

Please, show me ANY atheist who has created a workable ethic that was not borrowed from some religion. Share one atheist philosopher who has done this. I am aware of two: Rand and Marx. Both are failures.

 

 

   They're not failures: The implementations were the failures (arguably). Philosophy is merely the art of creating something that agrees with a set of morals; there is nothing technical about it, so it really can't be taken seriously.

  No philosophy is rigorous enough to tackle real optima instead of making conventions and following them consistently, since people with the necessary background usually have better things to do (see science). The fact of the matter is that philosophy does not look at the bigger picture, but prescribes based on what it deems is right and wrong; the only thing mathematical about it is the need for consistency, however, like anything else in art it's entirely based on arbitrary conventions.

  Who is to say what society's goals should be? Should an economic approach be taken with everybody's utility taken into account, or should a biological approach be taken where everything is optimized around the survival of the species? Perhaps the religious approach, where ancient texts and myths are assumed which necessitate rituals and other rites for eternal bliss.

  There is absolutely no logical way to determine which one is more valid than the other (similarly to how Gödel showed that there are unprovable statements in consistent languages that can construct the natural numbers); a language can't prove itself.

   Maybe the universe is inconsistent and the nonsense lies in the fact that everything we do is based on notions of consistency. Nobody knows for sure and anybody who thinks they are entirely certain through perfect reasoning is merely fooling himself/herself. 

   So there is my answer: Marx, Rand and who gives a fuck about philosophy.

 

 

  

 

Ah so they weren't failures but the were failures and nothing matters anyway. Game, set and match. I have driven you into the self collapsing deconstructionist deconstructionism. Thanks for playing.

The fact remains your atheism has failed to deliver the goods. End.

Originally posted by Jeffs

Originally posted by Fishermage

However, EVERYTHING good in the social context has been brought forth by men and women of some religion or another trying to act out their faith. Sure atheists partuciplate but NONE are original in their ideas, Every mral principle they act upon came from some religion.

 

Have you even read religious scripture? Let's just pick on slavery for starters...

 

"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

 

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

 

Just two quotes there and not only do we have slavery being endorced we have murder and racism. This is a religious scripture, what certain religious folk believe to be the word of their god, and todays society would be completely against this. Surely the religious people among us would have resisted and opposed the changes in society that have clearly brought us further away from god by outlawing slavery because as god has said it is their god given right to have slaves?

 

The answer here, which any atheist, agnostic, ignostic or moderate religious person can conclude without struggle is that society has moved on and secular ethics have replaced the outdated morals of the time when exodus was written. "Where do secular ethics come from?" You may ask, they can come from anyone (you might even say atheists are most likely to encourage these secular changes as they don't fear their totalitarian, thought policing, dictator god) but they are certainly not from religious scripture.

Once again you show your ignorance by cherry-picking out of context quotes that inherently prove nothing. Where does the quote come from? WHO is the writer> WHAT is the wroter's purpose? To Whom is he writing? All of those questions and more must FIRST be answered before you can say any of your quotes prove anything.

It also shows an ignorance of HOW those quotes influenced later generations in an out of various contexts.

Failing to do that once again shows you are ignorant.

In addition, it certainly doesn't prove God is a dictator.

EDIT: Plus, if you arein fact and ignostic, as you said elsewhere, you simply can not be talking about any of this. You, like Moo did in a different way, have deconstructed yourself out of reasonable conversation.

Originally posted by Fishermage 

Once again you show your ignorance by cherry-picking out of context quotes that inherently prove nothing. Where does the quote come from? WHO is the writer> WHAT is the wroter's purpose? To Whom is he writing? All of those questions and more must FIRST be answered before you can say any of your quotes prove anything.

It also shows an ignorance of HOW those quotes influenced later generations in an out of various contexts.

Failing to do that once again shows you are ignorant.

In addition, it certainly doesn't prove God is a dictator.

 

EDIT: Plus, if you arein fact and ignostic, as you said elsewhere, you simply can not be talking about any of this. You, like Moo did in a different way, have deconstructed yourself out of reasonable conversation.

