It’s really an rabid atheist plot to make it look like a Janist plot to make it look like a Muslim plot to make Jews look like crazy Islamophobic conspiracy theorists. Good one, Author.
When a group or individual perceived himself as persecuted, he’ll look for reasons, no matter how farfetched, to explain his condition. When religion or any other ideology is laid on top of that, truly crazy ideas emerge!
Muslims aren’t best served by the mendacity of some of their journalists either!
Can you remember the one who was exposed as a fraud by the Daily Mail?
His name escapes me.
I thought Islam was a plot by muslims to make their graffitophobic religion look bloodthirstily violent, misogynist, homophobic and scientifically illiterate
Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean nobody is out to get you. After you eliminate the Muslims from making Muslims look bad, who is next most likely to do that?
> Why is the Muslim world in thrall to conspiracy theories?
They aren’t in thrall to it. They’re the authors of it. Propoganda is explicitly commanded as part of the Koran’s declared war to kill or convert all unbelievers. The Jews in particular.
Each of the Abrahamic religions imply, “If your not being persecuted, you’re not doing it right.” Hence,,the feelings of self pity, and at the same time, self-righteousness. Is it any wonder that true believers are so quick to see conspiracy?
Someone is trying to make muslims look bad?
Islam thinks it has been had?
Their violent actions seem to escape
Murder, genocide and rape
Are not considered polite jihad.
Well folks, we’re all in the game now. Three young Muslims murdered, possibly over a disputed parking space, and the press is giving prominent attention to the murderer being an atheist. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11405005/Chapel-Hill-shooting-Three-American-Muslims-killed.html
I wish I could write this off as a conspiracy by the Catholics, but that doesn’t seem credible. We’re all going to wear this, just as the Muslims have worn 9/11 and Charlie Hebdo. Time to insist that, while being a believer doesn’t give you a morality, neither does being an atheist unless we expand the definition to mean more than “doesn’t believe in any god”. Is it time to take a second look at Atheism+?
Thanks again for helping me laugh at this kind of stuff, Author. You make it funny, which is a talent I don’t possess.
Time to insist that, while being a believer doesn’t give you a morality, neither does being an atheist unless we expand the definition to mean more than “doesn’t believe in any god”.
Author! Aren’t we all! Hassan is a mendacious apologist for islam! The mail exposure exposed his true feelings and beliefs. They weren’t as far removed from those he espoused in the notorious you tube videos as he’d like us to believe!
As a kuffar who deserves death I just wish you wouldn’t give this duplicitous shit the oxygen of publicity!
Unfortunately, that article on the Telegraph seems to consist primarily of twitter and facebook postings, which I don’t really count as “news”. All we really know is there are some dead people, the shooter went to the police to be arrested, and the prosecutor chose to charge first degree murder. This last part either suggests that there is no evidence that the use of force is justified or that the claimed justification is weak. Or the prosecutor just wants to look aggressive in public.
I find it interesting to see that the “hate crime” part appears to be pure conjecture at this point, though it is certainly something to be investigated. If not for the facebook postings of the shooter, the conjecture might well have been “racially motivated”.
I’ve never claimed that atheism has anything to do with morality. I do claim that being an atheist does not imply immoral, but I would no more claim that all atheists are moral than I would that all theists are moral.
I have also claimed that we should not make up false beliefs (e.g. that god will punish you) for the purpose of controlling bad behaviour, then persecute people who refuse to be taken in by those obviously false beliefs (i.e. atheists).
Yes, we found a case where an atheist killed some believers. Given how much time people spend killing each other, I don’t find that all that remarkable.
I think it is significant that atheism does not explicitly demand that we kill believers, though. It doesn’t demand that we kill anybody. If the as-yet-uninvestigated killing turns out to be unjustified, then this guy is just a bad person.
I won’t try to say “no true atheist”. I condemn the killing. This is not a civilized way to behave.
i sure am glad my atheist moral compass thingy has never stopped working, these religeous ones seem a bit dodgy…#http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-06/rabbi-did-not-have-a-clue-an-adult-touching-a-child-was-illegal/6076796
On the cartoon: to be fair to Muslims, I think being a visibly distinct stigmatised minority (in countries where they are a minority, obviously) may predispose to conspiracy theorist beliefs due to experiences of persecution. It’s not really paranoia if a lot of people treat you with hostile prejudice.
On the recent shooting: This seems a pretty good article; I particularly feel that the points raised as to the tone of the narrative we take with regards to religion being important. Certainly, religion is delusional, but it’s a popular delusion we’re going to have to go on living alongside people who hold (90% of people maintain the same religion as their parents), and so the only good answer remains to keep on simply not being a d**k to people by, eg, stigmatising them, excluding them, or deluding ourselves into thinking that their religious beliefs as the root of all evil. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/02/11/chapel-hill-killings-shine-light-on-particular-tensions-between-islam-and-atheism/
Hey, WhiteSquirrel: How could you deduce that the porn they’re fapping to is gay? Did I miss something there? ^_^
Also, being a theist doesn’t mean I cannot have many imaginary friends. Not only do I worship different deities from a plethora of different pantheons in addition to the once captial-G God, I also have three animal spirit guides and a ghost keeping me regular companionship. Seriously.
@dumdumdum: How do you know your moral compass stayed true. Isn’t your moral compass the only thing to compare it to? If it broke, wouldn’t it give you a false positive on your own feedback?
K.P.Spong: Actually, all Abrahamic religions imply that you already ARE presecuted, by God’s secret police going through your every throught and feeling to search for incriminating evidence against you. So really, it is not astonishing that the more religious people are the more they need to shift the blame to someone else. The consequences of even believing they might be to blame themselves are too horrible to permit. Nothing makes scapegoating more necessary than guilt-focused Abrahamic faith.
