View Poll Results: What type of atheist are you?

Voters
36. You may not vote on this poll
  • I consider myself a positive atheist.

    10 27.78%
  • I consider myself a negative atheist.

    20 55.56%
  • I consider myself an apatheist.

    6 16.67%
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 55

Thread: Atheists.

  1. #41
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,026

    Re: Atheists.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticwar17 View Post
    See this is where you misunderstand... It is literally being born to have a belief in a creator as an evolutionary advantage, and almost necessity as a part of our intellect.
    Demonstrably and historically incorrect. Periods in history with the greatest Humanism also saw the greatest periods of scientific advancement. You can, in fact, even see this demonstrated during the Medieval Era as it correlates to art. Art during this period was decidedly iconic, as literal depictions of things (human, still life, landscape and architecture alike) were considered of the earthly and not regarded as important as the celestial (the after life). With the advancement of the Renaissance saw a greater focus on Humanism, the idea that literal depictions of the world were important, beautiful and perhaps even necessary. This is repeated in Classical periods in Greek and Roman civilization: as their religion ebbed and flowed, so too was this mirrored in the evolution of iconic art toward more literal (humanist) representations, and these too heralded the most significant advances in technology. Finally, the Age of Enlightenment was unique in it proposed the notion that the scientific discipline must be approached independently of faith. Since then, scientific advancement has progressed on a level that is almost exponential.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticwar17 View Post
    We are literally biologically destined to believe in a God.
    Incorrect: we are literally, biologically wired to recognize patterns and connections that could lead one to believe in a God. That atheists, agnostics, and philosophies that aren't especially theological exist are proof that people will take those patterns to arrive at conclusions or believe systems that aren't related to a god at all. You're incorrectly assuming that your experiences are natural and universal, which is a dangerously egocentristic model to base your conclusions on.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticwar17 View Post
    Some thoughts are that such a notion developed evolutionarily because it helps curb anxiety and unifies communities, etc. etc.
    Perhaps.

  2. #42
    Guru
    celticwar17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,889

    Re: Atheists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    Demonstrably and historically incorrect. Periods in history with the greatest Humanism also saw the greatest periods of scientific advancement. You can, in fact, even see this demonstrated during the Medieval Era as it correlates to art. Art during this period was decidedly iconic, as literal depictions of things (human, still life, landscape and architecture alike) were considered of the earthly and not regarded as important as the celestial (the after life). With the advancement of the Renaissance saw a greater focus on Humanism, the idea that literal depictions of the world were important, beautiful and perhaps even necessary. This is repeated in Classical periods in Greek and Roman civilization: as their religion ebbed and flowed, so too was this mirrored in the evolution of iconic art toward more literal (humanist) representations, and these too heralded the most significant advances in technology. Finally, the Age of Enlightenment was unique in it proposed the notion that the scientific discipline must be approached independently of faith. Since then, scientific advancement has progressed on a level that is almost exponential.



    Incorrect: we are literally, biologically wired to recognize patterns and connections that could lead one to believe in a God. That atheists, agnostics, and philosophies that aren't especially theological exist are proof that people will take those patterns to arrive at conclusions or believe systems that aren't related to a god at all. You're incorrectly assuming that your experiences are natural and universal, which is a dangerously egocentristic model to base your conclusions on.



    Perhaps.
    There are findings and scientific study that directly conflicts with what you are saying...
    God gene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/we...ew/12wade.html
    "For atheists, it is not a particularly welcome thought that religion evolved because it conferred essential benefits on early human societies and their successors. If religion is a lifebelt, it is hard to portray it as useless."
    --"For believers, it may seem threatening to think that the mind has been shaped to believe in gods, since the actual existence of the divine may then seem less likely."

    https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress...ion-hardwired/
    "Is religion hardwired?"


    Obviously there are skeptics everywhere on every part of this... but it shows that your assertions are far from indisputable fact.

  3. #43
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,026

    Re: Atheists.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticwar17 View Post
    There are findings and scientific study that directly conflicts with what you are saying...
    God gene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/we...ew/12wade.html
    "For atheists, it is not a particularly welcome thought that religion evolved because it conferred essential benefits on early human societies and their successors. If religion is a lifebelt, it is hard to portray it as useless."
    --"For believers, it may seem threatening to think that the mind has been shaped to believe in gods, since the actual existence of the divine may then seem less likely."

    https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress...ion-hardwired/
    "Is religion hardwired?"


