What Can Atheism Lead To?

[footprints]

I never once have said that people do not have the right to believe what they want. I just question the supposed rationality of it.

Now, this is the last time I'm going to ask you: Do you or do you not believe in the literal existence of a magical fairy who floats into children's rooms and exchanges their teeth for money? Whether you know people who dress up as fairies or tell their children such fairies exist is irrelevant. I'm asking do YOU believe the existence of such a being to be true.

But, since you raised the subject: Do you also believe that there exists a man who travels around the world and delivers presents to every child on Earth in a single night while riding on a sleigh with eight reindeer?

Anything other than a "yes" or a "no" is a dodge.

LOL there is no magical fairy who floats in a persons room. They are only stories, it is real people who leave the money (whatever) there. The real tooth fairy are normal human beings, doing something beautiful for children.

LOL there is no magical person who floats around the world delivering presents. It is only a story. The real santa are normal human beings, doing something beautiful for children.

Both tooth faires and santa are real and tangible items, in the homes that support these lovely and beautiful traditions. Both tooth fairies and Santa have always been real people ever since their conception, irrespective of what imaginations you come up with.

It is little wonder some people reach such illogical conclusions when they keep aligning facts of life with fantasy of their own minds creation.

By the way, the Yes or No thing, is a very weak attempt to pin me down to an irrational, illogical and unreasoned viewpoint. If I wanted to be subjective, I would have stayed an atheist.

 

[footprints]

Except you said "Who says there is no empirical evidence to be found?", implying that there is empirical evidence. If that is true, present it.

That I suppose is one perception of how the words could be interpreted.

Another way is, that there could possibly be evidence out there, which we haven't found.

Your belief pattern will tell you which interpretation is right. LOL hey wait a minute, it already has. And I have already answered your belief pattern, with another question.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

LOL there is no magical fairy who floats in a persons room. They are only stories,

Thank you, you finally admitted that you do not believe in the tooth fairy.

it is real people who leave the money (whatever) there. The real tooth fairy are normal human beings, doing something beautiful for children.

And people do it because of the absence of the suggested magical being.

LOL there is no magical person who floats around the world delivering presents. It is only a story.

Again, so your answer is no.

The real santa are normal human beings, doing something beautiful for children.

And, again, people do that because of the absence of the suggested magical being.

Both tooth faires and santa are real and tangible items, in the homes that support these lovely and beautiful traditions. Both tooth fairies and Santa have always been real people ever since their conception, irrespective of what imaginations you come up with.

Here are some of your previous statements with regards to the FSM analogy:

"Do you believe the analogy of a FSM is a true analogy of a deity? Then this is a belief. I for one will say it isn't and that it is, a figment of some atheists, vivid imaginations."

"Atheists point to nothing, except a figment of their imagination."

So, now you've basically said that as soon as someone imagines something it becomes real, what separates Father Christmas from the FSM? If I wanted to, I could teach my children that the FSM visits them every year to dispense presents at Christmas, so what's the difference between a deity, the tooth fairy and the FSM?

It is little wonder some people reach such illogical conclusions when they keep aligning facts of life with fantasy of their own minds creation.

Typical footie. In lieu of an argument, just belittle someone and accuse them of irrationality.

By the way, the Yes or No thing, is a very weak attempt to pin me down to an irrational, illogical and unreasoned viewpoint. If I wanted to be subjective, I would have stayed an atheist.

More belittling. If you cannot answer the question, you do not have to. It just indicates your dishonesty, that's all.

 

[footprints]

No idea.


No idea.

Such is your belief, which also aligns with my belief.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That I suppose is one perception of how the words could be interpreted.

Another way is, that there could possibly be evidence out there, which we haven't found.

Your belief pattern will tell you which interpretation is right. LOL hey wait a minute, it already has. And I have already answered your belief pattern, with another question.

So, you're now saying that there is currently no evidence of the existence of God, correct?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Such is your belief, which also aligns with my belief.

How is "not knowing" a belief?

 

[footprints]

Thank you, you finally admitted that you do not believe in the tooth fairy.

Whoa that is belief pattern revealed to me. That is a perception. I believe in the tooth fairy, for the tooth fairy in my home is me.

And people do it because of the absence of the suggested magical being.

LOL there was never a magical being there to begin with, it has always been humans doing these wonderful things. Real people have always known it was people doing this, well adults in society, any way. What makes you believe that there was?

Really makes the tooth fairy, deity analogy look pretty stupid.

Again, so your answer is no.

Like I said, there is no person who floats around the world delivery presents. Never has been, and never was, it was just a story told to children, still is. Santa of course, is a real and tangible item, Santa is people, always has been. What makes you believe Santa is this magical person who flew around the world delivery presents to everybody?

And, again, people do that because of the absence of the suggested magical being.

LOL again I try to tell you, there has never been a magical being, it has always been real people. Real people always knew that, well adults anyway.

Really makes the santa, deity analogy look pretty stupid.