How could you deduce that the porn they’re fapping to is gay?
I don’t know. Just saying.
1.They are as inseparable as a pair of infatuated newly weds.
2.They spend a lot of time reading in bed together. Maybe it costs too much to heat the house, or maybe they are visiting in the refractory period until arousal comes back around.
3. If it is porn, they are watching it together.
4. Both religions frown on masturbation and gays. As white+squirrel says, if you’re going to sy they’re doing one you might as well double down and accuse them of both.
Actually, all Abrahamic religions imply that you already ARE presecuted, by God’s secret police going through your every throught and feeling to search for incriminating evidence against you. So really, it is not astonishing that the more religious people are the more they need to shift the blame to someone else. The consequences of even believing they might be to blame themselves are too horrible to permit. Nothing makes scapegoating more necessary than guilt-focused Abrahamic faith.
Do you think that is a feature of monotheism in general, or is it proprietary measure that helped The God of the Jews take over the world.
one you might as well double down and accuse them of both
which sums up the problem Islam creates for itself
if merely drawing a cartoon provokes a death sentence
then one may as well get death threats for depicting Muhammed blowing Satan while wearing a pig mask
as opposed to getting death treats for just drawing him as a stick figure
if Im going to recieve a death threat for something so innocuous then I would make the ‘crime’ as extreme as I can
As a member of a group I see any slights against my group quit clearly. When members of other’s groups complain of slights it often seems like they are over-reacting.
However, why militant atheist? Did he shout ” I have avenged the Enlightenment and empirical evidence” as he ran from the scene. Why is it so important that the victims were Muslim? If they were Catholic and he was a Buddhist would the religions have been mentioned?
“In the name of Science, the Demonstrable, the Falsifiable.
Say; oh you who disagree! I have my theories and you have your theories. But neither of us are entitled to our own facts.”
Since atheists are likely less than 2% of the US population, an atheist that murders his neighbors is statistically much more likely to kill theists than other atheists – however, Muslims are less than 1% of the US population.
Still, the murders had nothing to do with atheism, because atheism is a philosophy of peace. Surely the shooter could only have been driven to extremism by the rampant discrimination and violent oppression of atheists all over the world. So the socio-economic circumstances are really to blame for this tragedy. And anyone who suggests otherwise is clearly an atheophobic hate monger…
I am not a lunaticophobe, some of my friends are lunatics. But, wouldn’t it be more to the point to just call these killers ‘militant lunatics’ instead of dragging their assumed delusions into it. At least in the first reports.
Dan seems to possess a lot of inside knowledge concerning the illuminati
The Invisible Pink Unicorn (Hallowed be Her Hooves) told me that Dan is just a dupe of the Illuminati, used to divert attention away from the link between the Illuminati, Yale’s Skull & Bones Secret Society and [REDACTED]
For Dog created mankind, to care for dogs and so become happy here and now;
and then mankind may hope for shelter in Dogs heaven if there is life hereafter.
Anyone see the John Daily show the other night where he pointed out that Christians who are trying to get Sharia law banned in the U.S. (as though we ever had them or ever will), use the argument that they do not want laws written in foreign countries to apply in the U.S.
Hmmm, Seems it hasn’t occurred to them that the biblical laws they fervently believe should be followed in the U.S. were written . . . where?
“In the name of Science, the Demonstrable, the Falsifiable…”–TrueFork you are inspired!
The video of the segment of The Daily Show that Max T. Furr mentioned is available at http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/38g1zt/wedding-crushers . The whole clip is fun (and you’ll need to see the whole thing to get the final joke), but if you want to see just the Sharia part, start at 3:56.
Truly not to step on your toes, TrueFork, but I can’t agree with “atheism is a philosophy of peace” – only because it’s not a philosophy in the first place.
It’s not a belief system, it’s a tenet – cf. theism. We wouldn’t assume that theism is the full extent of (most) theists’ belief systems (they have so many rules and regulations beyond just “god(s) exist(s),” after all), and the assumption that a single “statement” such as atheism is somehow the full equivalent of an entire religion (e.g., Judaism, Christianity, Islam) is the fundamental mistake of fundamentalists in the first place; i.e., theism is the core of their world views, so they assume atheism must be the core of any given atheist’s world view.
As someone who includes atheism in my world view (I do not believe in deities or other such supernatural beings), but doesn’t find all that much in common with a great number of atheists I’ve met (outside of said atheism), I’m awfully careful about the difference between a tenet and a full-on belief system. Others who claim atheism as a belief may or may not be proponents of pacifism, peaceful solutions, the scientific method, ad infinitum…but it isn’t a given, and there’s plenty of precedence on either side of that divide.
