Atheism Lacks Entertainment Value

[McBell]

Feel free to actually disprove God while you are it.

A prime example of atheist entertainment.

The creative writing of the guilt by association fallacy is initial quite entertaining, but it can be quite .. tiresome, after realizing that people actually think this is a proof.

No different than the negative proof fallacy you just presented, right?

I mean I could compare atheism to the denial of the sky being blue, which would be patently absurd, and the point out, fallaciously, that attempting to disprove atheist denial of God is equally pointless.

All the while ignoring the fact that you have absolutely zero empirical objective anything FOR god...

The evidence for the sky being blue and the evidence for God are not the same thing?

Nope.
Nice try though.

Similarly, the evidence for superman and the evidence for God are not the same thing.

Nope.

In either case, its simple a restatement of the original claims, that one believe in God or not, simply stated with a fallacious appeal to something 'obvious'.

fair enough.

Fallacious appeals to superman does absolutely nothing to disprove any religions God does it? It just restates your opinion on the subject.

I agree.

It is however, not quite as entertaining as claiming the atheism is not a religion ... but gosh darn it give us Chaplains!

You do know that atheism is recognized as a "religion" for legal purposes, right?

That conflict simply begs the question: is atheism a religion or not?

Some atheists have in fact turned their lack of belief in a deity into a "religion".
The US government does in fact consider atheism a religion for legal purposes.

And once your community asks for Chaplains ... its not exactly some nefarious plot to pigeon hole you into a definition. Its a legit question. Rather entertaining to as atheists how they expect to leap across the contradictory claims.

Your conflating the definitions of atheists is a fallacy all its own.

But don't let the truth get in the way of your ranting.

 

[gree0232]

A prime example of atheist entertainment.


No different than the negative proof fallacy you just presented, right?


All the while ignoring the fact that you have absolutely zero empirical objective anything FOR god...


Nope.
Nice try though.


Nope.


fair enough.


I agree.


You do know that atheism is recognized as a "religion" for legal purposes, right?


Some atheists have in fact turned their lack of belief in a deity into a "religion".
The US government does in fact consider atheism a religion for legal purposes.


Your conflating the definitions of atheists is a fallacy all its own.

But don't let the truth get in the way of your ranting.

WOW, this is entertaining.

For example, which is actually the argument from ignorance, has never been presented by me. But its quite entertaining to see some atheist use false accusation :clap:

Isn't this just, "Agree with me or I will pursue a petty vendetta on a internet forum?"

The creative writing, like "changing definitions of atheism" is even funnier. Whatever pops into the fascinating mind of an atheist ... I'll need popcorn for this one:

Would any atheist care to explain how I have changed the definition of atheism by noting that the community of atheists is both claiming that it is not a religion AND asking the military to furnish them with their very own Chaplains?

Amusing as it is to see, "Heh, that not how we religious people define ourselves!," that doesn't really answer the question as to how anyone attempting to treat an atheist as with seriousness or respect gets to deal with that conflicting claim.

Are we supposed to furish you Chaplains and acknowledge that you are a religion? Because that Chaplains require an ACCREDITED religious organization to certify them, or do we deny you them and ignore the sheepish bleating about how you are all victims of discrimination because we accepted that you have no religion, that its just the conclusion that there in no God, and thus you are no religion and require no religious support?

Whatever are people to do regarding atheists on this one?

Whether atheism is recognized as a religion for 'legal reasons' ha son bearing on the practical reasons they would need chaplains. Once again, I don't need a Chaplain to go to court, I need a lawyer.

Apologies again Cynthia, I have to disagree with you, this is all quite entertaining.

And another riddle for atheists: If there is no empirical evidence regarding God, then how can atheism be based in empirical evidence?

Only there is empirical evidence for God. Its just not conclusive evidence, it merely probable - you know statistics (which is quite empirical) and inductive logic?

 

[yoda89]

Very good point OP. It may be debated that atheism must adjust to incorporate entertainment.
Yet I find that actually most people are converted in early childhood to already a predetermined religion of their parents or surroundings. Thus those easily entertained and converted are easily converted once again. Those who do as others do will always what others do. The entertainment lies in things such as science and philosophy. Discovering what you truly think without restrictions of dogma.

