(March 11, 2013 at 12:19 am)jstrodel Wrote: Put aside the issue of whether sex, drugs and rock music are good or bad. That is not relevant to the question of whether atheists use these things to recruit people.

But it is relevant to your general thesis that those things are what makes atheism bad. Hence why I brought it up at all.

Quote:atheist position rather than a person one: This is related to the question of whether sex, drugs and rock music are beneficial for atheism. I cannot get inside of each persons head and see whether they are processing that sex, drugs and rock music are building up their movement. Actually, it doesn't matter. If they tolerate it, that is significant enough. It shows that they receive any benefit from it that they receive.

You understand there are plenty of religious people that tolerate those things too, right? Are they using sex, drugs and rock and roll to promote religion, in that case?

Quote:how being tolerant of these things inherently helps atheism: I think that asking this question is intellectually dishonest. If you don't realize that sex sells, that drugs sell, you are intentionally deceiving yourself. What does the atheist movement needs? It needs numbers. How does it attract people? Well, turn on the TV. How does everyone else attract people? What do you see most of all? You see music, which has powerful psychological effects constantly being used to sell things. You see sex, sex, sex, more sex, and even more sex. And, you see drugs, alchohol, at sporting events, alchohol, at bars, at clubs. American culture is saturated with these things and they are absolutely used to promote products.

And now you're being intellectually dishonest. I agree, sex is used to sell products. How does this relate back to atheism in any way?

No, I'm serious: do you know what else all those ads have in common aside from sex? A target. You see some boobs, and then you see the product being sold. There's never just sex on tv with the advertisers hoping the product message gets through via osmosis. The product is always presented.

Now, how many atheist ads do you see on tv? How many atheist ads do you see anywhere? I've seen some billboards, some bus ads, but none of them have anything remotely sexy on them, and beyond that, those are rare.

All you're doing is equating the presence of sex in advertising with advertising the atheist movement. Yes, I agree, sex sells. Now, who is using sex to sell atheism?

Quote:The intellectual way that atheism is promoted is understandable. The other way that atheism is promoted is HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE. Atheism is promoted in music, bands such as Disturbed, Bad Religion, Nine Inch Nails, Dead Kennedy's use music specifically targeted at young people to promote atheism. This sort of atheism is well represented on this board. Atheism uses sexual imagery and acceptance of sexual promiscuity. Atheism uses drugs and tolerance of drug culture to promote its message.

Again, you've just said words. Can you support them?

Quote:All of these things obviously exist and are a major and obvious feature of the atheist movement. The question is: to what degree are these different product enhancers (sex, drugs, music, politics) used to intentionally sell atheism? I think it varies person to person.

See above. Seriously, the answer to the question "how is atheism being sold through sex and music?" cannot be "They are selling atheism with sex and music."

Quote:But the cultural norm of atheism is tolerance, and tolerance benefits the atheists, so I hold them responsible and consider them to be actively using these different elements to promote their beliefs.

Have you ever considered that we might actually just believe in tolerance? Rather than using it as a recruiting tool?

Ever considered that without dogmatic religious idiocy there's no reason to think that sex or music or drugs are inherently bad, and therefore no reason to hold a position against them? Tolerance is not the same thing as advocacy.

Quote:The conclusion is clear: Atheism is a culture that absolutely thrives on using sensational images and sights and sounds and orgasms and drug highs and rock shows and everything imaginable in existence to draw in as many people to its culture war as it possible can.

Generally, one needs to support premises before they can come to a conclusion. You seem to have skipped that part.

Quote:You are fighting a war, whether you like it or not. You can be on the side of atheism (I would say, Satan) or you can be on the side of God. It is really up to you.

Your side can call it a war as much as you want. That just means you guys are combative blowhards who can't see anything outside of a context of conflict. Nothing more.

Quote:If you want to argue that there is nothing wrong with sex and drugs, perhaps in another thread. What if you are wrong? A lot of people disagree.

What if you are wrong? A lot of people disagree on religious (read: baseless) grounds. So what?

What religious people tolerate sex and drugs? Do you care that you are a liar?