By the same token, if someone claims their theism or atheism was the motivating factor in some nefarious deed, I’ll have to take their word for their own motivations (without sufficient reason or evidence otherwise)…but it does not (without sufficient reason or evidence otherwise) indicate that said theism/atheism will always motivate such nefarious deeds. Arguments over “which bad guy was atheistic” and “which bad guy was religious” miss the point that bad guys are, if I can stretch the tautology without offense, bad guys, and whatever they put on their census forms is relevant only in an academic fashion.
totally agree GE
given that ‘god’ is ‘unknown’ and ‘unknowable’ and that we have yet to define what ‘god’ actually is supposed to be and that no one yet agrees what it might even be whether or not it is actually that thing,
‘god’ is essentailly a totally meaningless term without any value, use or merit.
the universe with ‘god’ is identical to the universe without ‘god’
so in truth I really dont care whether ‘god’ exists or not, it is totally irrelevant
and other than creationists be an irritation ‘god’ does not impact on my life at all
sadly its deluded followers do continue to impact, and I will oppose them till I die
there is a difference
an agnostic tends to base their indicision on the standard veiw of ‘god’ as being a pan omni sentient entity
my arguement is that the thing being labled ‘god’ has yet to be defined and until it is precisely defined the label/term is essentially meaningless
the problem is that until it is actually defined it is impossible to even be agnostic – as an agnostic has a definition of some sort as to what they beleive or dont believe in, and my problem is that the word ‘god’ doesnt even have a definition never mind proven existence
its physical form is undefined its level of pervasion is undefined and its level of sentience is undefined
but until they are to claim beleive or non beleive is also impossible because what is being beleived /unbelieved in is also undefined
if ‘god’ means the vicoius evil bible god then that is a definition – conversely ‘god’ might be aliens or dark matter or a natural cosmic force X yet to be discovered, or maybe its just a plastic toy duck
but until its precisely defined it could be anything, so to declare belieif in it is also just as meaningless
so my stance is not agnostic it is indifference
first establish what is precisely meant by the term ‘god’ and then I can decide wheter to beleive / disbeleive or be agnostic, but until that is done even being agnostic is yet to be determined
to make it clearer
if someone said I beleive that god is a magic chocolate teapot then it is possible to have a veiwpoint on that entity
but if someone such says I belive in something that has yet to be defined/decribed in any way, it is impossible to have any veiwpoint of their beleive not even an agnostic one
my postition was caused by a recent debate I had with a xian who declared that “‘god’ is everything that exists as well as everything that does not exist”
but something that is that all pervasive becomes essentially meaningless
because given that I also beleive in everything that exists as well as everything that does not exist then by their definition I beleive in ‘god’
because they have moved the definition to encompass something that I do beleive in – ie the totality of quantum-space-time
the thing is that given beleivers can shift and change their definition of ‘god’ in any way they like because the term is undefined. So essentialy believers can make you believe in ‘god’ just by shifting the term ‘god’ to mean ‘the universe’ or ‘gravity’ or anything else they feel like stating it to be
but by doing so they dissapate the term to such an extent that its worthless
so why even bother with beleif/disbelief/agnostism
Still, the murders had nothing to do with atheism, because atheism is a philosophy of peace. Surely the shooter could only have been driven to extremism by the rampant discrimination and violent oppression of atheists all over the world. So the socio-economic circumstances are really to blame for this tragedy. And anyone who suggests otherwise is clearly an atheophobic hate monger…
given that ‘god’ is ‘unknown’ and ‘unknowable’ […], ‘god’ is essentially a totally meaningless term.
Which is, in fact, the agnostic point of view on the matter.
No. That is the definition of ignostic. There is no way to have meaningful discussion without a definition of terms.
Considering myself agnostic, or ignostic if you want to cleave that hair, the definition of the term ‘god’ in its (a)theist context is totally irrelevant in my opinion.
On the other hand, defining my dog as a goddess – that’s very relevant. But I doubt (a)theists will agree to that definition.
“Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether or not God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable. In the popular sense of the term, an “agnostic”, according to the philosopher William L. Rowe, is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God, while a theist believes that God does exist and an atheist does not believe that God exists. Agnosticism is a doctrine or set of tenets rather than a religion as such.”
claims such as whether or not God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable.
therein lies the core of this problem
beleif / disbelief and agnogstic are value jugements / opinion about a supernatural entity referred to as ‘god’
BUT
we dont even have that
without a definition of any sort there is nothing to base belief /disbelief or angosticism on
THERE is nothing to even attach the belief too – the whole ‘god’ concept is that worthless /hollow / meaningless
Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of God and other theological concepts; including (but not limited to) concepts of faith, spirituality, heaven, hell, afterlife, damnation, salvation, sin and the soul.
Ignosticism is the view that any religious term or theological concept presented must be accompanied by a coherent definition. Without a clear definition such terms cannot be meaningfully discussed. Such terms or concepts must also be falsifiable. Lacking this, an ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the existence or nature of the terms presented (and all matters of debate) is meaningless. For example, if the term “God” does not refer to anything reasonably defined then there is no conceivable method to test against the existence of god. Therefore, the term “God” has no literal significance and need not be debated or discussed.
Wikipedia
It’s a fine hair to split, that’s true. The difference is that the Ignostic gets to say, “Until you give me a clear, falsifiable, definition of the word ‘god’ I don’t know what you are talking about. And, I don’t believe you do either.”
dont hold your breath waiting for a definition either
the vatican spent several years examining the question ‘what is god’
only to conclude at the end that ‘god is god’
Ag or Ig, both ‘nostics result in application of Karl Popper’s demarcation criterium. Eventually religion is based upon magical thinking.
Plainsuch, your remark There is no way to have meaningful discussion without a definition of terms. made me think. Isn’t math or logic all about thinking and discussing undefined terms, as in the variables A, B, P. Q ?