 

[gree0232]

Very good point OP. It may be debated that atheism must adjust to incorporate entertainment.
Yet I find that actually most people are converted in early childhood to already a predetermined religion of their parents or surroundings. Thus those easily entertained and converted are easily converted once again. Those who do as others do will always what others do. The entertainment lies in things such as science and philosophy. Discovering what you truly think without restrictions of dogma.

You mean like the dogma that religion poisons EVERYTHING?

- Sorry, sorry ... but Hitchens, sometime excellent as a journalist, is amazingly entertaining as a nihilist - right up to the point you realize atheists actually take his claims seriously, and often without critical examination.

It begins as entertainment ... as in, "Haha, I am SURE I am going to poison you with iocane powder or something, just because I walked out of church in Belfast ... really ... poppycock!" :seesaw:

"No dude, we are serious." :149:

the resulting awkward silence can be quite entertaining in its own way though, the one side wondering almost aloud how anyone in their right mind could consider innocent people murders, and the other side steely eyed pirates just daring some swashbuckler to call them on it. :areyoucra

No dogma in atheism you say, eh?

 

[nazz]

Oh, I don't know about that. Atheists have their own entertaining tales they tell. Just as bizarre as any religious story at times.

 

[Willamena]

I wouldn't view atheism as a world view just like I wouldn't view theism as a world view.

Why not?

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

I have spent the past few days reading Atheist quotes from the fictitious Dr. Gregory House and I shall share a few:

Suffice to say, I was briefly entertained. lol

 

[9Westy9]

Why not?

When I think of world-view I tend to think of a set of beliefs rather than just an individual belief. That might just be me though

 

[Debater Slayer]

When we looks at most of the religions or worldviews that we have, most of them are very entertaining. We get all sorts of neat stories from these worldviews. The stories in Buddhism, Christianity Islam all serve a purpose...to tell stories which give meaning. Most religious worldviews serve to entertain. Storytelling is paramount to communicating meaning and values to people. If there is one religion that I would single out as being the greatest at this, it would be those of the Vedic traditions. Stories mean everything in that tradition.

But there is one worldview that lacks the meaningful narratives that the human soul needs and is frankly deconstructive of storytelling...and that worldview is atheism.

Many atheist like to deconstruct the stories of other worldviews without understanding the value of the story. It's like having your cousin Lou tell you how impossible it is for a person to fly while you are trying to watch a movie about Superman. It is like Lou has no idea about Superman or storytelling and should therefore just shut up.

It gets boring. Then it so happens Lou cannot offer anything else, he values no narrative, no poetry or passion. So to atheist often (not all, I am trying to rid myself of my anti-atheist bigotry) act like cousin Lou.

The thing is, I feel that many atheist just do not see or are able to perceive the values of these stories yet they offer no stories of their own.

Just my thoughts, please feel free to criticize.

An essential difference between religious narratives and a Superman movie is that there aren't billions of people who base their life decisions on the latter, and it doesn't affect how they treat or perceive others.

And I don't think it is wise or rational to adopt a certain worldview merely because of its "entertainment value." I'd rather utilize games for that instead of my entire worldview.

 

[yoda89]

Isn't this just, "Agree with me or I will pursue a petty vendetta on a internet forum," are entertaining. The meltdowns that someone would dare stand up to them can become almost comical.

You are obviously free and open to their own self discovered opinion. In fact I hope more people were. Yet, I would hardly compare atheist militants to that of religious militants. There is a losing argument.

Would any atheist care to explain how I have changed the definition of atheism by noting that the community of atheists is both claiming that it is not a religion AND asking the military to furnish them with their very own Chaplains?

It goes with your definition or religion. If your equation of a religion is those who are guided by chaplains then yes it is a religion. Yet, I don't really see what an Atheist Chaplains exactly are excepts a means for equal opportunity. Thus we must truly exam what an atheist chaplain does. It seems pretty dumb to me and I am an 1atheist. We must also exam at which point does a community become a collective and when does that collective define their decisions For example, If one man claims to be part of a community and another does not. Yet both are represented by a stereotype. Does the man outside the community become defined by the man that claims to be part of that community?

Are we supposed to furish you Chaplains and acknowledge that you are a religion? Because that Chaplains require an ACCREDITED religious organization to certify them, or do we deny you them and ignore the sheepish bleating about how you are all victims of discrimination because we accepted that you have no religion, that its just the conclusion that there in no God, and thus you are no religion and require no religious support?