The writer is irrelevant because it's meant to be gods word, surely? The quotes don't matter anyway you're just dodging the unanswerable questions. The bible (new testament and old) have pages and pages of homophobic, sexist, racist murderous and violent quotes. The only reason we don't burn gays, witches, people who work on sundays and albinos anymore is because of how societies' secular ethical standards change over time. Your assertion that atheists and infidels can't do good deeds is baseless anyway so I don't see why I'm argueing, you can't even give explanations as to why. You can list ethical principles and morals all day and night but you can't prove they didn't exist before organised religion and you can't show me how gay rights, womens rights and anti-slavery can be derived from religion alone. Maybe if you live inside a church basement in texas I can understand how you've missed all the atheists doing good deeds, but seriously you need to open your eyes.

As for god, can you really not see the resemblances between a dictatorship and god?

- No one ever voted for god.

- No one ever asked god if they could exist (for eternity), I certainly didn't.

- You can't escape god (at least in north korea you can escape through suicide).

- There's no hiding from god (he can even read your thoughts and then hold them against you).

And by the way that last edit was rediculous. I can see why you'd try to make this personal (it's all you can manage, really).

Originally posted by Jeffs

Originally posted by Fishermage 

Once again you show your ignorance by cherry-picking out of context quotes that inherently prove nothing. Where does the quote come from? WHO is the writer> WHAT is the wroter's purpose? To Whom is he writing? All of those questions and more must FIRST be answered before you can say any of your quotes prove anything.

It also shows an ignorance of HOW those quotes influenced later generations in an out of various contexts.

Failing to do that once again shows you are ignorant.

In addition, it certainly doesn't prove God is a dictator.

 

EDIT: Plus, if you arein fact and ignostic, as you said elsewhere, you simply can not be talking about any of this. You, like Moo did in a different way, have deconstructed yourself out of reasonable conversation.

 

The writer is irrelevant because it's meant to be gods word, surely? The quotes don't matter anyway you're just dodging the unanswerable questions. The bible (new testament and old) have pages and pages of homophobic, sexist, racist murderous and violent quotes. The only reason we don't burn gays, witches, people who work on sundays and albinos anymore is because of how societies' secular ethical standards change over time. Your assertion that atheists and infidels can't do good deeds is baseless anyway so I don't see why I'm argueing, you can't even give explanations as to why. You can list ethical principles and morals all day and night but you can't prove they didn't exist before organised religion and you can't show me how gay rights, womens rights and anti-slavery can be derived from religion alone. Maybe if you live inside a church basement in texas I can understand how you've missed all the atheists doing good deeds, but seriously you need to open your eyes.

 

As for god, can you really not see the resemblances between a dictatorship and god?

- No one ever voted for god.

- No one ever asked god if they could exist (for eternity), I certainly didn't.

- You can't escape god (at least in north korea you can escape through suicide).

- There's no hiding from god (he can even read your thoughts and then hold them against you).

 

And by the way that last edit was rediculous. I can see why you'd try to make this personal (it's all you can manage, really).

The Bible is not God's word in the sense that you are meaning, and you obvioulsy have no idea about biblical interoretation or criticism. You are simply arguing from a weak, fundamentalist perspective. Big deal you cabn prove fundamentalism is flawed. Obviously you have no idea what we are even  discussing here.

God is not a dictator for a very simple reason -- He is the owner. He is the creator. Therefore He doesn't even resemble a dictator. A creator of something is not a dictator, neither is the owner of something. however since God is meaningless there is no reason for discussion, coming from YOUR point of view.

I'm not trying to make anything personal; however, as an ignostic you have removed yourself from any conversation about God. That's the problem with deconstructionism. YOU claim God is a meaningless term, therefore YOU can't discuss it, if you care at all about the consistency of your own position. However, I know that anyone who even walks down the path of deconstructionism, ends up either inconsistent, or having his head explode.

YOU made it personal by BEING an ignostic and then starting a fake debate that clashes with ignosticism.

Originally posted by Fishermage 

The Bible is not God's word in the sense that you are meaning, and you obvioulsy have no idea about biblical interoretation or criticism. You are simply arguing from a weak, fundamentalist perspective. Big deal you cabn prove fundamentalism is flawed. Obviously you have no idea what we are even  discussing here.

God is not a dictator for a very simple reason -- He is the owner. He is the creator. Therefore He doesn't even resemble a dictator. A creator of something is not a dictator, neither is the owner of something. however since God is meaningless there is no reason for discussion, coming from YOUR point of view.