    Obviously there are skeptics everywhere on every part of this... but it shows that your assertions are far from indisputable fact.
    The "god gene" was based on one unpublished study, and the criticism rightfully points out that such monoamine neurotransmitters could be responsible for any of a number of beliefs. The term God Gene is, to put it as lightly as possible, pants-crappingly misleading, and is as unscientific a perspective as can be.

    Your second link is nothing more than a commentary on the God Gene, addressed above.

    Your third link is a collection of criticisms of the idea that people are born believing in a god, and doesn't support your position at all. Did you read it?

    Here's some of the writer's observations:

    "...but secular studies of religious belief have been bogged down by the fact that none of these theories are obviously testable by science. I have suggested several times on this site, though, that the “hardwired” theory is in principle testable: all you have to do is bring up children in an environment where they’re completely free of religious knowledge or influence, and see if they spontaneously come to conceive of (and maybe worship) a God. Unfortunately, that’s impossible, because we can’t do experiments with humans. And there’s virtually nowhere that one can raise a child without some exposure to religion.
    But what I see here is not evidence against hardwiring, but an absence of any evidence.
    Later, however, the kids do become creationists, but that’s imputed to cultural or parental indoctrination:
    Likewise, where’s the evidence that their newfound creationism comes from absorbing it from their culture, rather than appearing spontaneously as a product of their genes at a later age? No reference is cited.
    It goes on with the same pattern of observations, that being that nothing is cited, and that absence of evidence against natural-born religion is evidence for it...again, the most unscientific view possible. This site not only doesn't support your position, it tears it to shreds. All I can really do is thank you for bringing a site to my attention that supports my own position so perfectly.

    And as I've already said and which you've ignored: That atheists, agnostics, and philosophies that aren't especially theological exist are proof that people will take those patterns to arrive at conclusions or believe systems that aren't related to a god at all.

  4. #44
    Only Losers H8 Capitalism
    Spartacus FPV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In your echo chamber
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,891

    Re: Atheists.

    IMO, to claim knowledge of the non-existence of an entity is not logically possible and is a faith based claim, meaning a claim without or despite contradicting evidence.

    I am an agnostic atheist, I don't know and I don't believe.
    Haymarket's "support" of the 2nd Amendment, a right he believes we never had.
    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    no. You cannot lose rights you do not have in the first place. There is no such thing as the right to have any weapon of your choice regardless of any other consideration. It simply does not exist.

  5. #45
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Last Seen
    11-20-14 @ 05:16 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    268
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Atheists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    Posts #26 and #27 clarify the post of mine you just responded to.
    26 and 27 still doesn't get it.

  6. #46
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,026

    Re: Atheists.

    Quote Originally Posted by recalcitrant View Post
    26 and 27 still doesn't get it.
    Maybe you should aim for clarity.

  7. #47
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Last Seen
    11-20-14 @ 05:16 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    268
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Atheists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    Maybe you should aim for clarity.
    It's alright. I already tried twice. I'm OK with you not getting it.

  8. #48
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,026

    Re: Atheists.

    Quote Originally Posted by recalcitrant View Post
    It's alright. I already tried twice. I'm OK with you not getting it.
    Being completely unwilling to simplify your point so that someone else may understand it better isn't typically a great way to keep that person interested in the conversation.

    Your call.

  9. #49
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Last Seen
    11-20-14 @ 05:16 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    268
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Atheists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    Being completely unwilling to simplify your point so that someone else may understand it better isn't typically a great way to keep that person interested in the conversation.

    Your call.
    It's alright. I already tried twice. I'm ok with you not being interested in the conversation.

  10. #50
    The Dude
    Kobie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Western NY
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    42,887

    Re: Atheists.

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    I guess the primary difference is that the chewing gum manufacturers don't actively incite violence. I've yet to see a pack of Big Red that has suggested I bash a homosexual's head in with a rock.
    I've read some rather disturbing Bazooka Joe comics.
    Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •