How Are Atheists or Secularists Harming You, Your Kids or Your Country?

[Shadow Wolf]

I would suggest anyone interested read ''Tortured for Christ''. I believe it is free on the internet. That will show what atheists can do.

I suggest you look up stuff on the Provisional Irish Republic Army and/or the Klu Klux Klan. Those will show what Christians can do.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I suggest you look up stuff on the Provisional Irish Republic Army and/or the Klu Klux Klan. Those will show what Christians can do.

Damn Christians. They appear to be fallible. I suspect the rumours about them being 'humans' is sadly true. Luckily, there is still one infallible group left...

*ponders*

Hang on...no there's not.


On a more serious note, the things that cause extreme behaviour can be readily linked to fundamentalism, be it of the religious nature or not.

Oh, and if anyone wants any info on the Irish troubles, let me know. It's a hobby of mine, and I have a good personal library on it, taken from various perspectives.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I suggest you look up stuff on the Provisional Irish Republic Army and/or the Klu Klux Klan. Those will show what Christians can do.

I am aware of what human nature can do. It is always wise to show the other side of the coin, which most don't do when it comes to atheism.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Damn Christians. They appear to be fallible. I suspect the rumours about them being 'humans' is sadly true. Luckily, there is still one infallible group left...

*ponders*

Hang on...no there's not.


On a more serious note, the things that cause extreme behaviour can be readily linked to fundamentalism, be it of the religious nature or not.

Oh, and if anyone wants any info on the Irish troubles, let me know. It's a hobby of mine, and I have a good personal library on it, taken from various perspectives.

Perhaps you should start a thread on it. I think it might be interesting..

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Perhaps you should start a thread on it. I think it might be interesting..

It would be to me, but I'd bore everyone else stupid (in other words, much like most of my threads...lol)

One book I'd recommend to you as an easy read you'd find interesting (I honestly believe) would be God and the Gun, by Martin Dillon. Not biased to any particular view, and talks to a range of Priests about their views and role in the troubles.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I completely disagree. How can one say if the spirit is real or not without a definition of spirit? To whit, I would think that human spirit exists, but I'm not talking about a literal human spirit than transcends death.

....that the spirit chooses has been the standard definition since forever. As also known in philosophy, in the concept of free will in metaphysical libertarianism; the spirit or soul chooses. That it does the job of choosing is the definition of it. And the existence of the spirit or soul is established as a matter of faith and revelation, which is a form of opinion. And then when you are dead, your soul, which is you as being the owner of all your decisions, is judged by God. I can't believe you don't know this concept....it used to be a pretty popular concept.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Where I live most people go to the supermarket rather than church on a Sunday morning. So they worship at the shrine of consumption these days.

Mind you the supermarkets still have to close at 4pm because of Sunday trading laws, so the secularists don't have it all their own way.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

....that the spirit chooses has been the standard definition since forever. As also known in philosophy, in the concept of free will in metaphysical libertarianism; the spirit or soul chooses. That it does the job of choosing is the definition of it. And the existence of the spirit or soul is established as a matter of faith and revelation, which is a form of opinion. And then when you are dead, your soul, which is you as being the owner of all your decisions, is judged by God. I can't believe you don't know this concept....it used to be a pretty popular concept.

I'm not especially worried by what 'used to be a pretty popular concept'.
What I'm interested in is your particular definition of it. You're reasonably new here, and I don't mean this as a knock on you at all, but you'll soon find that there are a bunch of different interpretations of pretty much any concept you name, including God, spirit, soul and pretty much whatever else you want to name.

So my understanding of the concept isn't what I was questioning. It was your definition so I could better interpret your meaning.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So what I meant was that scientific method is the process

...all that "fancy" talk about the scientific method is bogus. Science is just about facts, and they already knew about how to obtain facts long before any scientific revolution. You need facts in your daily life, facts about what happened, facts about where the mango tree is.

If anybody is talking fancy about the scientific method it means you are getting conned. It means they want you to get away from the common sense understanding of fact, so as that they can sell you huge amounts of nonsense.

Now, what is the common sense understanding of a fact basically? Basically a fact is a copy, a model of something. There are the words, "the mango tree is there and there", and there is the real mango tree itself which is described by the words. The words are the facts, the words are a model. To have a fully exhaustive model of something, a complete picture of the mango tree and where it is and such, then you have all the facts about it. The evidence coming from the mango tree forces to a model of it, 1 to 1, a perfect copy. There ought not be any choice about it what you put in the model, it should all be forced by the evidence.

Accept what I said is true, only if it is in accordance with your own common sense practical understanding of fact, the understanding you use in daily life.

 

[Paradox22]

...all that "fancy" talk about the scientific method is bogus. Science is just about facts, and they already knew about how to obtain facts long before any scientific revolution. You need facts in your daily life, facts about what happened, facts about where the mango tree is.

If anybody is talking fancy about the scientific method it means you are getting conned. .

