atheists

[destrekor]

Good ol schizophrenia. Always there to mess our shit up.

Fun fact of the day: the bible says you're supposed to kill mentally ill people. For a lack of a better explanation for why someone would act crazy as hell, it was believed to be demonic possession, which can't be cured in most cases (throwing water on you will not fix your schizophrenia). It's not a terrible hypothesis. Knowing nothing about medicine, it seems to make perfect sense.
You're also supposed to kill disobedient children for the same reason. The bible was probably referring to kids with autism. No matter how hard you try, you just can't train them like you can with other kids. It might be demons doing it.


It seems like that image was made by someone who believes that people think Star Trek is real and not just a TV show. That's rather telling. That type of logic would explain why someone reading a book about people in the desert would immediately the assume was 100% fact instead of interpreting it as a nice story or a bunch of allegories.

I actually read it without any kind of intense interpretation. It seems to stand out quite obviously too, imho.

The image takes the idea that religious faith is childish, but then argues the people who take that approach also show unintentional irony by strongly clinging to pop sci-fi (as if that's a childish thing to do?) and other things like My Little Pony (definitely childish in some ways, though like half the "cute" cartoons out there, are equally geared toward adults that have kids who watch it).
It attempts to apply that equally to libertarian beliefs, but that one falls on its face imho. Maybe it's some kind of argument that it's a naive political viewpoint, too unrealistic for today's world, etc etc... and I can see how people might attempt to argue that, but it's a lazy argument and devoid of truth. If you take the extreme libertarian approach, the one that basically strips the Federal Government of all power not spelled out specifically by the Constitution and the Amendments, then sure... but most practicing Libertarians use that only as a starting point, one that describes the ideals. In reality, it's understood small changes are possible, but completely reverting to the Constitutional ideal is basically impossible.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

Good ol schizophrenia. Always there to mess our shit up.

Fun fact of the day: the bible says you're supposed to kill mentally ill people. For a lack of a better explanation for why someone would act crazy as hell, it was believed to be demonic possession, which can't be cured in most cases (throwing water on you will not fix your schizophrenia). It's not a terrible hypothesis. Knowing nothing about medicine, it seems to make perfect sense.
You're also supposed to kill disobedient children for the same reason. The bible was probably referring to kids with autism. No matter how hard you try, you just can't train them like you can with other kids. It might be demons doing it.

I know autism. My 5 year old son is autistic. You do not train kids. They are not dogs or animals. You teach them. Lack of motor skills does not mean they are disobedient. It just mean they need a bit more attention and effort from the parents. My kid was diagnosed 2 years ago when he was 3. At 4 they did a assessment and found he was 2 years behind. After almost 2 years of speech therapy and a therapy once a month he was assessed again and they informed us he can attend a normal school. He can count to 50. All tough not fluidly cause he had his teeth pulled he can talk like children his age, count to 50 and navigates my PC better than my wife can.

So even if a person does not believe in anything or follow someone into oblivion I still believe one must have faith and patience also a believe that everything does not matter how shit it might be at the moment always turns out for the better in the end if you do not give up hope. I also believe you don't need to drill any religion or any other thing down a persons throat to teach them respect and family values. Laws are man made and everything we read today are written by man. But everyone is born with his own will and common sense.

If you let people restrict your common sense cause you let them with your own free will, then I say its your own stupidity. Especially if its written somewhere that you must hurt the ones around you intensionally. Thats where the common sense should have kicked in but you let someone blind it with your own free will.

 

[Theb]

Hey Evolutionists - Checkmate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfv-Qn1M58I

 

[ShawnD1]

I know autism. My 5 year old son is autistic. You do not train kids. They are not dogs or animals. You teach them.

Parenting involves lots of dog training. Examples:
Sleep training your baby (go to sleep and wake up at specific times)
Operant training your baby (behavior modification)

Lack of motor skills does not mean they are disobedient.

