A Small Census

[genkaus]

To become an atheist obviously is one of the most important decisions that people make in their whole life, that will vastly affect the way that they see their responsibilities to others and the role they have in the world, which virtually every society in history has considered to be the most important part of being human.

Wrong on both counts. Your society may have seen it as such, not mine. Further, as I said earlier, the philosophical outlook that leads them to atheism is usually already in place prior to someone becoming an atheist. It is that philosophical outlook that determined what they see their responsibilities as and that remains unchanged upon being an atheist.

Do you really think that atheism has only "a small" effect on peoples understanding of the world?

Yes.

I would guess that this is common in people who do not emphasize daily practice and integrate their worldview in what they do, and who do not make serious efforts to ensure that their morality is always adhered to.

Ridiculous. Those are the principles I follow everyday. And I know for a fact that my final switch to atheism did not make a difference in my beliefs regarding morality.

Obviously the decision to reject God as a justifying principle for morality is one of the most important aspects of atheism, whether it directly specifies an understanding of morality or not.

Once more, ridiculous. Rejecting god is only required to justify rejecting your religious morality. All the moralities I reject form an insignificant aspect of my daily life. What is significant is the morality I do accept and live by which is not detemined by my atheism, i.e. what I don't believe in, but the rest of my philosophical outlook, i.e. what I do believe in.

[jstrodel]

Ridiculous. Those are the principles I follow everyday. And I know for a fact that my final switch to atheism did not make a difference in my beliefs regarding morality.

What did you believe before you an atheist that was compatible with atheism? Did you go from Deism to atheism or something like that?

What is significant is the morality I do accept and live by which is not detemined by my atheism, i.e. what I don't believe in, but the rest of my philosophical outlook, i.e. what I do believe in.

How can you separate what you do believe in from what you don't believe in? You can't do this and be rational person. You understand what things are in terms of what they are not. While you may not think about your beliefs everyday, what you don't believe forms a structure of belief that informs what you do believe, and it is a major part of the structure of your understanding.

I don't see how you can fail to see this.

Are you really arguing that it doesn't matter very much whether you believe in God or not? I can't believe what I am reading. It is almost like you are trying to grab a hold of anything that you can to make the absurd point that atheism is not belief, it is only the absence of belief. There is no concern for a systemic appreciation of the way that one aspect of philosophy affects another, only a sort of carnal impulse to defend as fiercely as possible the hopeless argument that atheism does not imply anything about ethics.

[genkaus]

What did you believe before you an atheist that was compatible with atheism? Did you go from Deism to atheism or something like that?

Yes, and before that, from theism to deism.

How can you separate what you do believe in from what you don't believe in?

What I do believe in is - by definition - separate from what I don't believe in.

You can't do this and be rational person.

Actually, its the opposite. Its when what do believe and don't believe overlap then you are not being rational.

You understand what things are in terms of what they are not.

No, you understand it in terms of what they are. Cataloging what they are not would be impossible.

While you may not think about your beliefs everyday, what you don't believe forms a structure of belief that informs what you do believe, and it is a major part of the structure of your understanding.

That's precisely the opposite of how a rational mind works. You don't start by listing things you don't believe and after an exhaustive process of elimination decide that since these are the things I don't not believe then these must be what I do believe. You first establish what you do believe and based on that you decide what you don't by rejecting things that are incompatible.

Are you really arguing that it doesn't matter very much whether you believe in God or not?

No. Believing in god matters - not believing in it doesn't.

I can't believe what I am reading.

Better believe it.

It is almost like you are trying to grab a hold of anything that you can to make the absurd point that atheism is not belief, it is only the absence of belief.

On the contrary, atheism is a belief. What it is not is a significant belief.

There is no concern for a systemic appreciation of the way that one aspect of philosophy affects another, only a sort of carnal impulse to defend as fiercely as possible the hopeless argument that atheism does not imply anything about ethics.

Ofcourse there is a significant concern for how one aspect of philosophy affects another - but atheism is not a significant aspect of one's philosophy and since it is not the basis for one's ethics, it doesn't imply anything about it other than that they are not theological.

[jstrodel]

You noticed a "small difference" going from theism to atheism? You were never saved. You were never born again.

[Esquilax]

You noticed a "small difference" going from theism to atheism? You were never saved. You were never born again.

Neither were you. Nobody is.

[genkaus]

You noticed a "small difference" going from theism to atheism? You were never saved. You were never born again.

Exactly. There was nothing for me to be saved from and I was born right the first time around.

[Angrboda]

You noticed a "small difference" going from theism to atheism? You were never saved. You were never born again.

Do you absolutely, positively have to embrace every dishonest and bankrupt Christian lie?


Christ almighty. I seriously think you must have permanently fried your brain. Christianity by itself doesn't make a person this bad at thinking.


Moreover, you've incessantly whined that we can't criticize Christianity because we haven't read the Christian literature (despite being told that many have read it, as former Christians). Yet it's obvious from your arguments that you have never seriously engaged the humanist, atheist, secular, and skeptical literature, because if you had then you would know how stupid posts like this sound to those of us who have. That makes you a bloody hypocrite for faulting others for what you yourself are guilty of. You have to be the worst example of a Christian I've ever met. You make me appreciate the Drich's and catfish's for their eminent sanity, morality, and reasonableness compared to you.


And to round out the trifecta, you're incredibly ignorant. You pull shit out of your ass left and right, and demonstrate your complete ignorance of both world history and comparative religion every time you open your mouth.

You, just by being you, give Christianity a black eye.

[fr0d0]

Getting back to the important stuff :S

8. Are you selfish? At least half the time. I derive the greatest pleasure from the pleasure I give others (ladies, take note).

A master stroke, from a master stroker I don't doubt

[Cyberman]

I've also been called a master debator. At least that's what it sounded like.

[CleanShavenJesus]

You noticed a "small difference" going from theism to atheism? You were never saved. You were never born again.

I wouldn't want to put my mother's vagina through that again.