Why can't you see that you are selling a product. You are so dishonest. You are a not a liberal. A real liberal would apply the same standard to himself that he applies to others. You would say that tolerance is advocacy in another context. Why can't you just step out of your ideological box and care about people for one or two minutes?

Prove the statement tolerance is not the same as advocacy. What college or highschool is there in the US that tolerates drugs? None.


If I am wrong, very little happens. THere is no risk of pregnancy, very young people are not enticed through the swirls and sounds of rock and roll and the drug and sex culture, nothing happens. People have to deny themselves a lot.

If you are wrong, a lot of peoples lives are destroyed. And actually, let me tell you something, you are wrong. I know a whole lot of peoples whose lives are destroyed. You are so dishonest you are trying to argue that religious people tolerate drugs and sexual immorality just as much as atheists do. You are probably going to cite something about Catholic sex abuse or the crusades or something totally unrelated. Cut and paste apologetics.

I don't think I am really going to get anywhere with someone who is so desperate to be right that he is going to argue that religious people tolerate drugs and sex and rock and roll and that there is an equal risk associate with abstinence than there is with a rock star lifestyle.

You are asking me to demostrate what I just demostrated. Why can't you just acknowledge that atheism is to a large degree the product of a youth culture centered around drugs and sex? It is because you are dishonest, and you don't care about the truth, and you want to argue, that is why.

jstrodel defining the world.


now at 6 pm on Fox News.

Okay, you are clearly an idiot.

At no point in your last post did you come close to addressing my points and so... I'm done. You're just a boring cartoon character with nothing interesting or relevant to say. If at any point you feel like actually having a discussion, instead of just restating your original premise over and over while backhandedly insulting everyone who disagrees with you, then please, post about that.

Otherwise, fuck off. I have better things to do that deal with disingenuous and rude little idiots like you.

(March 11, 2013 at 12:54 am)The Germans are coming Wrote: jstrodel defining the world.


now at 6 pm on Fox News.

lol

(March 9, 2013 at 3:54 am)Gilgamesh Wrote:

(March 9, 2013 at 3:51 am)jstrodel Wrote: Do you know who Christopher Hitchens is? Do you know who Stephen J Gould is? Do you know who Bertrand Russell is? Do you know who Karl Marx is? What sort of importance do those figures have to the atheist movement?

Your ignorance is glowing off of the screen.

I know Chris. I don't know what importance they have to the atheist movement. I'm not sure what the atheist movement is, I already told you, man. I'm ignorant. Educate me, sir.

I don't consider myself part of a movement. I just don't believe that gods exist, and to me that is perfectly sensible.

(March 11, 2013 at 12:49 am)jstrodel Wrote: What religious people tolerate sex and drugs? Do you care that you are a liar?

Religious and spiritual use of cannabis

(March 11, 2013 at 12:49 am)jstrodel Wrote: You would say that tolerance is advocacy in another context.
Prove the statement tolerance is not the same as advocacy.

dictionary.com Wrote:tol·er·ance
[tol-er-uhns]
1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.

3. interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.

---

ad·vo·ca·cy
[ad-vuh-kuh-see]
the act of pleading for, supporting, or recommending; active espousal

Simply not condemning something is not the same as encouraging it.

(March 11, 2013 at 12:49 am)jstrodel Wrote: If I am wrong, very little happens. THere is no risk of pregnancy, very young people are not enticed through the swirls and sounds of rock and roll and the drug and sex culture, nothing happens. People have to deny themselves a lot.

Are we talking about five year olds here, or about adults? You say "very young people" so are you claiming that atheists are okay with "very young" people doing drugs and having sex? (And by doing drugs, I don't mean hard drugs)

(March 11, 2013 at 12:49 am)jstrodel Wrote: If you are wrong, a lot of peoples lives are destroyed.

Only if they are irresponsible. People have known that drunk driving is bad for years. People still do it. You can't drink and drive responsibly. You can have sex, perhaps use some light drugs (?), and listen to music in ways that won't hurt you. If you are irresponsible, you're going to mess yourself up no matter what others tell you. I understand you've had some bad experiences, but whoever you were friends with was obviously irresponsible, and to blame atheism...well there's no reason to do that. You continuously state that atheism is at fault and promotes hard drug use, unsafe sex, and...somehow dangerous music, but you haven't supported it.