I'm not trying to make anything personal; however, as an ignostic you have removed yourself from any conversation about God. That's the problem with deconstructionism. YOU claim God is a meaningless term, therefore YOU can't discuss it, if you care at all about the consistency of your own position. However, I know that anyone who even walks down the path of deconstructionism, ends up either inconsistent, or having his head explode.

YOU made it personal by BEING an ignostic and then starting a fake debate that clashes with ignosticism.

You're right we don't call it a dictatorship because he's supposed to be the creator, but if kim jong il had created north korea it still doesn't mean it's ethical that he gets to dictate the people within it.

But you're still ignoring the unanswerable question. Ignore the discussion about god/dictatorship because it's distracting you (or atleast you're pretending it is). The reason I'm replying to you is because you said that atheists and non-believers are incapable of doing charity and moral deeds. You need to either back up why you think this is and why we need religion in order to do good deeds or admit you were wrong.

I'm not going to reply to your personal attacks because it's just giving you another distraction.

Originally posted by Jeffs

Originally posted by Fishermage 

The Bible is not God's word in the sense that you are meaning, and you obvioulsy have no idea about biblical interoretation or criticism. You are simply arguing from a weak, fundamentalist perspective. Big deal you cabn prove fundamentalism is flawed. Obviously you have no idea what we are even  discussing here.

God is not a dictator for a very simple reason -- He is the owner. He is the creator. Therefore He doesn't even resemble a dictator. A creator of something is not a dictator, neither is the owner of something. however since God is meaningless there is no reason for discussion, coming from YOUR point of view.

I'm not trying to make anything personal; however, as an ignostic you have removed yourself from any conversation about God. That's the problem with deconstructionism. YOU claim God is a meaningless term, therefore YOU can't discuss it, if you care at all about the consistency of your own position. However, I know that anyone who even walks down the path of deconstructionism, ends up either inconsistent, or having his head explode.

YOU made it personal by BEING an ignostic and then starting a fake debate that clashes with ignosticism.

 

You're right we don't call it a dictatorship because he's supposed to be the creator, but if kim jong il had created north korea it still doesn't mean it's ethical that he gets to dictate the people within it.

 

But you're still ignoring the unanswerable question. Ignore the discussion about god/dictatorship because it's distracting you (or atleast you're pretending it is). The reason I'm replying to you is because you said that atheists and non-believers are incapable of doing charity and moral deeds. You need to either back up why you think this is and why we need religion in order to do good deeds or admit you were wrong.

 

I'm not going to reply to your personal attacks because it's just giving you another distraction.

now you are simply lying, or showing you have serious reading comprehension issues. I never said that atheists are incapable of doing charity or moral deeds, in fact i said the opposite. What I said is there are no atheistic organizations that are in the forefront of doing good for others. Again we see that you have some serious difficulties in reading comprehension -- as I stated earlier.

I have also said that no atheists have ever created a working ethic or morality; none have ever created a working society or government that isn't a human slaughterhouse. Once again there is that reading comprehension issue. I think this ties very well with your inability to argue against religion, so you argue against fundamentalism instead, as if that was what defines a religion.

In other words you are simply lying to argue with straw men.

I am making no personal attacks, merely noting that you have removed yourself from all conversation about these things with your deconstructionist position and your dishonesty.

EDIT: also it is amusing that you attack the Creator with a standard that you stole from him. You need to come up with your own ethic if you are going to attack him on an ethical level.

Once again we see, scratch an atheist (or "ignostic"), find an ignorant bigot bordering on nihilism.

EDIT: oh and just to qualify for the atheist or "ignostic" fundamentalists out there who like to argue against straw men with lies, I am not saying EVERY atheist. It is however common enough to note the trend.

Islam is not a religion it is a way of life;
Shi'a insisting on only the Qur'an (recitation... from the Angel Gabriel [Jibril] over 23 years) and Sunnah (the sayings and living habits of Muhammad) while the sunni include the fiqh (interpretive law, consensus [ijma] and analogy [qiyas]).

You are thoroughly confused if you think being "christian" means you are faithful to the ideology and teachings of Christ, your 'professed Messiah' (Yeshua); christian just means you presume the immutable nt (new testament) is scripture (i.e. redacted interpretive mistranslated fabrications).
The nt, a blended consensus, is a tool, a source for the legal framework within which the public and private aspects of life are regulated; necessary once lifestyles expanded beyond tribal communities.

