Anything taken to the extreme is problematic, and atheism is no exception.I’m game, let’s list the problems with atheism!
- the music sucks
- ???
https://www.google.com/search?q=religionI don’t think you know what the word religion means.
Assumption, and bad one.Atheists will embrace a philosophy, most embrace humanism. Humanist belief stresses the potential value and goodness of human beings, common human needs, and rational ways to solve human problems.
Technically that's a satanist.As I responded to the first definition, an atheist is effectively worshiping themselves.
Assumption, and bad one.
Technically that's a satanist.
WRONGAtheism is a religion.
Anything taken to the extreme is problematic, and atheism is no exception.
points at:
French revolution
Stalin's Soviet Union
China under Mao
North Korea
Cambodia under Pol Pot
Atheism has historically not been enough to provide a foundation for societies to be sufficiently competitive. In other words, societies are not measured in how "good" they are, the metrics for societies have nothing to do with morality. Societal success tends tend towards things like organized murder and endurance.
Atheism is a religion. Both the atheist and the theist are accepting an un-provable. An existance of god, the non-existance of god. Both require an act of faith. Both are finite beings seeking to understand the infinite universe. Both have examples of their own dogma, both have examples of pressure to conform, and both have people who will attempt to convert those who disagree and attempt to spread its belief. The dogmatic atheist and the dogmatic theist will both spew a tirade of hate at any who fail to conform to their world view, obviously being two sides of the same coin. Lastly, both have a history of violence, war, and genocide.
The neutral position here agnosticism, not atheism.
My third criticism of atheism is being an atheist is just ffing annoying. See:
Even atheists hate atheists. Being an atheist is just tiring. After two decades I am planning to commit heresy.Global evidence of extreme intuitive moral prejudice against atheists - Nature Human Behaviour
Gervais et al. present evidence from 13 different countries that shows intuitive moral distrust of atheists is pervasive, even among atheists themselves.www.nature.com
your arguing agnostics are weak or implicit atheists. IE, an atheist who does not believe in any deities but does not asset their are none.Don't know why I'm responding as, dear God, I'm so bored with this argument. But to say "the neutral position is agnosticism not atheism" is kind-of nonsensical.
The reality is nobody actually lives as an agnostic. It would be impossible to do so. To be uncertain over the existence of every posited God, to worry if you might be damned to eternal torment for stepping on the cracks in the pavement, or for eating meat, or for failing to murder unbelievers (who dare to step on the cracks in the pavement) would drive one crazy.
Are you genuinely _unsure_ if jumping off a cliff would kill you or send you to an eternal heavenly bliss or damn you to hell? Genuinely uncertain if the sun will rise tomorrow, or if the floor is still there when you wake up in the morning? Unsure if you are going to hell for all eternity for your failure to kill homosexuals? Given that the stakes are literally _infinite_, how could one tolerate any degree of uncertainty about these questions?
Most so-called agnostics, in practice, live as atheists, as if none of the various posited, or imaginable, Gods actually exist.
Most people who claim to be agnostics are lying - they aren't. They are atheists.
I do think, though, that most people, perhaps even all people, get through life by relying on a long list of faith-based beliefs, even if they aren't religious.
Religious beliefs are just the most socially-acknowledged and formalised form of such beliefs, but there are many others. It's probably not possible to live entirely without delusions.
You just described an atheist. Someone who is agnostic believes there is *something* more, just insists they don't know what.your arguing agnostics are weak or implicit atheists. IE, an atheist who does not believe in any deities but does not asset their are none.
but you are incorrect.
agnostics can view the world in non-atheist ways. examples:
ex1: the existence of deity is unknowable because you cannot be verify any experience except with another experience based on your perspective and previous experiences. In short, nobody can know if a deity exists or not because viewpoint is corrupted.
ex2: until evidence shows otherwise, the existence of deity or lack their of is unknowable.
ex3: no amount of arguing can prove either side, but it is irrelevant. If deities exist they appear to have no impact on human affairs and should be of little interest. In short, you don't know and you shouldn't care.