(A+B)(A-B)=A²+B²
If P, then Q
p
ergo q
For P, read the undefined variable GOD (the amount of characters is irrelevant) for Q read undefined variable HELL (any significance of the randon character combination is pureloy accidental)
shaughn- your ‘arguement’ sounds like a creationist apologetic to me
If P then Q
yes provided ‘IF’ has any contextual relevance
where P equals P and at the same time P does not equal P
neither P nor Q can be inferred
The use of unknown variables is fine where it is used to abstract measurable items / factors
but if nonsense like ‘god’ are used as factors it results in GI=GO
If you include ‘god’ in maths then you get things like
where A = A, B = B, G =G and T as no relation to Q define Q
where A = the number of angels on a pin
B = the weight in grams of a ‘soul’
G = sensitivity to initail conditions
T = the number of ‘true’ beleivers
and Q is undefinable
where
A- every item in the quantum universe is a function of everything else in the qauntum universe
and
B ‘god’ has no connection , bearing, relationship, impact or revelance to or on the quantum universe
define ‘god’
I think you’ve made my point clear, w+s, there is discussion possible about undefined variables.
If P then Q
p
ergo q
is a modus ponens in logic. You cannot go wrong with that reasoning BUT on the additional condition that P and Q are true.
The use of unknown variables is fine where it is used to abstract measurable items / factors I beg to differ. They are used to compute investments and intrest rates, mortgages, life insurances, global positions in your gps – among other things.
. Isn’t math or logic all about thinking and discussing undefined terms, as in the variables A, B, P. Q ?
We have to agree on the definition of the symbols and the rules whereby the variables are manipulated. Using your random character strings, I assert:
(A-B+&)(If P then GOD else GOD) = HELL Without agreement on what kind of things the variables represent, and on what manipulations are allowed, we have no way of deciding if that statement is true, false or just bad math.
every item in the quantum universe is a function of everything else in the quantum universe
Without knowing the state of everything else in the universe, that would seem to mean that the behavior of each particle would appear random and the universe would appear chaotic even if it were completely deterministic. It also implies that quantum physics is a statistical model of the universe and therefore can not predict the behavior of any one item.
Define ‘god’, w+s ?
‘god’= that what ‘has no connection , bearing, relationship, impact or revelance to or on the quantum universe’.
I can live with that (unintended?) definition of yours, though I have a little doubt wether it survives Poppers demarcation. On the other hand, a definition is not a hypothesis or a scientific proposition.
Plainsuch: We have to agree on the definition of the symbols and the rules whereby the variables are manipulated. So the mathematicians and philosophers did: A, B, … P, Q etcetera stand for variables, and the rules of manipulation are there too.
It also implies that quantum physics is a statistical model of the universe and therefore can not predict the behavior of any one item. To the best of my limited knowledge and understanding, that’s exactly what quantum theory is about.
Good to see you taking such an interest, and love the avatar, but if you’re going to make 30 posts in one thread, could you please at least do us the courtesy of writing in grammatical sentences? With, like, capital letters and full stops and stuff?
You make some good points, but they tend to get lost in the free-form meandering. Without wishing to sound patronising, you might even find that the discipline of some structure and punctuation improves the clarity of the contents, which I am sorry to say, often seem more like notes to yourself, rather than a coherent argument intended to be read and understood by other people.
Jesus & Mo (the characters) are absurd, blinkered, and oddly very sweet. J&M (the cartoon) is brilliant: sharp, delicious, irresistible. Salman Rushdie
Jesus and Mo cartoons are wonderfully funny and true. Richard Dawkins
Jesus and Mo make the world a better place, bless their little hearts. Ophelia Benson
In a world defined by outrage and offence and liberal spinelessness, Jesus and Mo is a treasure, whose value we should never fail to recognize. Read them. Laugh. And think. Kenan Malik
The brilliant, celebrated, freaking hilarious atheist comic strip ... Greta Christina
...rays of sanity in a befuddled world. Keri Hulme
The liveliest depictions of Muhammad currently available... Malise Ruthven
J & Mo is the funniest and most consistently thought-provoking cartoon strip on the Net. In a saner world, it would run in a major newspaper. Nelson Jones, Heresy Corner
Consistently amusing, frequently thought-provoking and often heart-warming. New Humanist
Jesus & Mo is one of the most wonderful things on the internet.. JT Eberhard
Wittily captures much of the absurdity of religious apologetics. Mano Singham
I love jesusandmo.net cartoons - witty and sharp! Katha Pollitt
Often hilarious, frequently wry, these cartoons do what all the best cartoons do: they tell the truth through humour. Terry Sanderson, NSS President
...a wonderfully acid British cartoonist... Nick Cohen
I love the scrappy mockery of Jesus and Mo. Freedom of speech
includes the freedom to mock any person, any thing, any activity, and
any belief -- and J&M stands up for this unflinchingly Richard Stallman
...empowering, important and deeply progressive, not to mention hilarious... Council of Ex-Muslims
January 11, 2013
It’s really an rabid atheist plot to make it look like a Janist plot to make it look like a Muslim plot to make Jews look like crazy Islamophobic conspiracy theorists. Good one, Author.
When a group or individual perceived himself as persecuted, he’ll look for reasons, no matter how farfetched, to explain his condition. When religion or any other ideology is laid on top of that, truly crazy ideas emerge!
Muslims aren’t best served by the mendacity of some of their journalists either!
Can you remember the one who was exposed as a fraud by the Daily Mail?
His name escapes me.
Even Medhi Hasan is right sometimes, Smee.
I thought Islam was a plot by muslims to make their graffitophobic religion look bloodthirstily violent, misogynist, homophobic and scientifically illiterate
Why is the Muslim world in thrall to conspiracy theories?
because it allows them to pass the blame for their extremists and pretend the violence / negativity activity N is not an inside job by muslims
see also ‘bible apologists’
Infidelophobia and/or haramophobia
Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean nobody is out to get you. After you eliminate the Muslims from making Muslims look bad, who is next most likely to do that?
I’ve pondered a question forever… does my being a non-theist/atheist make me anti-semitic by default?
