|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 15, 2018 23:31:53 GMT 10
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 16, 2018 7:40:57 GMT 10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 8:42:21 GMT 10
Thank you for that link Pim...they seem like a sensible mob. I shall look into their workings in more detail at a later time. I guess there is an 'Atheism Spectrum', with those firebrands like Dawkins and Hitchens who decry all religion sitting at one end while more moderate LaLLs* sit at the other (close to where I place myself) I had an interesting exchange with a colleague yesterday who asked me a 'personal question' about my beliefs as he, a PNG national growing up in a devout Christian family, was challenging his own faith. I replied that I would be classified as 'atheist' by most, but hold an open view regarding a spiritual interconnectedness between all living things. I said I had once been a devout Christian in my early days but found the vengeful God and judgement aspects were incompatible with who I was while still acknowledging the guidance and comfort faith can bring to an individual, provided that does not develop into a dependency on an intangible entity for intervention in times of need. So, Occam's dig at 'one size fits all' atheism is, in my mind, a bit off beam Ok, that was probably more than I needed to say...  * Live and Let Live |
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 16, 2018 9:08:57 GMT 10
Amen to that - as it were. By the way and tangentially connected, have you seen the new movie "Sweet Country" with Sam Neil and Bryan Brown? Best version ever of the hymn "There will be peace in the valley" as they roll the credits at the end.
|
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Feb 16, 2018 9:27:27 GMT 10
The term “Athiest” is a word dreamed up by religious theists to use as a label to stick on people who are intelligent enough to NOT blindly believe the god delusion inside people's heads. Perhaps those religious theists who claim their god is real could put up PROOF that their god is real?
Hey, I'll claim I am a magician who can create entire worlds, but I won't put up any proof, I'll just ask you to have FAITH that I am who I claim I am.
See how stupid and idiotic your god faith is?
Now take your “Athiest” label and shove it up your arsehole.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2018 7:39:48 GMT 10
Amen to that - as it were. By the way and tangentially connected, have you seen the new movie "Sweet Country" with Sam Neil and Bryan Brown? Best version ever of the hymn "There will be peace in the valley" as they roll the credits at the end. No, I haven't . I have read good reviews so it's on the list |
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 17, 2018 7:44:56 GMT 10
No it isn't KTJ. Gawd but you make shit up. Is that the best you can do? Is that really your miserable pathetic trolling best?
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 22, 2018 4:33:47 GMT 10
The term “Athiest” is a word dreamed up by religious theists to use as a label to stick on people who are intelligent enough to NOT blindly believe the god delusion inside people's heads. Even if this were the case, so what? That does not mean it's not an apt title. The word "Christian" was not chosen by the people of the same name, either. It was intended as a derogatory term that was later embraced by the early church. For an "intelligent" person, you surely are demonstrating an ample amount of ignorance, KTJ. Good Job.  |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 22, 2018 4:41:53 GMT 10
The term “Athiest” is a word dreamed up by religious theists to use as a label to stick on people who are intelligent enough to NOT blindly believe the god delusion inside people's heads. ...So are you suggesting that your viewpoint is derivative of the religious?  |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 22, 2018 4:44:35 GMT 10
I want to give that a read, pim. But I cringe at their use of the word 'rationalist'. It's a little self-promoting, don't you think? Not every atheist is rational; not every religious person is irrational. (vice-versa) |
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 22, 2018 6:48:35 GMT 10
I take your point, Occam and the Trolling Duo are prime examples of people who wear their phony "atheism" on their sleeve but with no rational agenda in mind. In fact their faux "atheism" (expect KTJ to spam the board at this point with furious denials about being an "atheist", made-up tendentious bullshit about who "invented" the term "atheist" and boring mantras about "proof". To which I can only reply: not interested! you waddle like a paleo atheist, you quack like a paleo atheist so STFU and get back to the swamp) explains their utter lack of any rational agenda. I hope you're not putting the Rationalist Society of Australia in the same category as the Gruesome Twosome! Welcome to the Rationalist Society of Australia, Australia’s oldest freethought association.