(March 11, 2013 at 12:49 am)jstrodel Wrote: And actually, let me tell you something, you are wrong.

Evidence?

(March 11, 2013 at 12:49 am)jstrodel Wrote: I know a whole lot of peoples whose lives are destroyed.

By atheists telling them to use hard drugs? And this is common, or just happened to you?

(March 11, 2013 at 12:49 am)jstrodel Wrote: You are so dishonest you are trying to argue that religious people tolerate drugs and sexual immorality just as much as atheists do.

The wiki link at the top of this post showed examples of religions supporting drug use, and however you define "sexual immorality" is subjective. Religion by definition can't tolerate sexual immorality because religion is what decides what is considered sexually immoral in the first place.

(March 11, 2013 at 12:49 am)jstrodel Wrote: You are probably going to cite something about Catholic sex abuse or the crusades or something totally unrelated.

Now you're just giving me ideas...although the crusades are entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

(March 11, 2013 at 12:49 am)jstrodel Wrote: I don't think I am really going to get anywhere with someone who is so desperate to be right that he is going to argue that religious people tolerate drugs and sex and rock and roll and that there is an equal risk associate with abstinence than there is with a rock star lifestyle.

Rock star lifestyle? Who is living a rock star lifestyle? Do you really think atheists are living like that...or is that the result of the bad company you placed yourself in years ago?

(March 11, 2013 at 12:49 am)jstrodel Wrote: Why can't you just acknowledge that atheism is to a large degree the product of a youth culture centered around drugs and sex?

Because it isn't. One would think Satanism would be much more rebellious anyway... And why would this culture you claim exists lose belief in god rather than simply act rebelliously to spite him?

(March 11, 2013 at 12:49 am)jstrodel Wrote: It is because you are dishonest, and you don't care about the truth, and you want to argue, that is why.

Projection much?

Those claims that all atheist do drugs are false. I hate illegal drugs with passion. Drugs should only be taken with a prescription from a Doctor. I have never done drugs in my life and never will.

Quote:Religious and spiritual use of cannabis

That is not the same as "tolerating sex and drugs". Every religious faith in the world more or less condemns intemperance and hedonism regarding sexuality and the use of psycho-actives. That is different from spiritual use of cannabis. The spiritual use of cannabis is very debatable, but it is definitely not the same as "tolerating sex and drugs" which is pure hedonism. You are grasping at anything to make your point, obviously that was not what I meant.

(March 11, 2013 at 12:49 am)jstrodel Wrote: You would say that tolerance is advocacy in another context.
Prove the statement tolerance is not the same as advocacy.

dictionary.com Wrote:tol·er·ance
[tol-er-uhns]
1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.

3. interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.

---

ad·vo·ca·cy
[ad-vuh-kuh-see]
the act of pleading for, supporting, or recommending; active espousal

Simply not condemning something is not the same as encouraging it.
[/quote]

You completely missed the argument. Of course they are different words. My argument was the tolerance entails advocacy, not that they are exactly the same definition.

Quote:Are we talking about five year olds here, or about adults? You say "very young people" so are you claiming that atheists are okay with "very young" people doing drugs and having sex? (And by doing drugs, I don't mean hard drugs)

Teenagers, such as those reading about whether if atheism is true nihilism follows and right after that reading about sex.
You don't see any problem with that?

Quote:Only if they are irresponsible. People have known that drunk driving is bad for years. People still do it. You can't drink and drive responsibly. You can have sex, perhaps use some light drugs (?), and listen to music in ways that won't hurt you. If you are irresponsible, you're going to mess yourself up no matter what others tell you. I understand you've had some bad experiences, but whoever you were friends with was obviously irresponsible, and to blame atheism...well there's no reason to do that. You continuously state that atheism is at fault and promotes hard drug use, unsafe sex, and...somehow dangerous music, but you haven't supported it.

Why do you accept what the scientific world teaches when it supports the lifestyle that you want to have and reject it when it disagrees with your culture? It is almost like science has a great deal of authority when it comes to disproving Christianity, but it has very little authority when it comes to a question like whether or not you can use marijuana or ecstasy responsibly. Science, in the form of the medical establishment, the food and drug establishment, the pharmacological community has said that you cannot use illegal drugs responsibly and you cannot abuse alcohol responsibly either.