Here are some of your previous statements with regards to the FSM analogy:

"Do you believe the analogy of a FSM is a true analogy of a deity? Then this is a belief. I for one will say it isn't and that it is, a figment of some atheists, vivid imaginations."

"Atheists point to nothing, except a figment of their imagination."

So, now you've basically said that as soon as someone imagines something it becomes real, what separates Father Christmas from the FSM? If I wanted to, I could teach my children that the FSM visits them every year to dispense presents at Christmas, so what's the difference between a deity, the tooth fairy and the FSM?

LOL you do have funny associations at times. Either you believe in the FSM analogy or your don't. If you believe in it as truism or good analogy, you have a belief pattern in it. If you don't believe in it, as I don't, you have a different belief pattern generated the other way.

Please show me the base root, ancient culture which has ever testified to a santa (which we have always known are real people play acting) or a tooth fairy (which we have always known are real people play acting) as being a deity or a spirit et al?

Typical footie. In lieu of an argument, just belittle someone and accuse them of irrationality.

What do you want me to say that unreasoned people are reasoned? Just like you, I question the rationality of this position.

More belittling. If you cannot answer the question, you do not have to. It just indicates your dishonesty, that's all.

Honesty, dishonesty all is perception based. Having been an atheist, I do know where honesty lies. Tooth fairy, FSM, flying teapots, Santa analogies, et al are all very dishonest.

 

[footprints]

How is "not knowing" a belief?

Because other people disagree with our position, that should be the first indication that you hold a belief.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Whoa that is belief pattern revealed to me. That is a perception. I believe in the tooth fairy, for the tooth fairy in my home is me.

Look, you've already said that there is no such thing as a magical fairy that floats into children's rooms at night and exchanges their teeth for money. That you happen to believe you fulfill this role is is completely irrelevant to the fact that you do not believe in the literal tooth fairy.

Why is it that you have such difficulty admitting that you don't believe something?

LOL there was never a magical being there to begin with, it has always been humans doing these wonderful things. Real people have always known it was people doing this, well adults in society, any way. What makes you believe that there was?

Really makes the tooth fairy, deity analogy look pretty stupid.

Once again you've not only missed the point, but you're even lying about my claims. My point has always been that the tooth fairy does not exist, what I want to know is what makes your assertion that "there was never a magical being there to begin with" any different from an atheist claiming "there never was a God"? What makes your stance on the tooth fairy any more rational than someone saying "God does not exist"?

That's always been the point of the analogy.

Like I said, there is no person who floats around the world delivery presents. Never has been, and never was, it was just a story told to children, still is. Santa of course, is a real and tangible item, Santa is people, always has been. What makes you believe Santa is this magical person who flew around the world delivery presents to everybody?

See above.

LOL again I try to tell you, there has never been a magical being, it has always been real people. Real people always knew that, well adults anyway.

Really makes the santa, deity analogy look pretty stupid.

See above.

LOL you do have funny associations at times. Either you believe in the FSM analogy or your don't. If you believe in it as truism or good analogy, you have a belief pattern in it. If you don't believe in it, as I don't, you have a different belief pattern generated the other way.

You realize that understanding something as an accurate analogy does not mean you hold a "belief" in that regard. Using an analogy is not a belief. With your logic you can render anything into a "belief".

Please show me the base root, ancient culture which has ever testified to a santa (which we have always known are real people play acting) or a tooth fairy (which we have always known are real people play acting) as being a deity or a spirit et al?

What does that matter? I've already explained why having a "base root culture" make absolutely no difference to the factuality of something.

What do you want me to say that unreasoned people are reasoned? Just like you, I question the rationality of this position.

No, I want you to stop calling people irrational, stupid or biased and actually argue your case rather than just making it. Stop belittling people then turning around and spewing magma on others just because they say something similar about theists or members of any religion. You've done this dozens of times now.

Honesty, dishonesty all is perception based. Having been an atheist, I do know where honesty lies. Tooth fairy, FSM, flying teapots, Santa analogies, et al are all very dishonest.

To borrow a leaf from your book: "That's your perception".

And your perception is wrong.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Because other people disagree with our position, that should be the first indication that you hold a belief.

So, people disagree with the fact that you don't know?

Seriously, somebody holding a contrary opinion does not indicate that your opinion is a belief. It just means they do not share it. Seriously, why are you so determined to reduce everything to this state of "belief".

 

[footprints]

Seriously, somebody holding a contrary opinion does not indicate that your opinion is a belief. It just means they do not share it.

LOL share what? Our belief on the subject? Our opinion on the subject? Just because we believe something, have an opinion on something, doesn't make our opinion/belief right. It only ever makes it right for us, because that is where our current beliefs on the matter have led us.

LOL an opinion is a belief which people will hold faith in to a greater or lesser degree.

Again we are just going around the same old mulberry tree.

 

[Falvlun]

The notion that atheism leads to genocide is as valid as the notion that the mustaches worn by Hitler and Stalin led to the Second World War. Among other things, correlation is not causation.