I view this as more of a social-economical matter and not one of belief. The fact is that a chaplain that goes overseas in warzones can make 80,000 a year. This is not fair to atheists or those of other faiths. Especially if troops really want someone who is an atheist to talk to. No life is not far and I believe equality cannot be forced. Nor do I think their could ever be true equality. The important thing we can make happen is equal opportunity. Everyone should have a chance.

And another riddle for atheists: If there is no empirical evidence regarding God, then how can atheism be based in empirical evidence?

Only there is empirical evidence for God. Its just not conclusive evidence, it merely probable - you know statistics (which is quite empirical) and inductive logic?

The notion that because you can conceive or dream of something existing automatically gives it existence is inferior to the argument that even though we cannot truly rely on our faculties that define ours surrounding they are still there. Y

For example lets say you have never witnessed gravity. You have a ball in your hand and your release it. Never experiencing gravity you will be completely unaware of what will exactly will happen once you let go of the ball. Yet if you have witnessed a ball being let go at least once before you have the idea that it will fall. This is due to repetition and experience. The next time you let it go it could float. But due to repetitive experience you expect it to fall. When it does float we will give into the notion that it will float. Using our faculties we will try to determine why and until we do we cannot claim it is something we are unaware of.

 

[idav]

I don't know if atheism can really be seen as a belief since it tells us more about what someone doesn't believe and that's probably a huge list. Like asking a question and just getting back "nope, nuh uh".

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I have spent the past few days reading Atheist quotes from the fictitious Dr. Gregory House and I shall share a few:

Suffice to say, I was briefly entertained. lol

Entertainment Value Five Star. I especially value that the truth is so funny, e.g. "If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people!"

 

[Quintessence]

Entertainment Value Five Star. I especially value that the truth is so funny, e.g. "If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people!"

I'm sorry, but I tend to not find the insinuation that "religious people" are all irrational morons very funny. Rather, I find it rationally indefensible and extremely tiresome to hear. And also, a load of overgeneralized, judgmental, mean-spirited garbage.

 

[idav]

Entertainment Value Five Star. I especially value that the truth is so funny, e.g. "If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people!"

I loved it. I watched House religiously, lol.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

People, I am not saying that atheist cannot be entertaining or that atheist cannot produce meaningful (with atheistic themes, such as Picasso or even Ayn Rand) but that atheism lacks a grand narrative or a metanarrative. You have to admit that atheism gives us very little in the way of narrative, the sole ongoing narrative in atheism is merely several variations of one theme; There is no God.

Ok, you say there is no God...and then what else?

That is the only information or data that atheism gives us, and nothing more, as if this four word narrative is to suffice. You have to admit that is very little to work with. And don't tell me that that is the way it is supposed to be, that the simple denial is enough to establish a comprehensive story because it isn't. Nor was it always this way in the history of atheism

I will give to examples, atheists were always just satisfied with the simple "there is no God" narrative because many atheist long ago knew that that narrative entailed something and had repercussions. I will cite both the Marquis de Sade and Friedrich Nietzsche as two examples of atheist building a complex metanarrative around atheism. In Sade, God has left the building, in fact he was never there in the first place, a mere illusion, so in Sade with the end of this illusion..all bets are off and we are left to our own devices, without the restraints of this illusion we will certainly all devolve into beast. It will be the strong against the weak and abuses upon abuses will pile upon humankind until we all kill ourselves in a global murder spree.

Nietzsche counter this, yes in Nietzsche God is dead and we killed Him, but that does not mean we have to succumb to decadence and nihilism, in Nietzsche's narrative, we must fight back, we must counter nihilism by replacing our dead God by creating a morality for ourselves and taking up our place as Gods.

These narratives about atheism definitely had entertainment value, both Sade and Nietzsche offer us excellent storytelling.

See, atheism can have a metanarrative but it seems that contemporary atheists seem to have succumbed to mediocrity and do not have the ability to produce anything more comprehensive in the way of narrative other than "there is no God", so today all we have is no more Nietzsche's or Sade's but are just left with Dawkins and his imaginary memes.

 

[Revoltingest]

People, I am not saying that atheist cannot be entertaining or that atheist cannot produce meaningful (with atheistic themes, such as Picasso or even Ayn Rand) but that atheism lacks a grand narrative or a metanarrative. You have to admit that atheism gives us very little in the way of narrative, the sole ongoing narrative in atheism is merely several variations of one theme; There is no God.
Ok, you say there is no God...and then what else?

