| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Snow Dog 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
 Posted: June 09 2009 at 05:37 |
Proof!!!
|
|
|
 |
Sean Trane
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk
Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20250
|
Posted: June 09 2009 at 05:23 |
 Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Sean Trane wrote:
Had to come back, two replies towards me, made me do so
Hve ignored the first part of your post becaudse you are still patronizing.
>>>>> no way, José!!!!!  These are extreme minorities and are only gaining visibility through internet lately and even then, they depend of vthe Ivàns s of this world eeling them out of the darkness to try to get his point across >>> I'd say up to 95% of atheist have not heard of these organizations and 99% of those refute these falacies, There are no rumes in Atheism and I even shouldn't put a capital A to it) although we could we could see some copncepts as valid, but that's it......
Please Sean you talk of extreme minorities, but at least according to Wikilpedia, the Positive Atheists are a majority. >>> let me correct, these are extremist minorities and not well represented. But like all extremists, they are very vocal (Opus Dei anyone ) and ake far more noise than their real weight suggest they should making. And please stop using Wikipedia as a judge in these matters, because in this case, these movements entered their own scmaltzy paltzy weirdo theories and no-onr has corrected it, since no real atheist care tostoop that low as to answer them..... Note here that I speak of real atheists here, not good or bad atheists >>> that makes a whole difference
That's probably atheism's real dange or perilr..... we don't recognize anyone the right to be spokemen or even specialists in "Atheiismology " (if you'll allow this word) >>> so you got hundred of bozos that could try to make some stupid theory , only because he's out for fame and eventually fortune.....
<<<<< I'm sorry to say, but that only exists into your brains!!!!!
Do you say positive Atheists don't exist?Never heard of this, before this debate (and to be very frank, I'll not check what it means).... you are an atheists or not .... So AFAIC, I could tell you that I'm a positive atheist, because YES, I am an atheist...........
>>> WE (and I think I can speak for the entire contigent of atheists on this site) did until now, and will most likely continue doing so.... paying attention top these fallacies wouuld only gain them credibitity, which they direly need....
Those are fallacies because you disagree, it's a very religious position like saying my god is the correct one the others are false. >>> you've got to be lucid here Ivàn (no patronizing meant), these groups are out to get attention for themselves and use Wikipedia for their own services...... because they know there is no-one to answer back and saydifferent.
as an apart: I've seen in the second issue of Classic Rock presents Prog, in the reader's corner, there is some bozo called Erik (but hiding in a different name) making a call for a PprogAndaluz article ..... Don't you see how manipulations starts..... If someone doesn't answer CR that he's full of dung and ProgAndaluz is BS, he'll sed another letter with yet another name to still make these fallacies >>> and soon or later someone will pick this up somewhere and claim it i must be true etc...... Erik has probably attacked Wikipedia on this issue >>> please check it out and believe it, because it's WIKIPEDIA!!!!
>>> then I suggest you go back to our debate (Is God Ruining prog???) and read up your words >>> if memoryb serves, , you even associated their signs (compass and ruler) to a David star..... You hadn't mention your grandfather back then either (orv at least I have no recollection), and were almost accusing me of of "evilry" for liking their counterbalancing role in Europe in the XIXth century. BTW, nowadays, the FM are slowly becoming mafias >>> too many people out for fortunes without ethics are joining up....
I went back, as a fact I said Civil Watchers are full of atheists, you sai Civil Watchers are Free Masons and you assume I said Free Masons are Atheists,  >>> OK, memory fails sometimes. PS: I edit the few things regarding that free masonry (it was thrwn as an aside and if we reopen this bracket, it's goingto un-manageable). Plus I must I admit I never thought you'd look it up
Atheists trust a secret logia whose real beliefs and agenda we all ignore????? For God's sake, a bow of secrecy is praised by Atheists, this is more medieval than the Inquisition and the Witch Hunt. >>>nope, we know their use of mythology is pure BS and even for fun. Their agenda isfairly well known too, since they're some kind of busiess club. But the Free Masons were very instruimental in building Laïcity and separate Church from state. They created a helpfull counterbalance to the coservative forces/establishment in most country....... but like every succesfull cause.... it becomes the establishmpent itself....
because he's probably having political views not suiting Vatican ... I can'rt see them expelling him for another reason....
So, if they keep the politician inside the Church is wrong, and if they sanction him, the Church is also wrong..This is a no win situation. >>> precisely ROTFLMAO More seriously.... Vatican is only interested in certain types of politics and only in the direction itsuits them.....
>>> Come on Ivàn, I'm not talking of internatuinal politics (the UN seat would prompt the jews and Muslims to claim a seat as well) or even politics regarding business. I'm talking of politics like personal rights (education, divorce, , pregnancy etc.... >>> the churches shouldn't have a say in these moral issues outside giving their advice and basta for the rest....