no, that would be letsism, or somethingism.Someone who is agnostic believes there is *something* more, just insists they don't know what.
your arguing agnostics are weak or implicit atheists. IE, an atheist who does not believe in any deities but does not asset their are none.
but you are incorrect.
agnostics can view the world in non-atheist ways. examples:
ex1: the existence of deity is unknowable because you cannot be verify any experience except with another experience based on your perspective and previous experiences. In short, nobody can know if a deity exists or not because viewpoint is corrupted.
ex2: until evidence shows otherwise, the existence of deity or lack their of is unknowable.
ex3: no amount of arguing can prove either side, but it is irrelevant. If deities exist they appear to have no impact on anything and thereby are irrelevant. In short, you don't know and you shouldn't care.
I've never heard of that. Sounds like someone inventing a term because they don't like the previous terms.no, that would be letsism, or somethingism.
Ietsism - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
an agnostic is entirely skeptical of the metaphysical, and would question the metaphysical entirely.
if you believe their is something more, but your not sure what, say hi to letsism.
I've never heard of that. Sounds like someone inventing a term because they don't like the previous terms.
Bottom line.And none of that is a fucking religion.
Except they dont do it to other "kafirs", only Israelis, their oppressors. Pretty silly to use ISIS as your template for all Islamic peoples behaviors. Hamas is not ISIS, although they are Islamist, their main motivating drive in the conflict is the liberation of their lands. They do employ terrorist actions (like many other terrorist movements regardless of religion), but its not out of religious ideology, its to free themselves from the heavy hand of a brutal occupying oppressor. Is it justified? Nope, no violence is justified in my view regardless of who commits it.
The Zionists (Irgun) employed very similar actions in 1948 massacring Palestinian men, women and children (Deir Yassin) in their ethnic cleansing drive. Their leader Menachem Begin became the PM of Israel decades later. And pretty sure I can fish out all sorts of Torah based texts permitting the killing of Goyim (non-Jewish 'kafirs') to make the same sort of stereotypical arguments you seem to thrive on, but nope, its just stupid.
https://www.google.com/search?q=religion
the definition of religion in the dictionary as per google:
- 1st: the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
->
I will make not attempt at originality, but simply quote another atheist, Adonis:
"The sacred for atheism is the human being himself, the human being of reason, and there is nothing greater than this human being. It replaces revelation by reason and god with humanity. But an atheism that deifies Man is, ironically, close to the doctrine of the incarnation."
There is nothing wrong with this choice, but their is a certain irony to it.
- 2nd: a particular system of faith and worship.
plural noun: religions
"the world's great religions"
->
An atheist will have you believe they do not worship anything.
worship:
a: the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity.
b: show reverence and adoration for (a deity); honor with religious rites.
->
Atheists will embrace a philosophy, most embrace humanism. Humanist belief stresses the potential value and goodness of human beings, common human needs, and rational ways to solve human problems.
As I responded to the first definition, an atheist is effectively worshiping themselves. Their faith is two fold, faith in the non-existence in god, and faith in the value and goodness of humanity. The rites are the rites of the humanist, that of charity, social activism, and critical thought.
It is certainly possible for an atheist to choose nihilism instead, but few truly commit to that fully. The ones that do don't last long.
- 3rd: a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
"consumerism is the new religion"
->
do I even need to answer this one?
Although I dont care about Hamas or their goals or their Islamist bent, they have altered their charter (which you conveniently leave out). Excerpt:You are so full of shit. Hamas' own charter, written back in the 1980's, is filled with anti-semitism from start to finish. According to them, this is purely a religious war, and it is one of extermination. You just think they're freedom fighters because they're killing Jews. As to your history, it is insanely selective and bereft of context. Reads like a series of propaganda factoids where you cherry pick one sided facts and ignore everything else. Please stop pretending you know anything about this history because you clearly never learned any of it outside the context of anti-Israel politics.