Rationalists hold that all significant beliefs and actions should be based on reason and evidence, that the natural world is the only world there is, and that answers to the key questions of human existence are to be found only in that natural world. “We’re in favour of science and evidence as opposed to superstition and bigotry!” www.rationalist.com.au/Their journal is a quarterly magazine called Australian Rationalist www.rationalist.com.au/the-australian-rationalist/I applaud your openness to dissenting viewpoints and readiness to read lucid articles written by educated people from a rationalist perspective. Yes they tend to be atheists. In fact I have to be honest and acknowledge that I haven't read a single article promoting or in defence of religious faith in all the years I've been reading the AR. But this doesn't ipso facto make it a religion-bashing rag! It sets a much higher bar for itself than offering itself as a platform for religion-bashing trolls. Occam while occasionally you might find philosophical articles that you'd find interesting, a lot of AR is Australia-specific and of no great interest to you. An example of what I mean is that great hoary old Australian chestnut that hangs around like a foetid smell (the US spelling is "fetid") from some rank swamp, massive taxpayer subsidies to church schools and its corollary which is the impoverishment of the government school sector. It's an example of the targeting of taxpayers' money, as a deliberate act of policy, to promote private affluence at the cost of public squalor. The churches have been in the news Down Under quite a lot over the past few years: currently we have a cardinal and an archbishop facing criminal charges relating to child sexual abuse and a slew of priests doing jail time. Not to mention an enquiry at the highest level (called a "Royal Commission" here) into child abuse within institutions - and the churches get a big mention. So it follows that this is going to be reflected in the AR. But the AR doesn't restrict itself to those topics. You might be interested in this link www.rationalist.com.au/articles/It's good to see you again, by the way. How have you been? |
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 22, 2018 7:04:06 GMT 10
Occam is this the Canadian equivalent of our rationalist movement? therationalists.org Hard to tell ... |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 22, 2018 22:17:38 GMT 10
Occam is this the Canadian equivalent of our rationalist movement? therationalists.org Hard to tell ... I'm not certain. Most of the atheists I know of tend to be pretty casual, not organized. |
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Feb 23, 2018 8:17:34 GMT 10
I take your point, Occam and the Trolling Duo are prime examples of people who wear their phony "atheism" on their sleeve but with no rational agenda in mind. In fact their faux "atheism" (expect KTJ to spam the board at this point with furious denials about being an "atheist", made-up tendentious bullshit about who "invented" the term "atheist" and boring mantras about "proof". To which I can only reply: not interested! you waddle like a paleo atheist, you quack like a paleo atheist so STFU and get back to the swamp) explains their utter lack of any rational agenda. I hope you're not putting the Rationalist Society of Australia in the same category as the Gruesome Twosome! IDIOT!!! I am a non-believer of fantastical un-proven bullshit. That is all. If I claimed I was an enternal magician who has created entire worlds, but offered no proof, merely asking you to have FAITH I am who I say I am, would you blindly believe my bullshit? Well?? |
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 23, 2018 15:54:41 GMT 10
Been there done that one with you several times already over the years of your trolling the Religion Board, KTJ. Particularly on the "proof" thing as it relates to "faith". You have made it clear many times that you have zero idea what "empirical" means or what "epistemology" or even what "faith" means. And after six years of your trolling the Religion Board spewing forth the same abusive bile I'm just not interested. Capeesh?
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 24, 2018 11:11:21 GMT 10
Conversely, if you knew you were going to die in a few years, and someone told you believing in them was the only way you'd survive beyond those years.
...Even if he were complete a nutter, what would you have to lose?