Funny: antisemitic semites plotting against their own. Oh well, it makes suicide bombing understandable.
> Why is the Muslim world in thrall to conspiracy theories?
They aren’t in thrall to it. They’re the authors of it. Propoganda is explicitly commanded as part of the Koran’s declared war to kill or convert all unbelievers. The Jews in particular.
Each of the Abrahamic religions imply, “If your not being persecuted, you’re not doing it right.” Hence,,the feelings of self pity, and at the same time, self-righteousness. Is it any wonder that true believers are so quick to see conspiracy?
Someone is trying to make muslims look bad?
Islam thinks it has been had?
Their violent actions seem to escape
Murder, genocide and rape
Are not considered polite jihad.
Well folks, we’re all in the game now. Three young Muslims murdered, possibly over a disputed parking space, and the press is giving prominent attention to the murderer being an atheist.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11405005/Chapel-Hill-shooting-Three-American-Muslims-killed.html
I wish I could write this off as a conspiracy by the Catholics, but that doesn’t seem credible. We’re all going to wear this, just as the Muslims have worn 9/11 and Charlie Hebdo. Time to insist that, while being a believer doesn’t give you a morality, neither does being an atheist unless we expand the definition to mean more than “doesn’t believe in any god”. Is it time to take a second look at Atheism+?
Thanks again for helping me laugh at this kind of stuff, Author. You make it funny, which is a talent I don’t possess.
Being an atheist doesn’t mean I can’t have an imaginary invisible friend too.
Darwin Harmless
PZ Myers has some thoughts about that. http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/02/11/beliefs-have-consequences/
Author! Aren’t we all! Hassan is a mendacious apologist for islam! The mail exposure exposed his true feelings and beliefs. They weren’t as far removed from those he espoused in the notorious you tube videos as he’d like us to believe!
As a kuffar who deserves death I just wish you wouldn’t give this duplicitous shit the oxygen of publicity!
Unfortunately, that article on the Telegraph seems to consist primarily of twitter and facebook postings, which I don’t really count as “news”. All we really know is there are some dead people, the shooter went to the police to be arrested, and the prosecutor chose to charge first degree murder. This last part either suggests that there is no evidence that the use of force is justified or that the claimed justification is weak. Or the prosecutor just wants to look aggressive in public.
I find it interesting to see that the “hate crime” part appears to be pure conjecture at this point, though it is certainly something to be investigated. If not for the facebook postings of the shooter, the conjecture might well have been “racially motivated”.
I’ve never claimed that atheism has anything to do with morality. I do claim that being an atheist does not imply immoral, but I would no more claim that all atheists are moral than I would that all theists are moral.
I have also claimed that we should not make up false beliefs (e.g. that god will punish you) for the purpose of controlling bad behaviour, then persecute people who refuse to be taken in by those obviously false beliefs (i.e. atheists).
Yes, we found a case where an atheist killed some believers. Given how much time people spend killing each other, I don’t find that all that remarkable.
I think it is significant that atheism does not explicitly demand that we kill believers, though. It doesn’t demand that we kill anybody. If the as-yet-uninvestigated killing turns out to be unjustified, then this guy is just a bad person.
I won’t try to say “no true atheist”. I condemn the killing. This is not a civilized way to behave.
Being an atheist doesn’t mean I can’t have an imaginary invisible friend too
an invisible friend is ok -its when you have an invisible evil tyrant that it becomes a problem
Oh, Author! Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you!!!!!!!
What are the boys drinking?
What are the boys drinking?
A beverage that is liCENSEd by their imaginary friend, and maybe CENSOred for the believers who do not want to know.
i sure am glad my atheist moral compass thingy has never stopped working, these religeous ones seem a bit dodgy…#http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-06/rabbi-did-not-have-a-clue-an-adult-touching-a-child-was-illegal/6076796
Especially those who are obsessed with male genital mutilation. Some of them even touch them for a living.
On the cartoon: to be fair to Muslims, I think being a visibly distinct stigmatised minority (in countries where they are a minority, obviously) may predispose to conspiracy theorist beliefs due to experiences of persecution. It’s not really paranoia if a lot of people treat you with hostile prejudice.
On the recent shooting: This seems a pretty good article; I particularly feel that the points raised as to the tone of the narrative we take with regards to religion being important. Certainly, religion is delusional, but it’s a popular delusion we’re going to have to go on living alongside people who hold (90% of people maintain the same religion as their parents), and so the only good answer remains to keep on simply not being a d**k to people by, eg, stigmatising them, excluding them, or deluding ourselves into thinking that their religious beliefs as the root of all evil. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/02/11/chapel-hill-killings-shine-light-on-particular-tensions-between-islam-and-atheism/
Should have read that through before posting – apologies for the grammar fails :S
What are the boys drinking?
given they are being paranoid
Bis in cans?
What are the boys drinking?
answer two
Ink
What are the boys drinking?
answer three
they are not drinking
the location of their hands suggests they are either playing a video game or they are watching hardcore gay porn
Hey, WhiteSquirrel: How could you deduce that the porn they’re fapping to is gay? Did I miss something there? ^_^
Also, being a theist doesn’t mean I cannot have many imaginary friends. Not only do I worship different deities from a plethora of different pantheons in addition to the once captial-G God, I also have three animal spirit guides and a ghost keeping me regular companionship. Seriously.
@dumdumdum: How do you know your moral compass stayed true. Isn’t your moral compass the only thing to compare it to? If it broke, wouldn’t it give you a false positive on your own feedback?