You just think they're freedom fighters because they're killing Jews. As to your history, it is insanely selective and bereft of context. Reads like a series of propaganda factoids where you cherry pick one sided facts and ignore everything else.
Go look for your Torah quote about "killing goyim" please. I really want to see it. And I won't stop pestering you until you find it.
Although I dont care about Hamas or their goals or their Islamist bent, they have altered their charter (which you conveniently leave out). Excerpt:
16. Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity.
Hamas in 2017: The document in full
Hamas explains general principles and objectives in 42-article documentwww.middleeasteye.net
What a depraved assertion on your part, that somehow I am for the killing of innocents. While you and so many other Israelis justify the slaughter of 1000s of civilians in Gaza which falls under the IHRH definition of genocide.
No one has been more "Insanely selective" than yourself as you've abundantly made clear in the other thread (Israel at war). Anything to say about the apartheid part? Which apparently caused you to completely slink away from that thread?
I'm not a scholar of the Torah so I may have erred in referencing "Torah based texts". But perfectly reasonable slip when you hear many Rabbis speak of the killing of the enemies children.
'King's Torah' writer has no regrets
Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira explains that 'killing of enemy's children is permissible in order to defeat an evil king or tyrant', but says changes may be made in new edition of controversial bookwww.ynetnews.com
Not to mention innumerable instances of Pal civilians killed by IDF or settlers with impunity.
Here is the link to my post in the other thread you refer to for context. Looks like you were the fool who stopped posting after it.You've already made a fool of yourself in the other thread twice. First, when you claimed that Israel lied more than any other nation, and couldn't come close to proving it, and second, when in a silly attempt to accuse Israel of "genocide," you cited a definition from the UN which has never been applied to Israel, thus disproving your own claim.
Here is the link to my post in the other thread you refer to for context. Looks like you were the fool who stopped posting after it.
Page 84 - Israel: We Are At War
Page 84 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.forums.anandtech.com
"Text book case of genocide" according to Craig Mokhiber, specialist in international human rights law, who served as director of the NY office for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. He resigned because of the inaction of the UN to act on this (sabotaged by the US on Israels behalf like in many UN resolutions). THAT is the reason it has never been applied to Israel. And you KNOW that. Same reason Israel hasnt been sanctioned for its apartheid like South Africa despite it also being a textbook case of apartheid.
As to your other reguritated historical falsehoods, these were also debunked in the other thread. So stop gaslighting others as if you have something substantial which you dont. Israel remains the most disingenuous, dishonest country on the planet imo. Their military and political institutions lie through their teeth. Fortunately Israel has many conscientious academics and historians that wont toe the line and frequently debunk and embarrass them.
I didn't stop posting in that thread because I'm a fool. That thread is a gish gallop of anti-Israel factoids. I'm tired of playing whack-a-mole. But then you decided to bring your crap here, after I stopped posting in it because I'm tired of dealing with people like you who are 100% biased and will always search for new reasons to hate Israel.
As a case in point, the question of "genocide." First you say it's genocide without even considering a definition. Then when asked for a definition, you google around and cite the UN definition which has never been applied to Israel. Now you go and google to find a person with some credentials who says it is. Which of course is good enough for you, point proven LOL. Like I also said in the other thread, the population of Palestinians has grown there much faster than here in the US, year over year for 25 years now, while attacks from Israel haven't done enough to even nudge the line graph in a single year. It's bullshit and you know it.
I'm not gaslighting anyone. I haven't made assertions without evidence. You have. Your belief that Israel lies more than any other country is just a series of emotional assertions from you, unilateral declarations of so-called fact with little to back them up. It is dishonest to make a comparative statement and say absolutely nothing about who or what something is being compared to.
I see you. You start with a conclusion like "genocide," "apartheid" or "liars" and you just assert these things as facts, then when called on it, you look for evidence that you hope supports your assertion. It's called motivated reasoning. Trying starting by looking at all relevant facts first.