I don't know other churches, but the Catholic Church only says something to their members, who have to accept if they want to be Catholics, not to the Governments.Yeah, Right!!!! >>> but everywhere when abortion laws are acceptedbecause of public demand, Vatican enters the political game.... We are not writing in the books that Evolution is only a theory as valid as Creationism, the Church has accepted evolution. >>> true that only 20 years back, there wasn't a Christian theologian that was thinking of refuting the Dinosaurs and Carbon 14...... nowadays, these creationist are claming that Erath didn't exist long without humans and clmaim Earth to be 6000 years old max.... Even the croest of bishop in the Vatican would hesitate jumping on the bandwagon..... but some have already....
They may give opinions, but that's something every person ad institution can do in a democratic country.
Iván
Hugues
|
|
|
|
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: June 09 2009 at 01:39 |
I like your signature Stoney. But what butter is there for people who reasonably hope for faith?  Ggrrr....I cant sleep. Why GOD?
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: June 08 2009 at 15:28 |
|
^ Nope, it's neither right nor wrong. It just is.
|
|
|
|
VanderGraafKommandöh
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Malaria
Status: Offline
Points: 89372
|
Posted: June 08 2009 at 12:55 |
|
|
|
|
|
Neil
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 04 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1497
|
Posted: June 08 2009 at 12:45 |
Dean wrote:
Alitare wrote:
They are common sense because the majority of members of our society have come together to conclude they are common. This is a completely subjective notion, and to be honest, not plausible within any universal truths. I suppose you could say it is subjectively objective, but in other societies, these common senses could be radically different, with or without religion. Ideas are just that. They don't exist in reality. Just in our minds and in the fake laws we try to make as a society. So I must concur, Henry.
|
I would not even go as far as saying they "developed". It is natural behaviour given that has been given a fancy name. Man is a pack animal, to be a member of that pack there are specific characteristics and traits that are inherent in the animal - these are the basis of what we call morality and are present in all animals that have to live in a collective to survive. Common sense is just another form of it - it is common sense not to kill a fellow member of the tribe because you reduce your own chances of survival.
Common sense is thus named because it is common to the pack, herd, tribe, but as my Dad used to say "common sense ain't so common now-a-days" |
Quite true and it's often statistically the case that non-religeous people have better moral behaviour than members of an organised religion (less bigotry for instance). Whether that's because they tend to be more intelligent and free thinking (i.e. able to work things out for themselves rather than relying on handed down suspicions and mumbo jumbo) I don't know. However basic morals (the ten commandments for names sake) are just a good method of behaviour to keep you popular amongst your peers and therfore improve the condition of your existance and the chances of your survival. If you go around stealing, commiting adultery, acting jealous, etc. then before too long someone will take it upon themselves to exile or exterminate you.
Evidence of scientific tests suggest that evolution has made doing things that you believe to be morally right make you feel good. It's all part of the survival instinct.
|
|
When people get lost in thought it's often because it's unfamiliar territory.
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: June 08 2009 at 12:29 |
^ For a while this company called Ditech was running commercials with the line "people are smart", which immediately prompted me to think what kind of idiot came up with that? 
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
avalanchemaster
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 02 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 730
|
Posted: June 08 2009 at 11:51 |
Evolver wrote:
Dean wrote:
Common sense is thus named because it is common to the pack, herd, tribe, but as my Dad used to say "common sense ain't so common now-a-days" |
 |
PRECISELY!!!
|
|
|
|
Evolver
Special Collaborator
Crossover & JR/F/Canterbury Teams
Joined: October 22 2005
Location: The Idiocracy
Status: Offline
Points: 5482
|
Posted: June 08 2009 at 07:47 |
Dean wrote:
Common sense is thus named because it is common to the pack, herd, tribe, but as my Dad used to say "common sense ain't so common now-a-days" |
|
|
Trust me. I know what I'm doing.
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: June 08 2009 at 05:47 |
To continue off topic for a moment. Those don't look like they're in a doctored photo to me. The first one used to be my favorite butter substitute. These days we use Smart Balance. Sometimes you just have to have to real thing. Anyone want to talk about this:
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
|
Raff
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24429
|
Posted: June 08 2009 at 05:29 |
Brian, do these things really exist? I know about I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!, but not about the other two.. Next time I go by the grocery store I'll check anyway .
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: June 08 2009 at 05:17 |
Bufo wrote:
I was raised in a religious vacuum.
|
Beats being raised in an Electrolux. Given a choice, perhaps I would have rather been raised in a Dyson. Really got a good laugh out of this:
Now if they only come out with I can't believe it's not lard.