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 24, 2018 11:26:39 GMT 10
I take your point, Occam and the Trolling Duo are prime examples of people who wear their phony "atheism" on their sleeve but with no rational agenda in mind. In fact their faux "atheism" (expect KTJ to spam the board at this point with furious denials about being an "atheist", made-up tendentious bullshit about who "invented" the term "atheist" and boring mantras about "proof". To which I can only reply: not interested! you waddle like a paleo atheist, you quack like a paleo atheist so STFU and get back to the swamp) explains their utter lack of any rational agenda. I hope you're not putting the Rationalist Society of Australia in the same category as the Gruesome Twosome! IDIOT!!! I am a non-believer of fantastical un-proven bullshit. That is all. If I claimed I was an enternal magician who has created entire worlds, but offered no proof, merely asking you to have FAITH I am who I say I am, would you blindly believe my bullshit? Well?? No. But not for the lack of proof, but the obvious flaws in your spelling and logic. |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 24, 2018 13:49:06 GMT 10
Conversely, if you knew you were going to die in a few years, and someone told you believing in them was the only way you'd survive beyond those years. ...Even if he were complete a nutter, what would you have to lose? Integrity. The concept of 'integrity' is implicitly an objective standard, so I leave it to you explain that. |
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Feb 24, 2018 18:41:31 GMT 10
Okay then, if you believe in me, worship me and pray to me every day, I'll grant you eternal life.
I offer absolutely no proof whatsoever that I can do that, but ask you to have FAITH that I can.
Even if if you think I'm a complete nutter and a liar, what do you have to lose?
Well??
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 25, 2018 0:12:37 GMT 10
Okay then, if you believe in me, worship me and pray to me every day, I'll grant you eternal life. I offer absolutely no proof whatsoever that I can do that, but ask you to have FAITH that I can. Even if if you think I'm a complete nutter and a liar, what do you have to lose? Well?? Why would I? You'd be contradicting yourself. You've professed on many occasions that there was no God, you couldn't in the same breath say that you are him. Firstly, I know your character; you are flawed. Secondly, You can't even save yourself from death or return from it. Thirdly, there is no witness or testimony saying you have done such. Fourthly, even if you supposedly had witnesses, none of them would be willing to die for that belief. Ergo, there is no real comparison between your bluster and the claims of Christ. |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 2, 2018 8:08:56 GMT 10
The term “Athiest” is a word dreamed up by religious theists to use as a label to stick on people who are intelligent enough to NOT blindly believe the god delusion inside people's heads. Perhaps those religious theists who claim their god is real could put up PROOF that their god is real? C.S. Lewis said it best:
“Can a mortal ask questions which God finds unanswerable? Quite easily, I should think. All nonsense questions are unanswerable. How many hours are in a mile? Is yellow square or round? Probably half the questions we ask - half our great theological and metaphysical problems - are like that.” |
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Mar 2, 2018 10:20:14 GMT 10
C.S. Lewis said it best:
“Can a mortal ask questions which God finds unanswerable? Quite easily, I should think. All nonsense questions are unanswerable. How many hours are in a mile? Is yellow square or round? Probably half the questions we ask - half our great theological and metaphysical problems - are like that.” But the quote you put up is about an unproven god delusion, so until such time as that god can be proven to be real, that quote is as delusional as the god delusion it invokes. |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 2, 2018 10:52:24 GMT 10
C.S. Lewis said it best:
“Can a mortal ask questions which God finds unanswerable? Quite easily, I should think. All nonsense questions are unanswerable. How many hours are in a mile? Is yellow square or round? Probably half the questions we ask - half our great theological and metaphysical problems - are like that.” But the quote you put up is about an unproven god delusion, so until such time as that god can be proven to be real, that quote is as delusional as the god delusion it invokes. How illogical is it to prove naturally, something that is by very definition supernatural? If He could be proven naturally, wouldn't that then disprove a supernatural origin? Your quote, not his, is the delusion. |
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Mar 2, 2018 12:14:36 GMT 10
Hey, I am a supernatural god.
I don't need to put up any proof, because the religious idiot at this group says only faith is needed.
So bow down and worship me you mere mortals.
BTW....I didn't even need to use a computer to post this, but merely used my godly powers.
I don't need to prove I posted that way because I am a supernatural god …… according to the spork's logic.
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 2, 2018 13:15:29 GMT 10
Noli vexatores alere, Occam. Or, to put it another way ...  |
|