We also variously say....
There's probably no god.
There are no signs of gods.
I don't believe in gods.
Gods? Gods? I don't need no steenken gods!
God doesn't exist.
Gods? Pish posh! Piffle! Balderdash! Barsh! Flimshaw!

 

[bobhikes]

People, I am not saying that atheist cannot be entertaining or that atheist cannot produce meaningful (with atheistic themes, such as Picasso or even Ayn Rand) but that atheism lacks a grand narrative or a metanarrative. You have to admit that atheism gives us very little in the way of narrative, the sole ongoing narrative in atheism is merely several variations of one theme; There is no God.

Ok, you say there is no God...and then what else?

That is the only information or data that atheism gives us, and nothing more, as if this four word narrative is to suffice. You have to admit that is very little to work with. And don't tell me that that is the way it is supposed to be, that the simple denial is enough to establish a comprehensive story because it isn't. Nor was it always this way in the history of atheism

I will give to examples, atheists were always just satisfied with the simple "there is no God" narrative because many atheist long ago knew that that narrative entailed something and had repercussions. I will cite both the Marquis de Sade and Friedrich Nietzsche as two examples of atheist building a complex metanarrative around atheism. In Sade, God has left the building, in fact he was never there in the first place, a mere illusion, so in Sade with the end of this illusion..all bets are off and we are left to our own devices, without the restraints of this illusion we will certainly all devolve into beast. It will be the strong against the weak and abuses upon abuses will pile upon humankind until we all kill ourselves in a global murder spree.

Nietzsche counter this, yes in Nietzsche God is dead and we killed Him, but that does not mean we have to succumb to decadence and nihilism, in Nietzsche's narrative, we must fight back, we must counter nihilism by replacing our dead God by creating a morality for ourselves and taking up our place as Gods.

These narratives about atheism definitely had entertainment value, both Sade and Nietzsche offer us excellent storytelling.

See, atheism can have a metanarrative but it seems that contemporary atheists seem to have succumbed to mediocrity and do not have the ability to produce anything more comprehensive in the way of narrative other than "there is no God", so today all we have is no more Nietzsche's or Sade's but are just left with Dawkins and his imaginary memes.

With Atheism its up to you to give the story. There is no bible of agreement. It allows for very boring stories and very creative stories. Its about the individual. Next time ask the atheist why he believes and don't shut him down. You may be very well entertained.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Just as I don't need religion for meaning, purpose, ritual, hope, or social connection/interaction, I also don't need it for entertainment, narrative, or mythology. Anything that people get out of religion, can be found elsewhere. This is basic fact that many religious folks never quite grasp, and most atheists understand quite well.

 

[LuisDantas]

People, I am not saying that atheist cannot be entertaining or that atheist cannot produce meaningful (with atheistic themes, such as Picasso or even Ayn Rand) but that atheism lacks a grand narrative or a metanarrative.

While it does, it does not necessarily exclude such a narrative either. If anything, it opens the possibility for more of a variety of same.

You have to admit that atheism gives us very little in the way of narrative, the sole ongoing narrative in atheism is merely several variations of one theme; There is no God.

If you take Atheism in and of itself, sure.

But why would anyone?

Ok, you say there is no God...and then what else?

Then the fun begins!

We have to deal with lots of meaningful choices with no safety net to speak of. Our decisions and choices become as meaningful as they can be conceived to be. We become responsible for ourselves and our ken.


Or you choose something else if you feel so inclined.

Not seeing the problem, myself.

(...)

See, atheism can have a metanarrative but it seems that contemporary atheists seem to have succumbed to mediocrity and do not have the ability to produce anything more comprehensive in the way of narrative other than "there is no God", so today all we have is no more Nietzsche's or Sade's but are just left with Dawkins and his imaginary memes.

Not sure what you mean here, to be honest. Are you claiming that atheists have trouble in attaining meaningful inspiration?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

People, I am not saying that atheist cannot be entertaining or that atheist cannot produce meaningful (with atheistic themes, such as Picasso or even Ayn Rand) but that atheism lacks a grand narrative or a metanarrative. You have to admit that atheism gives us very little in the way of narrative, the sole ongoing narrative in atheism is merely several variations of one theme; There is no God.

Ok, you say there is no God...and then what else?

How much narrative does bare-bones theism give? "Ok, you say there is a God...and then what else?"

Atheism is not a religion. It is a single statement.