Originally posted by billie

Islam is not a religion it is a way of life;
Shi'a insisting on only the Qur'an (recitation... from the Angel Gabriel [Jibril] over 23 years) and Sunnah (the sayings and living habits of Muhammad) while the sunni include the fiqh (interpretive law, consensus [ijma] and analogy [qiyas]).

You are thoroughly confused if you think being "christian" means you are faithful to the ideology and teachings of Christ, your 'professed Messiah' (Yeshua); christian just means you presume the immutable nt (new testament) is scripture (i.e. redacted interpretive mistranslated fabrications).
The nt, a blended consensus, is a tool, a source for the legal framework within which the public and private aspects of life are regulated; necessary once lifestyles expanded beyond tribal communities.

Another interesting assessment of the data from you billie. I love how you think outside the box -- that's much more enjoyable than the conformist atheists  and petty deconstructionists we have around here.

I disagree with what you say, but at least you use your brain.

Would you share with us where we could read more about the interpretations you follow? Or is this completely your own? Either way, thanks for your interesting thoughts.

Originally posted by Fishermage 

now you are simply lying, or showing you have serious reading comprehension issues. I never said that atheists are incapable of doing charity or moral deeds, in fact i said the opposite. What I said is there are no atheistic organizations that are in the forefront of doing good for others. Again we see that you have some serious difficulties in reading comprehension -- as I stated earlier.

I have also said that no atheists have ever created a working ethic or morality; none have ever created a working society or government that isn't a human slaughterhouse. Once again there is that reading comprehension issue. I think this ties very well with your inability to argue against religion, so you argue against fundamentalism instead, as if that was what defines a religion.

In other words you are simply lying to argue with straw men.

I am making no personal attacks, merely noting that you have removed yourself from all conversation about these things with your deconstructionist position and your dishonesty.

EDIT: also it is amusing that you attack the Creator with a standard that you stole from him. You need to come up with your own ethic if you are going to attack him on an ethical level.

If you believe atheists are incapable of building up a working ethical society or organisation then how can you believe they're capable of doing moral deeds?

Besides, where do you think capitalism has come from? Is capitalism spawned from religion? Does democracy come from religion, too?

Besides you're committing huge fallacies when you group atheists together as though they're a breed or tribe. An atheist is just someone who believes in one less god than you do, that doesn't turn them into a group, it doesn't mean they share values and ideas. You might as well assert the assumption that since you've seen no albino organisations with a working ethic or morality it means albinos left to their own devices would start murderous societies.

I think your main issue here is you're grouping secular advances with religious ones simply because religious organisations have adopted and endorsed them. You need to wake up and realise that secular ethics and morals come from a person regardless of their faith. Faith simply dictates which secular beliefs you're personally allowed to choose from.
I don't believe god has given us our ethical values so your last sentence doesn't make any sense, not that it cancels out my point in the first place.

One final thing. You misunderstand ignosticsm. Being an ignostic means you refuse to discuss the possibility of a god because no one has given a valid definition of one. Personally I am an ignostic because I don't believe anyone understands what's beyond our universe to the extent required to determine what created it and whether it was conscious. You seem to think this makes me unable to discuss the problems with your assertion that you know what god is and that he exists, it does not.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Ah so they weren't failures but the were failures and nothing matters anyway. Game, set and match. I have driven you into the self collapsing deconstructionist deconstructionism. Thanks for playing.

The fact remains your atheism has failed to deliver the goods. End.

   Your goods are worthless shit. My goods are scientific contributions that have improved all lives on the planet.

    Dedicating one's life to philosophy is generally relegated to those who can't cut it in the real sciences; I guess you fall under that category. 

  Seriously, what do you do in real life to make you think you're so much better than everyone else? 

   Edit: What about societies that are not purely capitalistic or socialistic, but linear combinations? I guess you've never left the homeland and prefer to wallow in your own ignorance decrying everything different as being the product of "ignorant socialism".

Originally posted by //\\//\\oo

Originally posted by Fishermage

Ah so they weren't failures but the were failures and nothing matters anyway. Game, set and match. I have driven you into the self collapsing deconstructionist deconstructionism. Thanks for playing.