I think it's pretty ridiculous to claim that atheism is the cause of all the genocide inflicted by Pol Pot and Stalin, but surely atheism contributed to their methodical elimination of the religious clergymen and people in their countries.

 

[dogsgod]

I think it's pretty ridiculous to claim that atheism is the cause of all the genocide inflicted by Pol Pot and Stalin, but surely atheism contributed to their methodical elimination of the religious clergymen and people in their countries.

I fail to see the connection. Stalin was a social pathetic murderer and killed anyone that he considered a threat, and the clergy had wide ranging influence, that alone could have been considered a threat. Besides, there was churches that Stalin favored over others.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

LOL share what? Our belief on the subject? Our opinion on the subject? Just because we believe something, have an opinion on something, doesn't make our opinion/belief right. It only ever makes it right for us, because that is where our current beliefs on the matter have led us.

Strawman. You said that if somebody holds a contrary opinion to you it indicates that your opinion is a belief. I said nothing about whether that dictated that it was right or not - simply that that's no basis for qualifying what is and isn't a "belief".

LOL an opinion is a belief which people will hold faith in to a greater or lesser degree.

No it isn't. An opinion is an opinion - the clue is in the name. A belief is when you hold something to be true regardless of (or sometimes contrary to) evidence, an opinion is a subjective viewpoint about an issue resulting from investigation of facts.

Again we are just going around the same old mulberry tree.

Because you keep bringing it there.

 

[Falvlun]

I fail to see the connection. Stalin was a social pathetic murderer and killed anyone that he considered a threat, and the clergy had wide ranging influence, that alone could have been considered a threat. Besides, there was churches that Stalin favored over others.

Perhaps...

The whole subject is convoluted, and while I don't think that atheism necessarily spurred the mass genocides, I think it probable that it contributed to the paranoia and antagonism directed towards religions.

 

[dogsgod]

Perhaps...

The whole subject is convoluted, and while I don't think that atheism necessarily spurred the mass genocides, I think it probable that it contributed to the paranoia and antagonism directed towards religions.

Communism is a system wherein the one at the top controls all the purse strings of the entire economic system of the state. Communism won't allow a church to have people gather every week in one place and pay into a fund that goes to a church leader. A leader of people with money and influence is not compatible within a dictatorship. The communist system we read of in Acts 4, 32 is headed by the church which is not a problem unless that church lies within a communist system headed by the state. In that case it is in direct competition. Non organized religion is not a problem within a communist state. Also, the problem with setting up a communist system is the sort of mega maniac it attracts that would kill any one in its way of seizing that kind of ultimate power and holding on to it. It's an inherently faulty system from the start.

 

[Falvlun]

Life experience defines a persons perception. A non-believer caught in the bible belt of the USA, can easily be led to the perception that the whole world is against them. And from their perception of life, they would be right, albeit what they really mean is the known world around them, not the whole world. If that same person came into a forum like this, do you know what they would find, more believers preaching the same things at them. They would also find, others who believed just like them, who would give them hope.

The same applies to a theist who is continually debating against non-believers or even believers of another sect. Their perception of life can get twisted and distorted, simply due to the environment they continually surround themselves in. It isn't hard for these people to start to believe, due to their own perception, that they are surrounded by atheists, for basically in reality, they really are.

Life is about balance. Everybody must escape, from their own perception of life every once in a while, else they will be caught in the web of deception woven from their own perception.

This seems plausible. I set up a poll "Atheism vs Theism" to see whether it is personal bias, or reality, that is creating my perception. So far, the majority of theists do make the positive claim (God exists) and atheists make the probable claim (it is more probable that God doesn't exist).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Atheism, which is better described as secularism, in general does not take a society-destroying form.

Atheism is not the same thing as secularism. Secularism is the belief that public life, especially government, should be free of undue influence of religion or differential treatment of different religions.

Many religious people are secularists, and I think it's harmful to perpetrate the falsehood that secularism and atheism are necessarily linked. One need not be atheist to be a secularist, and I think it's important that religious people recognize that supporting secularism doesn't amount to supporting some "atheist agenda".

 

[dust1n]

Atheism is not the same thing as secularism. Secularism is the belief that public life, especially government, should be free of undue influence of religion or differential treatment of different religions.

Many religious people are secularists, and I think it's harmful to perpetrate the falsehood that secularism and atheism are necessarily linked. One need not be atheist to be a secularist, and I think it's important that religious people recognize that supporting secularism doesn't amount to supporting some "atheist agenda".

No kidding - it is unfair to call someone who is 'secular' and 'atheist' or vise versa, seeing how those two beliefs are two very simple but vastly different beliefs with different effects.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

No kidding - it is unfair to call someone who is 'secular' and 'atheist' or vise versa, seeing how those two beliefs are two very simple but vastly different beliefs with different effects.

This is largely irrelevant to those who are both anti-atheist and anti-secularist.