Do you see any problem with you defining the quantity of danger of activities that will probably end up killing a few of your friends in your life? I am just going to be honest with you, but as you grow up, you are going to know some people that get killed from drugs. I have, everyone has. Do you really want to make yourself responsible for giving other people advice about what you can do "responsibly"? Why not leave that to a doctor?

Quote:By atheists telling them to use hard drugs? And this is common, or just happened to you?

Atheism create a culture among young people that is friendly to drug use and the older atheists do nothing to stop it.

Quote:The wiki link at the top of this post showed examples of religions supporting drug use, and however you define "sexual immorality" is subjective. Religion by definition can't tolerate sexual immorality because religion is what decides what is considered sexually immoral in the first place.

No, it shows examples of religion showing acceptance of marijuana for religious reasons, which is rare and irrelevant because that is not at all what I am talking about, I am talking about the atheist acceptance of youth culture.

How you define sexual morality is not subjective. It comes from the sexual act itself. The nature of birth and the economic realities of parenthood establish sexual morality as a basic issue every single religious group in history should care about.

Can people have children whenever they want and have as many as they want? NO. OF COURSE NOT.

Do you know how much poverty is caused by peoples poor decision making? Go in the inner city and see how many single families you will see. Of course, you could argue that the poverty is responsible for the single families to some degree, and that is true, but the reverse is true.

I don't really follow your argument about religion not being able to define sexual morality. You could rephrase it.

Quote:Rock star lifestyle? Who is living a rock star lifestyle? Do you really think atheists are living like that...or is that the result of the bad company you placed yourself in years ago?

Have you ever been to college? You know what you see? Drugs, liberalism/socialism/immorality/atheism and popular music culture. I don't care if Sean Hannity and everyone else at Fox News talks about that, you know what the genetic fallacy is, right? Or have you learned to step out of your "free thinker" training wheels and actually appreciate the very different cultural forces at play between liberal/atheist and conservative/Christian cultures. The differences are staggering, as someone who has been in both, although many Christians are in between both worlds, the strength of the secular culture is through Christians it is through all these other ideas.

Quote:Because it isn't. One would think Satanism would be much more rebellious anyway... And why would this culture you claim exists lose belief in god rather than simply act rebelliously to spite him?

You are missing the point of the objection and the nuance is completely lost on you (no offense). The point is not that young people are doing drugs and sex because they hate God or want to be atheists, the point is that people don't care that much about atheism, it is an issue, but the real issue is that the atheist culture draws people away from God with the lure of drugs and sex and freedom.

It is not that the people that are atheists are atheists because they are so knowledgeable about the Bible, because they have painstakingly studied and researched and questioned and looked and looked and looked and studied more and gone through and questioned, certainly some have, but the masses of people, their atheism or agnosticism is the product of accepting the simultaneous decision to cast off restraint and pursue hedonism and follow a movement that tolerates and/or encourages it and at the same time have some sort of intellectual/ethical justification for believing that God does not exist.

The responsible atheist would see these issues and realize that much is at stake. He would see that although he may not believe in God, as a moral person he recognizes that the risks of drug use and worldview that accepts nihilism as an acceptable way to see the world should not be mixed and consideration of either at the very least should be separated. A responsible person would not try and convinced young people that atheism is true, he would not minimize the many difficulties that exist in attempting to defend atheism, he would not use aggressive propaganda tactics, he would not intentionally blaspheme religion in order to separate people from cultural prejudices and make them feel as if they have no duty to obey God. He would not dangle before people drugs and sex and a hedonistic lifestyle and he would not rely on those things to run his organization.

Quote:Projection much?

I swear that I never lie, nothing that I do is ever deceitful. I have not told a lie in probably 6 or 7 years. I promise you that. You can believe me or not. I train my mind all day long to try and be more clear in how I express my ideas.

