Emotional resilience and Philistinery

[Get me Rex Kramer!]

I'm selfish because I don't already agree with you? Fascist!

Liberal egalitarian, actually. But don't worry if you don't understand what that is what with all your philosophy qualifications and what not.

But thanks for playing, trolly troll you're selfish because you're disingenuous, and to be fair, not that smart (intellectually and, seemingly, politically). I mean, you joined an atheist forum with the aim of telling atheists that they're wrong/terrible people etc etc. sound like something a smart person would do, or a person who wanted their views to be considered and debated? Schmuck.

DERAIL

I have a class of 16 year olds who can refute liberal egalitarianism.
I tell you you're a bad person because you are an insulting pig. I joined the forum for a reason unrelated to anything about you (you're not a very interesting atheist, but then arrogant fascists usually aren't very interesting at much). Guess what? I had no idea who you are when I joined the forum and I'm not here for you specifically! But I can get on your case if you like.

Want to tell me something about how you interpret egalitarianism?

---

The guy in the video was really distressed wasn't he? I mean, to the point of smugness.

While there are legitimate problems with atheists being persecuted, this isn't an example of it - quite the opposite, and actually serves to prove my point. When atheists are 'out and proud' they actually piss people off quite a lot, and enjoy the idea of being persecuted ('what, for being rational? chucklechuckle gaffaw').

So, should theists be out and proud and scream from the top of their lungs all the mythology they come up with, but atheists can't poke wholes in the fallacies of these people?
Is that it?
Free speech, to hell, if it's against an established ideology?
Can't go disturbing people's delusions... they're happy with them... keep them that way!

Again. Atheism is often harmful because the worldviews most atheists mess with (in 'defending' or 'explaining' their 'position') - in their size 10 shoes - are sometimes delicate and sometimes necessary. To think 'well if you're not smart enough/educated enough' is just reckless.

You are aware that very educated and smart people remain theists, are you not?
It so happens that it's the uneducated that become more vocal... which is sad...

God is not just a concept. It is just a concept to you, but not to others. This is extremely important, and until you accept it you are in denial.

Reality does not care about what people think.

Realising the difference does not have to mean social policies holding back smart people (from expressing how smart they are), it simply means that smart people have to be smarter - legitimately smarter, intellectually, not as a political cop out.

So there.

Smarter as in... playing along with the theists and never saying anything that may offend them and their view of the afterlife? Is that it?
Atheists have to be silent, alone and cower in fear of what may ensue if they open their mouths? Is that it?!

F***, no!

The world has been under the influence of these con-men for far too long. The time for change is now. Atheists will not shut up.
We're not being smug (though I admit some may come of like that), we're simply explaining our own realizations about the world, life, the universe and everything. Science is helping by reducing all gods to their insignificant gaps, while helping us understand the reality of what's around us.

The Universe is a beautiful place and reducing it to the fancy of some make belief entity is just delusional.
Sure, some people will fight to keep their delusion. Some people will shrug their shoulders and not bother. Some people will see the delusion for what it is. Some people will never get to know the delusion.

Atheists are simply saying things as they seem to be, with no desire to harm anyone in the process, just provide information to think. The delusional ones who wish to fight this are the dangerous ones, not the atheists.

When we were australopithecus, there was no belief in gods... then some schmuck came along and messed up the whole thing... now it's time to get back on track.
It'll take generations upon generations, but it'll get there.

So you don't mind upsetting people because it's fair retaliation? What about being the bigger person? I'd like to think that atheism isn't just one side of a petty squabble.

"The Universe is a beautiful place and reducing it to the fancy of some make belief entity is just delusional."

If you'd have said 'ugly', which seems to be natural since you said 'beautiful', that could be the start of a good exposition. So belief in a God makes the universe more ugly and less full of wonder and surprise... that sounds ok. Next step I guess is cashing that out. There's the beauty of simplicity thing in science, but that's not it I guess... what do you think?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Lol, obvious troll is obvious.

[pocaracas]

Lol, obvious troll is obvious.

One of vinnie's sock, perhaps?

---

Liberal egalitarian, actually. But don't worry if you don't understand what that is what with all your philosophy qualifications and what not.

But thanks for playing, trolly troll you're selfish because you're disingenuous, and to be fair, not that smart (intellectually and, seemingly, politically). I mean, you joined an atheist forum with the aim of telling atheists that they're wrong/terrible people etc etc. sound like something a smart person would do, or a person who wanted their views to be considered and debated? Schmuck.

DERAIL

I have a class of 16 year olds who can refute liberal egalitarianism.
I tell you you're a bad person because you are an insulting pig. I joined the forum for a reason unrelated to anything about you (you're not a very interesting atheist, but then arrogant fascists usually aren't very interesting at much). Guess what? I had no idea who you are when I joined the forum and I'm not here for you specifically! But I can get on your case if you like.

Want to tell me something about how you interpret egalitarianism?

---

So, should theists be out and proud and scream from the top of their lungs all the mythology they come up with, but atheists can't poke wholes in the fallacies of these people?
Is that it?
Free speech, to hell, if it's against an established ideology?
Can't go disturbing people's delusions... they're happy with them... keep them that way!



You are aware that very educated and smart people remain theists, are you not?
It so happens that it's the uneducated that become more vocal... which is sad...

Reality does not care about what people think.