Edited by Slartibartfast - June 08 2009 at 05:45
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: June 08 2009 at 04:28 |
Alitare wrote:
They are common sense because the majority of members of our society have come together to conclude they are common. This is a completely subjective notion, and to be honest, not plausible within any universal truths. I suppose you could say it is subjectively objective, but in other societies, these common senses could be radically different, with or without religion. Ideas are just that. They don't exist in reality. Just in our minds and in the fake laws we try to make as a society. So I must concur, Henry.
|
I would not even go as far as saying they "developed". It is natural behaviour given that has been given a fancy name. Man is a pack animal, to be a member of that pack there are specific characteristics and traits that are inherent in the animal - these are the basis of what we call morality and are present in all animals that have to live in a collective to survive. Common sense is just another form of it - it is common sense not to kill a fellow member of the tribe because you reduce your own chances of survival.
Common sense is thus named because it is common to the pack, herd, tribe, but as my Dad used to say "common sense ain't so common now-a-days"
|
|
What?
|
|
Alitare
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 08 2008
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 3595
|
Posted: June 08 2009 at 04:10 |
They are common sense because the majority of members of our society have come together to conclude they are common. This is a completely subjective notion, and to be honest, not plausible within any universal truths. I suppose you could say it is subjectively objective, but in other societies, these common senses could be radically different, with or without religion. Ideas are just that. They don't exist in reality. Just in our minds and in the fake laws we try to make as a society. So I must concur, Henry.
|
|
Failcore
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 27 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 4625
|
Posted: June 08 2009 at 02:00 |
|
Politicians that try to seem religious make me want to go kick them in the sack.
|
|
progmetalhead
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 15 2007
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 2081
|
Posted: June 08 2009 at 01:46 |
Bufo wrote:
"Non-believer." That's a bigoted and inaccurate term. I believe I'm typing a reply to a web forum and that I'm listening to The Best of Focus, and I can prove both of these to you instantly if you want to stop by for a visit.
I don't believe in imaginary things, like the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, God and Jesus Christ.
"Faith" isn't a verb, so "non-faither" isn't accurate. "Anti-faith" is good. As is empiricist.
When Obama appends "non-believer" to a list of faiths, he sounds like a bigot and an idiot. Why not say atheist? Why bring it up at all?
Did you know that Christian America believes atheists are less patriotic and less "American" than Muslims?
|
Yes, as George HW Bush famously quoted "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
|
|
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: June 07 2009 at 23:51 |
Bufo wrote:
"Non-believer." That's a bigoted and inaccurate term. I believe I'm typing a reply to a web forum and that I'm listening to The Best of Focus, and I can prove both of these to you instantly if you want to stop by for a visit.
|
 But you don't believe in religious things, which we all know it what "non-believer" refers to when not qualified by something after it, like "in the ability of so-and-so to do cuch-and-such right." So, I guess if you want to be really strict about it, it's inaccurate, but saying it's bigoted is just plain comical.
|
|
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65268
|
Posted: June 07 2009 at 23:49 |
Bufo wrote:
"Non-believer." That's a bigoted and inaccurate term. I believe I'm typing a reply to a web forum and that I'm listening to The Best of Focus, and I can prove both of these to you instantly if you want to stop by for a visit.
I don't believe in imaginary things, like the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, God and Jesus Christ.
"Faith" isn't a verb, so "non-faither" isn't accurate. "Anti-faith" is good. As is empiricist.
When Obama appends "non-believer" to a list of faiths, he sounds like a bigot and an idiot. Why not say atheist? Why bring it up at all?
Did you know that Christian America believes atheists are less patriotic and less "American" than Muslims?
|
so then Muslims are more respected in the U.S, then one would assume, that's a victory seems to me. And it appears a man named Jesus Christ did exist, many historians and anthropologists will attest to this. Son of God? Unlikely, but he was real.
|
|
Bufo
Forum Groupie
Joined: June 07 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 43
|
Posted: June 07 2009 at 23:41 |
|
"Non-believer." That's a bigoted and inaccurate term. I believe I'm typing a reply to a web forum and that I'm listening to The Best of Focus, and I can prove both of these to you instantly if you want to stop by for a visit.
I don't believe in imaginary things, like the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, God and Jesus Christ.
"Faith" isn't a verb, so "non-faither" isn't accurate. "Anti-faith" is good. As is empiricist.
When Obama appends "non-believer" to a list of faiths, he sounds like a bigot and an idiot. Why not say atheist? Why bring it up at all?
Did you know that Christian America believes atheists are less patriotic and less "American" than Muslims?
|
|
Henry Plainview
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715
|
Posted: June 07 2009 at 23:39 |
stonebeard wrote:
Henry Plainview wrote:
Why would they develop independently? This is philosophy, you're not allowed to handwave anything. |
What are you referring to?
|
The moral tenents that James claims are just "common sense". Why are they?
|
|
if you own a sodastream i hate you
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
The Atheist - Agnostic - Non religious thread