The fact remains your atheism has failed to deliver the goods. End.

 

   Your goods are worthless shit. My goods are scientific contributions that have improved all lives on the planet.

    Dedicating one's life to philosophy is generally relegated to those who can't cut it in the real sciences; I guess you fall under that category. 

  Seriously, what do you do in real life to make you think you're so much better than everyone else? 

   Edit: What about societies that are not purely capitalistic or socialistic, but linear combinations? I guess you've never left the homeland and prefer to wallow in your own ignorance decrying everything different as being the product of "ignorant socialism".

 

Actually your goods are also worthless shit because these contributions you are speaking of improved the lives on the planet simply because other people with certain philosophies allowed them to do so.

Putting "Science" on a pedestral doesn't mean much you know?

Originally posted by sniperg

Actually your goods are also worthless shit because these contributions you are speaking of improved the lives on the planet simply because other people with certain philosophies allowed them to do so.

Putting "Science" on a pedestral doesn't mean much you know?

  They "allowed them to do so" ? You mean that they allowed other people to use them? I suppose these philosophies are gods who rule common sense and decency.

  Just tell me how far you get when you use philosophy to try and eradicate an infectious disease, or integrate.

Originally posted by //\\//\\oo

Originally posted by sniperg

Actually your goods are also worthless shit because these contributions you are speaking of improved the lives on the planet simply because other people with certain philosophies allowed them to do so.

Putting "Science" on a pedestral doesn't mean much you know?

 

  They "allowed them to do so" ? You mean that they allowed other people to use them? I suppose these philosophies are gods who rule common sense and decency.

  Just tell me how far you get when you use philosophy to try and eradicate an infectious disease, or integrate.

 

Lol no. Scientists are funded by other people just like everyone else.They can't allow or disallow anything since their researches are not self sponsored. And you will notice that from those that where most of them where also into philosophy and such.

Philosophy, whether personal or not, is still a science and doesn't produce arbitary, random results about anything. But I must say you have a very intersting concept of what exactly philosophy entails.

Take for example your "common sense and decency". These are philosophical concepts not your version of "science". For you to even put names on them you needed someone to phantom them and then analyze them so you can present them here so casually.

In your question (, philosophy influences the stance with which the country in question deals with an infectious disease. How they approach the situation if you will. No they will not create the vaccine, but science doesn't influence how they will deal with it.

Originally posted by sniperg

Lol no. Scientists are funded by other people just like everyone else.They can't allow or disallow anything since their researches are not self sponsored. And you will notice that from those that where most of them where also into philosophy and such.

Philosophy, whether personal or not, is still a science and doesn't produce arbitary, random results about anything. But I must say you have a very intersting concept of what exactly philosophy entails.

Take for example your "common sense and decency". These are philosophical concepts not your version of "science". For you to even put names on them you needed someone to phantom them and then analyze them so you can present them here so casually.

In your question (, philosophy influences the stance with which the country in question deals with an infectious disease. How they approach the situation if you will. No they will not create the vaccine, but science doesn't influence how they will deal with it.

  Yes, since Lebesgue, Gauss and Lagrange were known for their philosophical contributions...  If you were not to fund any research, then there would be no advancement; if you were not to fund philosophers, then you would have no philosophers.

Really? How is philosophy a science? What part of science does it use except for a subset of logic?  

  Common sense and decency being philosophical concepts is entirely the point: I didn't need philosophy to construct them, since in some people empathy and sympathy are either intuitive or naturally learned through trial and error as well. Science could more properly create a moral basis than philosophy could, but society is not yet at the point where everybody is accepting of logical principles, so we have philosophy to try and formalize utility functions when the very concept of formalizing utility is fruitless without applying science.

  No, science already has the approach built in, or else it wouldn't be science. The very concept of trying to formalize something without using scientific principles is ridiculous, so how does philosophy accomplish this task? A complete lack of formalization: Only recently has logic been introduced to philosophy and only so it can form consistent statements from it's own assumptions (that aren't justified scientifically).

Okay, obviously Moo has had his butt sufficiently kicked. This hijack has exhausted itself.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Okay, obviously Moo has had his butt sufficiently kicked. This hijack has exhausted itself.

Only you would be arrogant enough to claim victory when arguing opinions.  Something where no "victor" can be determined.