(March 14, 2013 at 12:37 am)jstrodel Wrote: That is not the same as "tolerating sex and drugs". Every religious faith in the world more or less condemns intemperance and hedonism regarding sexuality and the use of psycho-actives. That is different from spiritual use of cannabis. The spiritual use of cannabis is very debatable, but it is definitely not the same as "tolerating sex and drugs" which is pure hedonism. You are grasping at anything to make your point, obviously that was not what I meant.

Oh, so you make an exception for religion, then? Hypocritical much? Because when I asked you specifically how it was that atheism profited from being more free regarding sex, drugs and the like, you said this:

Quote:atheist position rather than a person one: This is related to the question of whether sex, drugs and rock music are beneficial for atheism. I cannot get inside of each persons head and see whether they are processing that sex, drugs and rock music are building up their movement. Actually, it doesn't matter. If they tolerate it, that is significant enough. It shows that they receive any benefit from it that they receive.

So according to you, just allowing it to happen is advocacy. So... you've kinda trodden on your own prior argument there, though the fact that you've made yet another exception for religious use is just hilarious.

(March 11, 2013 at 12:49 am)jstrodel Wrote: You completely missed the argument. Of course they are different words. My argument was the tolerance entails advocacy, not that they are exactly the same definition.

Only you're wrong, definitionally. Tolerance need not entail advocacy, and I think you know that. I think that you probably tolerate a lot of things that you disapprove of, that doesn't mean you're necessarily advocating for them.

Quote:Teenagers, such as those reading about whether if atheism is true nihilism follows and right after that reading about sex.
You don't see any problem with that?

Yeah, I do. Because that first thing is just dead wrong.

Do I have a problem with teenagers reading about sex? No. Why would I? They're going to be doing it themselves someday, what's the issue with being informed about it?

Quote:Why do you accept what the scientific world teaches when it supports the lifestyle that you want to have and reject it when it disagrees with your culture? It is almost like science has a great deal of authority when it comes to disproving Christianity, but it has very little authority when it comes to a question like whether or not you can use marijuana or ecstasy responsibly. Science, in the form of the medical establishment, the food and drug establishment, the pharmacological community has said that you cannot use illegal drugs responsibly and you cannot abuse alcohol responsibly either.

This is one of those things you need proof for. Besides, what is your point, even? We recognize that we're unable to completely control the lives of everyone and force them to do what we find healthy, and therefore we're advocating drug use?

Quote:Atheism create a culture among young people that is friendly to drug use and the older atheists do nothing to stop it.

Fucking prove it.

Quote:No, it shows examples of religion showing acceptance of marijuana for religious reasons, which is rare and irrelevant because that is not at all what I am talking about, I am talking about the atheist acceptance of youth culture.

It's entirely relevant to what was asked of you earlier, to which you responded that no christian, singular or as a group, was okay with drug use. When you said that, you were dead wrong. Admit it, please.

Quote:How you define sexual morality is not subjective. It comes from the sexual act itself. The nature of birth and the economic realities of parenthood establish sexual morality as a basic issue every single religious group in history should care about.

By this definition, sexual morality is subjective, given that advances in technology have made it far safer to have sex, and reduced the chances of pregnancy as an unintended consequence of sex. Also, this definition doesn't really gel with what's in the bible, does it?

Quote:Can people have children whenever they want and have as many as they want? NO. OF COURSE NOT.

Incidentally, are you against sex education in schools, contraception, and abortion? You know, all the things that actually help with this problem?

Quote:Have you ever been to college? You know what you see? Drugs, liberalism/socialism/immorality/atheism and popular music culture.

Equivocation! Can you prove that all the college kids indulging in this stuff are atheist? Or that all college kids do these things?

And seriously, what is your beef with music, dude?

Quote:It is not that the people that are atheists are atheists because they are so knowledgeable about the Bible, because they have painstakingly studied and researched and questioned and looked and looked and looked and studied more and gone through and questioned, certainly some have, but the masses of people, their atheism or agnosticism is the product of accepting the simultaneous decision to cast off restraint and pursue hedonism and follow a movement that tolerates and/or encourages it and at the same time have some sort of intellectual/ethical justification for believing that God does not exist.

Since you've never, in your entire time on this forum, provided any proof that this is true beyond your own flawed personal experiences, I have no qualms about just calling you a liar here.

You liar.