Smarter as in... playing along with the theists and never saying anything that may offend them and their view of the afterlife? Is that it?
Atheists have to be silent, alone and cower in fear of what may ensue if they open their mouths? Is that it?!

F***, no!

The world has been under the influence of these con-men for far too long. The time for change is now. Atheists will not shut up.
We're not being smug (though I admit some may come of like that), we're simply explaining our own realizations about the world, life, the universe and everything. Science is helping by reducing all gods to their insignificant gaps, while helping us understand the reality of what's around us.

The Universe is a beautiful place and reducing it to the fancy of some make belief entity is just delusional.
Sure, some people will fight to keep their delusion. Some people will shrug their shoulders and not bother. Some people will see the delusion for what it is. Some people will never get to know the delusion.

Atheists are simply saying things as they seem to be, with no desire to harm anyone in the process, just provide information to think. The delusional ones who wish to fight this are the dangerous ones, not the atheists.

When we were australopithecus, there was no belief in gods... then some schmuck came along and messed up the whole thing... now it's time to get back on track.
It'll take generations upon generations, but it'll get there.

So you don't mind upsetting people because it's fair retaliation? What about being the bigger person? I'd like to think that atheism isn't just one side of a petty squabble.

I upset them, if they upset me.

On a short scale basis, around here, people keep their beliefs (or lack thereof) to themselves and we all get along fine without that detail in the way of interpersonal relationships.

On large scale, if my existence as outspoken atheist upsets some theists, then it's their problem for being upset by mere words...

[Get me Rex Kramer!]

On a short scale ... On large scale

Yes I see your point on this.

[Esquilax]

- The belief in God or Gods is a legitimate subject for the method of doubt

That's... you've just rejigged the "lack of belief in god," principle that I already accepted was there. Is this just how this is going to go? Am I going to have to go through every linguistic permutation of this concept and list them as single principles?

In that case, we also don't have no disbelief in a god, either.

[là bạn điên]

It is quite clear that Rex has no qualifications in Philosophy, he may teach 16 year olds but what he teaches is certainly NOT philosophy. I think he gave it away with his comment about god not being just a concept because it was important to other people. He just outed himself as a Postmodernist. he probably took some classes in some postmodern studies and now believes the woo nonsense contained therein. Part of their nonsense is that there is no reality and all beliefs are equal and to insist on objective morality is 'Eurocentric' and 'racist'. It informs nonsense like Afrocentrism and Radical ' A+ style' feminism.

[Belac Enrobso]

Ha! Feminism. Make a sandwich and get over yourselves, feminists. Where the rational women at?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

- The belief in God or Gods is a legitimate subject for the method of doubt

That's... you've just rejigged the "lack of belief in god," principle that I already accepted was there. Is this just how this is going to go? Am I going to have to go through every linguistic permutation of this concept and list them as single principles?

In that case, we also don't have no disbelief in a god, either.

.

[Get me Rex Kramer!]

- The belief in God or Gods is a legitimate subject for the method of doubt

That's... you've just rejigged the "lack of belief in god," principle that I already accepted was there. Is this just how this is going to go? Am I going to have to go through every linguistic permutation of this concept and list them as single principles?

In that case, we also don't have no disbelief in a god, either.

Er, no. The method of doubt is a thing. And I said that lack of belief in God is not enough for 'atheism' as religion, like anything else, comes out of the everyday. So if you don't happen to believe in God, you might be predisposed to God or about to invent one, or believe in any number of superstitions that makes crossing over into theism a trifle. A simple fact of lack of belief may make us point to someone and say 'atheist', but only because 'atheist' has its meaning grounded in principles such as (and particularly) the scope and validity of the method of doubt.

And so on.

---

It is quite clear that Rex has no qualifications in Philosophy, he may teach 16 year olds but what he teaches is certainly NOT philosophy. I think he gave it away with his comment about god not being just a concept because it was important to other people. He just outed himself as a Postmodernist. he probably took some classes in some postmodern studies and now believes the woo nonsense contained therein. Part of their nonsense is that there is no reality and all beliefs are equal and to insist on objective morality is 'Eurocentric' and 'racist'. It informs nonsense like Afrocentrism and Radical ' A+ style' feminism.

Well, your morality certainly seems both racist and sexist. I don't think we need to have any claims about anything as grand as 'objective morality' here as you've managed to out yourself as immoral per se!

---

Ha! Feminism. Make a sandwich and get over yourselves, feminists. Where the rational women at?

I like to make sandwiches. And then I eat them all myself. Yum.

The rational women might be smart enough not to date you?

[Faith No More]

A simple fact of lack of belief may make us point to someone and say 'atheist', but only because 'atheist' has its meaning grounded in principles such as (and particularly) the scope and validity of the method of doubt.

I haven't read through this thread, so pardon me if I rehash old points.

You're over-complicating the atheist position. The only principle it is grounded in is that the the theist has failed to convincingly substantiate his/her claim, which does not rest upon the "scope and validity of the method of doubt." It rests upon the failed philosophy and fallacious reasoning that has lead others to conclude that a god exists. How doubt is applied has no bearing on the debate when the positive claim has never been satisfactorily evidenced, for I need not invoke doubt to demolish an argument that fails to get off the ground.

So, you may point to someone and say 'atheist,' but only because 'atheist' has its meaning grounded in the failure of the the theistic position.