K.P.Spong: Actually, all Abrahamic religions imply that you already ARE presecuted, by God’s secret police going through your every throught and feeling to search for incriminating evidence against you. So really, it is not astonishing that the more religious people are the more they need to shift the blame to someone else. The consequences of even believing they might be to blame themselves are too horrible to permit. Nothing makes scapegoating more necessary than guilt-focused Abrahamic faith.
How could you deduce that the porn they’re fapping to is gay
I didint I only said that cos it would annoy the beleivers more
three animal spirit guides and a ghost
How could you deduce that
Did I miss something there
many imaginary friends.
anyone can have as many IMAGINARY friends as they want or need
its when people demand that they are REAL and others beleive in them too that I object
know your moral compass
See also
electro spin resonance as geological dating method
geomagnetic record/pole shift
@FreeFox – guessing because i also know its not ok to molest cjildren withOUT something or one, imaginary or not, needing to mention that to me…ever?
the cartoon is not about imaginary friends its about imaginary enemies
its not ok to molest cjildren withOUT something or one, imaginary or not, needing to mention that to me
oh so does that mean its ok to molest children if you do have an imaginary archangel friend
How could you deduce that the porn they’re fapping to is gay?
I don’t know. Just saying.
1.They are as inseparable as a pair of infatuated newly weds.
2.They spend a lot of time reading in bed together. Maybe it costs too much to heat the house, or maybe they are visiting in the refractory period until arousal comes back around.
3. If it is porn, they are watching it together.
4. Both religions frown on masturbation and gays. As white+squirrel says, if you’re going to sy they’re doing one you might as well double down and accuse them of both.
Actually, all Abrahamic religions imply that you already ARE presecuted, by God’s secret police going through your every throught and feeling to search for incriminating evidence against you. So really, it is not astonishing that the more religious people are the more they need to shift the blame to someone else. The consequences of even believing they might be to blame themselves are too horrible to permit. Nothing makes scapegoating more necessary than guilt-focused Abrahamic faith.
Do you think that is a feature of monotheism in general, or is it proprietary measure that helped The God of the Jews take over the world.
you dont have to be gay to watch extreme hardcore gay porn – as we know from the film show that US evangelist put on in Africa
one you might as well double down and accuse them of both
which sums up the problem Islam creates for itself
if merely drawing a cartoon provokes a death sentence
then one may as well get death threats for depicting Muhammed blowing Satan while wearing a pig mask
as opposed to getting death treats for just drawing him as a stick figure
if Im going to recieve a death threat for something so innocuous then I would make the ‘crime’ as extreme as I can
As a member of a group I see any slights against my group quit clearly. When members of other’s groups complain of slights it often seems like they are over-reacting.
However, why militant atheist? Did he shout ” I have avenged the Enlightenment and empirical evidence” as he ran from the scene. Why is it so important that the victims were Muslim? If they were Catholic and he was a Buddhist would the religions have been mentioned?
@Caliban27 – Which is exactly what the Illuminati want you think!
“In the name of Science, the Demonstrable, the Falsifiable.
Say; oh you who disagree! I have my theories and you have your theories. But neither of us are entitled to our own facts.”
Since atheists are likely less than 2% of the US population, an atheist that murders his neighbors is statistically much more likely to kill theists than other atheists – however, Muslims are less than 1% of the US population.
Still, the murders had nothing to do with atheism, because atheism is a philosophy of peace. Surely the shooter could only have been driven to extremism by the rampant discrimination and violent oppression of atheists all over the world. So the socio-economic circumstances are really to blame for this tragedy. And anyone who suggests otherwise is clearly an atheophobic hate monger…
I am not a lunaticophobe, some of my friends are lunatics. But, wouldn’t it be more to the point to just call these killers ‘militant lunatics’ instead of dragging their assumed delusions into it. At least in the first reports.
Since atheists are likely less than 2% of the US population
should that not read
Since openly declared atheists….
closet atheists are likely a far higher %
Dan seems to possess a lot of inside knowledge concerning the illuminati
Dan seems to possess a lot of inside knowledge concerning the illuminati
The Invisible Pink Unicorn (Hallowed be Her Hooves) told me that Dan is just a dupe of the Illuminati, used to divert attention away from the link between the Illuminati, Yale’s Skull & Bones Secret Society and [REDACTED]
Please disregard the previous comment. I was just joking…no, it wasn’t me…no, no, my enemies HACKED MY ACCOUNT!!!!
Too late plainsuch
THEY know
your fate is sealed
In Dog we trust.
For Dog created mankind, to care for dogs and so become happy here and now;
and then mankind may hope for shelter in Dogs heaven if there is life hereafter.
Sneaky indeed.
Anyone see the John Daily show the other night where he pointed out that Christians who are trying to get Sharia law banned in the U.S. (as though we ever had them or ever will), use the argument that they do not want laws written in foreign countries to apply in the U.S.
Hmmm, Seems it hasn’t occurred to them that the biblical laws they fervently believe should be followed in the U.S. were written . . . where?
white+squirrel, your new avatar is lovely!
“In the name of Science, the Demonstrable, the Falsifiable…”–TrueFork you are inspired!
The video of the segment of The Daily Show that Max T. Furr mentioned is available at http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/38g1zt/wedding-crushers . The whole clip is fun (and you’ll need to see the whole thing to get the final joke), but if you want to see just the Sharia part, start at 3:56.
they do not want laws written in foreign countries
the past is a foreign country
ty 2 cents
?@SimpsonsQOTD
“Romance was acquired in a hostile takeover by Hallmark and Disney, homogenized, and sold off piece by piece.” Twitter
Happy Buy-Something-Shaped-Like-Upside-Down-Buttocks Day, with or without the phallic arrow.
http://www.rosskissvalentinesday.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Be-My-Valentine-1.jpg
Truly not to step on your toes, TrueFork, but I can’t agree with “atheism is a philosophy of peace” – only because it’s not a philosophy in the first place.