No offense, but you are passing judgement on something you really don't understand if you say that science is just about facts, rather than method. The facts are out there, but there are different ways to interpret the facts. A scientist collects data by taking measurements of observations, often with the purpose of testing a null hypothesis. Scientific method entails a systematic way of collecting, measuring and then interpreting the data. For example, in the social sciences, we may be interrested in the facts about substance use/abuse in U.S. high schools. The scientific method means that we have to design the sample methodology so that it is objective and repressentative. We have to collect the data in an objective way in order to assure that we have credible results. Our research is subject to peer reveiw, and if we are not able to show that our methodology is scientific, then the results lack credibility, carry little weight, or may even be discredited. Scientific controlled experiments can be replicated. "Arbitrary" is a dirty word for scientists because everything has to be objective to be credible. That is science. It is a method that has to conform to strict standards, and is constantly under scrutiny. You clearly do not understand this if you think all science is is facts

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No offense, but you are passing judgement on something you really don't understand if you say that science is just about facts, rather than method. The facts are out there, but there are different ways to interpret the facts. A scientist collects data by taking measurements of observations, often with the purpose of testing a null hypothesis. Scientific method entails a systematic way of collecting, measuring and then interpreting the data. For example, in the social sciences, we may be interrested in the facts about substance use/abuse in U.S. high schools. The scientific method means that we have to design the sample methodology so that it is objective and repressentative. We have to collect the data in an objective way in order to assure that we have credible results. Our research is subject to peer reveiw, and if we are not able to show that our methodology is scientific, then the results lack credibility, carry little weight, or may even be discredited. Scientific controlled experiments can be replicated. "Arbitrary" is a dirty word for scientists because everything has to be objective to be credible. That is science. It is a method that has to conform to strict standards, and is constantly under scrutiny. You clearly do not understand this if you think all science is is facts

So what that science is just about facts. I consider that the charm of science that it is just about facts.

What you say, it just makes me distrust that research, indicates a lack of discipline on being focused on just facts.

 

[Bunyip]

So what that science is just about facts. I consider that the charm of science that it is just about facts.

What you say, it just makes me distrust that research, indicates a lack of discipline on being focused on just facts.

Focusing on anything other than the facts would indicate a lack of discipline, it would be a failure to keep to the scientific method.

 

[Paradox22]

What you say, it just makes me distrust that research, indicates a lack of discipline on being focused on just facts.

It's fine to mistrust the research. Skepticism is healthy in the sciences. But I don't know what to make of your suggestion that science entails a lack of discipline. If the scientific method represents a lack of discipline, what alternative approach would you say is more disciplined?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

...all that "fancy" talk about the scientific method is bogus. Science is just about facts, and they already knew about how to obtain facts long before any scientific revolution. You need facts in your daily life, facts about what happened, facts about where the mango tree is.

I actually find this viewpoint hard to jell with your earlier referencing of George Berkeley, to be honest.

If anybody is talking fancy about the scientific method it means you are getting conned. It means they want you to get away from the common sense understanding of fact, so as that they can sell you huge amounts of nonsense.

There was nothing 'fancy' about what I posted. Certainly much more simplistic than Berkeley, to again make that point.

Now, what is the common sense understanding of a fact basically? Basically a fact is a copy, a model of something. There are the words, "the mango tree is there and there", and there is the real mango tree itself which is described by the words. The words are the facts, the words are a model. To have a fully exhaustive model of something, a complete picture of the mango tree and where it is and such, then you have all the facts about it. The evidence coming from the mango tree forces to a model of it, 1 to 1, a perfect copy. There ought not be any choice about it what you put in the model, it should all be forced by the evidence.

Is it a big mango tree, or a small one?
Is it far away?
Is it old?

Accept what I said is true, only if it is in accordance with your own common sense practical understanding of fact, the understanding you use in daily life.

To be honest, I'm struggling to understand the overall tenets of your argument. Are you still determined to conflate atheism and secularism? And do you still judge atheism to be objective in nature?

 

[Nails]

I think atheism is harmful because it is dishonest. Why do most atheists you ask say they are "good people" when they affirm no foundation for goodness? This shows bad character and sets a bad example for children.

Goodness or badness requires a frame of reference which is lacking from the naturalist world view.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think atheism is harmful because it is dishonest. Why do most atheists you ask say they are "good people" when they affirm no foundation for goodness? This shows bad character and sets a bad example for children.

Goodness or badness requires a frame of reference which is lacking from the naturalist world view.

Phhht. Define dishonesty before insulting me, if you don't mind.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think atheism is harmful because it is dishonest. Why do most atheists you ask say they are "good people" when they affirm no foundation for goodness? This shows bad character and sets a bad example for children.

Goodness or badness requires a frame of reference which is lacking from the naturalist world view.

I can only assume you haven't been paying attention.

 

[MD]

I think atheists are the most moral people, because they have to answer to their own inner conscience. I think the world would be a better place if we had more atheists.

Sometimes I feel like I am becoming more and more of an atheist as I get older. I definitely don't believe in a personal God, but I definitely do believe there is some sort of an impersonal God out there.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I think atheism is harmful because it is dishonest. Why do most atheists you ask say they are "good people" when they affirm no foundation for goodness? This shows bad character and sets a bad example for children.

Goodness or badness requires a frame of reference which is lacking from the naturalist world view.

Ofcourse you are correct with this common sense finding.

When everything is natural or material, then either you omit goodness and badness altogether, or you make what is good and bad into a matter of fact, like a social darwinist pseudoscientist.

Atheists don't pay attention to emotions of people, because emotions, like love and hate, aren't natural, they can't be measured.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Ofcourse you are correct with this common sense finding.

When everything is natural or material, then either you omit goodness and badness altogether, or you make what is good and bad into a matter of fact, like a social darwinist pseudoscientist.

Atheists don't pay attention to emotions of people, because emotions, like love and hate, aren't natural, they can't be measured.

This is also complete rubbish. Since when are emotions unnatural, even assuming all atheists are hardcore materialists?