Talk-Polywell.org

I have long argued that Atheists would be horrified at a Society which embraced their ideas.


Max Planck beat me to this realization by 60 years.

Under these conditions it is no wonder, that the movement of atheists, which declares religion to be just a deliberate illusion, invented by power-seeking priests, and which has for the pious belief in a higher Power nothing but words of mockery, eagerly makes use of progressive scientific knowledge and in a presumed unity with it, expands in an ever faster pace its disintegrating action on all nations of the earth and on all social levels. I do not need to explain in any more detail that after its victory not only all the most precious treasures of our culture would vanish, but — which is even worse — also any prospects at a better future.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck

For the umpteenth time

Theism is belief in such theistic god/s. Atheism is the absence of such belief.
That's it. Nothing more to it. God mocking, anti-theism, rationalism, secularism, acceptance of the theory of evolution by natural selection etc are completely separate entities.

Atheism is just saying: " I don't believe your claim about god(s)" or in my case 'I no longer believe your claim about god(s)'

There are no other ideas.

PS Your title isn't really saying much.

You can keep saying it, but no one is going to believe you.

Stubby wrote:For the umpteenth time

Theism is belief in such theistic god/s. Atheism is the absence of such belief.
That's it. Nothing more to it. God mocking, anti-theism, rationalism, secularism, acceptance of the theory of evolution by natural selection etc are completely separate entities.

Atheism is just saying: " I don't believe your claim about god(s)" or in my case 'I no longer believe your claim about god(s)'

There are no other ideas.

PS Your title isn't really saying much.

And for the umpteenth time, those non-rational beliefs are the only thing which keeps a lid on human nature. You let that loose unconstrained by those irrational beliefs and there will be blood.

GIThruster wrote:You can keep saying it, but no one is going to believe you.

Not a question of belief it is simple logic 101.
The default position versus any assertion is non-belief until sufficient evidence is provided.

Did you automatically believe Rossi? Why not?
Do you automatically believe ANYTHING or do you wait to see the evidence?
I have some choice land in Florida for a great price...
I am Nigerian prince who needs your help to get some money out of my country...


Atheism is just non belief of a theistic claim waiting for evidence.
Do you have to prove your non belief of Rossi
Do you have to prove your non belief of the choice land in Florida?
Do you have to prove your non belief of a typical Nigerian scam letter?

What else could you possibly think it is?

GIThruster wrote:You can keep saying it, but no one is going to believe you.

Is that a reply to Stubby or Diogenes?

Diogenes wrote:And for the umpteenth time, those non-rational beliefs are the only thing which keeps a lid on human nature. You let that loose unconstrained by those irrational beliefs and there will be blood.

Atheism is not the absence of non-rational beliefs or self-constraints.
Most human behavior is not based on reason, whether you believe in gods or not.

Planck didn't believe in a personal god of any kind, far less a Christian god. He was a Deist.

He also didn't believe in miracles.

And he didn't believe in your Babble.

Heilbron, J. L., 2000, The dilemmas of an upright man: Max Planck and the fortunes of German science.

You're lying again.

Teahive wrote:

Diogenes wrote:And for the umpteenth time, those non-rational beliefs are the only thing which keeps a lid on human nature. You let that loose unconstrained by those irrational beliefs and there will be blood.

Atheism is not the absence of non-rational beliefs or self-constraints.
Most human behavior is not based on reason, whether you believe in gods or not.

Dear Lord Karl Popper, god of ambiguity, please just this once, grant my plea to successfully communicate!



The Religious look at people around them and see "souls" whom they should treat as equals, while atheists look around them and see animals competing for dominance.

A society in which an irrational belief has the consequence of making people civil, is far preferable to a society in which a rational clarity destroys that socially beneficial result.

The "Santa Claus Effect" resulting from spirituality is highly desirable because it keeps a lid on human's natural instinct to subjugate and/or destroy other humans.

I'm not arguing as to whether atheists are rational or not*, i'm pointing out that the irrational Christian theology (et al) tames the normally blood thirsty nature of human animals, and therefore people should stop trying to "wake people up." It is that belief in a higher power and that belief that there is an ultimate retribution, which keeps society civil and tolerant.




* Atheism *IS* irrational. It is a contrary belief which also requires faith. (Not falsifiable) It is also irrational because it is oblivious to the fact that if it wins dominance, it will cut it's own throat.
Quiet Agnosticism is the only rational position, on both counts.

Diogenes wrote:It is a contrary belief which also requires faith.

Belief in what?

In nothing, is what.

You're lying again.

A person without a religion is like a fish without a bicycle. We just don't have bicycles, you see. You can't just make a whole religion of anti-bicyclism based on that. It's irrational. Not everyone shares your irrational belief in an imaginary invisible super magic daddy in the sky. Not everyone shares your irrational belief that everyone needs a bicycle.

Not only do we not need or want bicycles, we also don't subscribe to your theory that bicycle envy is the cause of all evul. Dude, we really really don't need or want any bicycles. Go away. Stop bothering us or we'll make you illegal.

Get over it. You guys are totally way worse than Hare Krishnas at airports, and nutjob jehovah's witnesses who won't stop coming to your door until you're remarkably impolite.

I knew someone who painted an outline of a body on his walk, like a crime scene, with a book and a cross beyond each outstretched hand and a big red blot where the head was. It sure cut down on them.

Diogenes you do not understand what atheism is.

Atheism is a position in response to a religious assertion that 'gods exist.'
Atheism is NOT the assertion that 'no gods exist.'
That would be anti-theism.

If the simple non-belief in something *is* irrational then a-unicornists, a-bigfootists, a-AGWists and a-Ecatists are also irrational.

Don't mix up knowledge and belief.

Stubby wrote:Diogenes you do not understand what atheism is.

Atheism is a position in response to a religious assertion that 'gods exist.'
Atheism is NOT the assertion that 'no gods exist.'

Actually, it is exactly that. At least in the vernacular. Modern usage of the word was coined in the 16th century.

Stubby wrote: That would be anti-theism.

If the simple non-belief in something *is* irrational then a-unicornists, a-bigfootists, a-AGWists and a-Ecatists are also irrational.

Don't mix up knowledge and belief.

If what you say were true, then Atheists would not evangelize. They would be content to let people believe as they wish, though they themselves choose not to. In practice, Atheists are defacto Anti-Theists.





Once again, the Atheists do not realize that convincing people that there is no God and no Divine retribution will allow people to enjoy their life cutting throats while remaining inhibition free.

Again you are getting it wrong.
An atheist will only assert that there is no credible evidence for a god.
An anti-theist will assert there are no gods.

That is the very important distinction you keep missing.

And why does an atheist have to stay quiet about the lack of evidence for the existence of gods? Don't aAGWists get to question the evidence of global warming? Don't a-eCatists get to question Rossi's assertions? What kind of lunacy is that? Shut up because you don't agree with me?

and finally: that is not the correct definition of atheism.

Well - you can't argue with power seeking priests.

Look at the history of fish on Friday.

Infallible because of a direct connection to God? Nice cover story.

The Religious look at people around them and see "souls" whom they should treat as equals, while atheists look around them and see animals competing for dominance.

So Obama is your equal? Fine. He is not mine.

He looks a LOT like an animal competing for dominance to me.

Ah. But the godly are not like that? Please explain religious wars.