It’s not a belief system, it’s a tenet – cf. theism. We wouldn’t assume that theism is the full extent of (most) theists’ belief systems (they have so many rules and regulations beyond just “god(s) exist(s),” after all), and the assumption that a single “statement” such as atheism is somehow the full equivalent of an entire religion (e.g., Judaism, Christianity, Islam) is the fundamental mistake of fundamentalists in the first place; i.e., theism is the core of their world views, so they assume atheism must be the core of any given atheist’s world view.
As someone who includes atheism in my world view (I do not believe in deities or other such supernatural beings), but doesn’t find all that much in common with a great number of atheists I’ve met (outside of said atheism), I’m awfully careful about the difference between a tenet and a full-on belief system. Others who claim atheism as a belief may or may not be proponents of pacifism, peaceful solutions, the scientific method, ad infinitum…but it isn’t a given, and there’s plenty of precedence on either side of that divide.
By the same token, if someone claims their theism or atheism was the motivating factor in some nefarious deed, I’ll have to take their word for their own motivations (without sufficient reason or evidence otherwise)…but it does not (without sufficient reason or evidence otherwise) indicate that said theism/atheism will always motivate such nefarious deeds. Arguments over “which bad guy was atheistic” and “which bad guy was religious” miss the point that bad guys are, if I can stretch the tautology without offense, bad guys, and whatever they put on their census forms is relevant only in an academic fashion.
Your mileage, she may vary!
totally agree GE
given that ‘god’ is ‘unknown’ and ‘unknowable’ and that we have yet to define what ‘god’ actually is supposed to be and that no one yet agrees what it might even be whether or not it is actually that thing,
‘god’ is essentailly a totally meaningless term without any value, use or merit.
the universe with ‘god’ is identical to the universe without ‘god’
so in truth I really dont care whether ‘god’ exists or not, it is totally irrelevant
and other than creationists be an irritation ‘god’ does not impact on my life at all
sadly its deluded followers do continue to impact, and I will oppose them till I die
given that ‘god’ is ‘unknown’ and ‘unknowable’ […], ‘god’ is essentially a totally meaningless term.
Which is, in fact, the agnostic point of view on the matter.
there is a difference
an agnostic tends to base their indicision on the standard veiw of ‘god’ as being a pan omni sentient entity
my arguement is that the thing being labled ‘god’ has yet to be defined and until it is precisely defined the label/term is essentially meaningless
the problem is that until it is actually defined it is impossible to even be agnostic – as an agnostic has a definition of some sort as to what they beleive or dont believe in, and my problem is that the word ‘god’ doesnt even have a definition never mind proven existence
its physical form is undefined its level of pervasion is undefined and its level of sentience is undefined
but until they are to claim beleive or non beleive is also impossible because what is being beleived /unbelieved in is also undefined
if ‘god’ means the vicoius evil bible god then that is a definition – conversely ‘god’ might be aliens or dark matter or a natural cosmic force X yet to be discovered, or maybe its just a plastic toy duck
but until its precisely defined it could be anything, so to declare belieif in it is also just as meaningless
so my stance is not agnostic it is indifference
first establish what is precisely meant by the term ‘god’ and then I can decide wheter to beleive / disbeleive or be agnostic, but until that is done even being agnostic is yet to be determined
to make it clearer
if someone said I beleive that god is a magic chocolate teapot then it is possible to have a veiwpoint on that entity
but if someone such says I belive in something that has yet to be defined/decribed in any way, it is impossible to have any veiwpoint of their beleive not even an agnostic one
my postition was caused by a recent debate I had with a xian who declared that “‘god’ is everything that exists as well as everything that does not exist”
but something that is that all pervasive becomes essentially meaningless
because given that I also beleive in everything that exists as well as everything that does not exist then by their definition I beleive in ‘god’
because they have moved the definition to encompass something that I do beleive in – ie the totality of quantum-space-time
the thing is that given beleivers can shift and change their definition of ‘god’ in any way they like because the term is undefined. So essentialy believers can make you believe in ‘god’ just by shifting the term ‘god’ to mean ‘the universe’ or ‘gravity’ or anything else they feel like stating it to be
but by doing so they dissapate the term to such an extent that its worthless
so why even bother with beleif/disbelief/agnostism
third attempt/angle
ok suppose I say that ‘god’ is xixocmogiig
can you even state beleif / disbeleif / agnosticism
Still, the murders had nothing to do with atheism, because atheism is a philosophy of peace. Surely the shooter could only have been driven to extremism by the rampant discrimination and violent oppression of atheists all over the world. So the socio-economic circumstances are really to blame for this tragedy. And anyone who suggests otherwise is clearly an atheophobic hate monger…
That’s funny.
given that ‘god’ is ‘unknown’ and ‘unknowable’ […], ‘god’ is essentially a totally meaningless term.
Which is, in fact, the agnostic point of view on the matter.
No. That is the definition of ignostic. There is no way to have meaningful discussion without a definition of terms.
Considering myself agnostic, or ignostic if you want to cleave that hair, the definition of the term ‘god’ in its (a)theist context is totally irrelevant in my opinion.
On the other hand, defining my dog as a goddess – that’s very relevant. But I doubt (a)theists will agree to that definition.
I’m fine with the wikipedia description below.
“Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether or not God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable. In the popular sense of the term, an “agnostic”, according to the philosopher William L. Rowe, is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God, while a theist believes that God does exist and an atheist does not believe that God exists. Agnosticism is a doctrine or set of tenets rather than a religion as such.”
Why bother more about is?
claims such as whether or not God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable.
therein lies the core of this problem
beleif / disbelief and agnogstic are value jugements / opinion about a supernatural entity referred to as ‘god’
BUT
we dont even have that
without a definition of any sort there is nothing to base belief /disbelief or angosticism on
THERE is nothing to even attach the belief too – the whole ‘god’ concept is that worthless /hollow / meaningless
to discusss ‘god’ is the rhetorical equivalent of a kleine bottle
Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of God and other theological concepts; including (but not limited to) concepts of faith, spirituality, heaven, hell, afterlife, damnation, salvation, sin and the soul.
Ignosticism is the view that any religious term or theological concept presented must be accompanied by a coherent definition. Without a clear definition such terms cannot be meaningfully discussed. Such terms or concepts must also be falsifiable. Lacking this, an ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the existence or nature of the terms presented (and all matters of debate) is meaningless. For example, if the term “God” does not refer to anything reasonably defined then there is no conceivable method to test against the existence of god. Therefore, the term “God” has no literal significance and need not be debated or discussed.
Wikipedia
It’s a fine hair to split, that’s true. The difference is that the Ignostic gets to say, “Until you give me a clear, falsifiable, definition of the word ‘god’ I don’t know what you are talking about. And, I don’t believe you do either.”
dont hold your breath waiting for a definition either
the vatican spent several years examining the question ‘what is god’
only to conclude at the end that ‘god is god’
My imaginary invisible friend is easily defined. She is clearly imaginary and invisibility is easily falsifiable. If you see her she isn’t there.
Mammon’s worshipers have a clear definition as well. “There is no god but Gold, and Ayn Rand is the true prophet.”
Ag or Ig, both ‘nostics result in application of Karl Popper’s demarcation criterium. Eventually religion is based upon magical thinking.
Plainsuch, your remark There is no way to have meaningful discussion without a definition of terms. made me think. Isn’t math or logic all about thinking and discussing undefined terms, as in the variables A, B, P. Q ?
(A+B)(A-B)=A²+B²
If P, then Q
p
ergo q
For P, read the undefined variable GOD (the amount of characters is irrelevant) for Q read undefined variable HELL (any significance of the randon character combination is pureloy accidental)
shaughn- your ‘arguement’ sounds like a creationist apologetic to me
If P then Q
yes provided ‘IF’ has any contextual relevance
where P equals P and at the same time P does not equal P
neither P nor Q can be inferred
The use of unknown variables is fine where it is used to abstract measurable items / factors
but if nonsense like ‘god’ are used as factors it results in GI=GO
If you include ‘god’ in maths then you get things like
where A = A, B = B, G =G and T as no relation to Q define Q
where A = the number of angels on a pin
B = the weight in grams of a ‘soul’
G = sensitivity to initail conditions
T = the number of ‘true’ beleivers
and Q is undefinable
= GIGO
where
A- every item in the quantum universe is a function of everything else in the qauntum universe
and
B ‘god’ has no connection , bearing, relationship, impact or revelance to or on the quantum universe
define ‘god’
I think you’ve made my point clear, w+s, there is discussion possible about undefined variables.
If P then Q
p
ergo q
is a modus ponens in logic. You cannot go wrong with that reasoning BUT on the additional condition that P and Q are true.
The use of unknown variables is fine where it is used to abstract measurable items / factors I beg to differ. They are used to compute investments and intrest rates, mortgages, life insurances, global positions in your gps – among other things.
I think its all just a big conspiracy to attempt to prove ‘god’
big prophet is watching you
. Isn’t math or logic all about thinking and discussing undefined terms, as in the variables A, B, P. Q ?
We have to agree on the definition of the symbols and the rules whereby the variables are manipulated. Using your random character strings, I assert:
(A-B+&)(If P then GOD else GOD) = HELL Without agreement on what kind of things the variables represent, and on what manipulations are allowed, we have no way of deciding if that statement is true, false or just bad math.
every item in the quantum universe is a function of everything else in the quantum universe
Without knowing the state of everything else in the universe, that would seem to mean that the behavior of each particle would appear random and the universe would appear chaotic even if it were completely deterministic. It also implies that quantum physics is a statistical model of the universe and therefore can not predict the behavior of any one item.
Define ‘god’, w+s ?
‘god’= that what ‘has no connection , bearing, relationship, impact or revelance to or on the quantum universe’.
I can live with that (unintended?) definition of yours, though I have a little doubt wether it survives Poppers demarcation. On the other hand, a definition is not a hypothesis or a scientific proposition.
Plainsuch:
We have to agree on the definition of the symbols and the rules whereby the variables are manipulated. So the mathematicians and philosophers did: A, B, … P, Q etcetera stand for variables, and the rules of manipulation are there too.
It also implies that quantum physics is a statistical model of the universe and therefore can not predict the behavior of any one item. To the best of my limited knowledge and understanding, that’s exactly what quantum theory is about.
white squirrel:
Good to see you taking such an interest, and love the avatar, but if you’re going to make 30 posts in one thread, could you please at least do us the courtesy of writing in grammatical sentences? With, like, capital letters and full stops and stuff?
You make some good points, but they tend to get lost in the free-form meandering. Without wishing to sound patronising, you might even find that the discipline of some structure and punctuation improves the clarity of the contents, which I am sorry to say, often seem more like notes to yourself, rather than a coherent argument intended to be read and understood by other people.