You don't seem to understand what autism is. Autism is not a physical disability like parkinsons. Autism is a mental disorder like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. You can tell a kid is autistic when he doesn't listen to people, he doesn't interact with others, and he doesn't respond to his own name. People with autism like to keep things ordered. People with autism stick to very tight rituals and they freak out when things don't go according to plan. My gf's older brother is severely autistic, and his behavior is really the only thing that's wrong with him. He's healthy, he's strong, and he shows signs of intelligence. He can learn things, but he can't be influenced by others. He has been labeled dangerous because he's physically capable of causing a lot of trouble when things don't go his way, and that has happened before.

Autistic people are more like cats, less like dogs. They do their own thing and they are very difficult to train. I just thought of that analogy right now but a quick google search says I'm not the first person to think of that idea.
http://cats.about.com/od/youandyourcat/a/catsandautism.htm

Thanks to the bond between our feline relatives and us, Richard (the autistic 19 year old) has friends, attends college and is not ashamed of having autism. He once told me that he believed all cats have autism, because “Cats are like me. They look at everything and think about it when everyone thinks they’re not paying attention and they only talk when they have something to say.” I’m not an animal psychologist, but I do know one thing . . . life has been a blessing since we discovered “Cat!”

Interesting

 

[HumblePie]

Dark matter and dark energy were theories formed to explain observations that were made that could not be explained using our current laws of physics. The very fact that these theories are based on observation and evidence make them NOT like religion at all.

Actually, no. There was no evidence to suggest such a theory. None AT ALL. It was a whim, a dream, and an illogical leap of intuition that made the original set of scientists think of some gluing matter in the universe. Original competing, and more compelling theories until recently I might add, is that science was just not able to measure all the force a super black hole was capable of producing. That makes MUCH more logical sense than to think of some known material that has never been seen, measured, or even conceptualized as the answer.

Do you see what I'm getting at here? It took faith by a group of scientists that their intuition leap of logic was correct enough to pursue the evidence or proof for that hypothesis. There was no observations to use at first. There was no tests or proofs to do. They were stuck for 40 years searching for something observational that could be tested.

By the first definition of the dictionary of Religion, their faith in their answer was Religious. It was only a HYPOTHESIS, and not even a theory until recently. Dark matter was a WAG. It was an answer to a problem that concerned the nature of the universe using forces that could not even be explain, and barely are able to explain now.


I'm trying to make a point that religion is a guess. A bad one, but nothing ore than a WAG (wild ass guess) as to the nature of the universe. For the most part the majority of it has been proven wrong by science. Any religious idea is the guess as to explain some facet of the universe. However, it's only idiots that think their religious ideas are the truth.

I hope you are following me here. Wild ass guess or early hypothesis concerning the nature of the universe or forces there in are actually the very definition of a religion. Sermons, dogma, sacrificing goats, eating cracker wafers, and what not are all religious practices. Or tradtions, or honorings. They go hand and hand with religions, but the are nothing more than a service towards a religion. The act of sacrificing a goat for example is NOT a religion. It is just an act. I could sacrifice a goat in the vain attempt that I think it might cure cancer. I don't have to think I'm sacrificing it to a deity or a super natural power at all. I could just want to do so. In which case it's not associated with a religion. It just becomes an act. So what I'm trying to say is that the ACTS are not what defines the word Religion. Just like many religions have no set of rules, acts, practices, or dogmas.

 

[busydude]

Hey Evolutionists - Checkmate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfv-Qn1M58I

hehehe

 

[DrPizza]

No. Just no.

Does a child who has never been told anything about religion, or unicorns, for example have a belief system set AGAINST believing in those things? Atheism is a lack of belief, not a conscience choice not to believe. A child that is never told of any form of super natural being will lack a belief system for one. That is Atheism, a lack of belief.

To champion a disbelief is not a religious matter either. That's a zealotry matter. Much like a die hard Cleveland Browns fan is not a religion just because they champion the hope that one day the Browns might make it.

There are very specific rules regarding what is the definition of a religion. Zealotry is not the encompassing definition of a religion. Religion does typically induce zealotry, but that is a by product and not the definition.

Historically, children who grew up without ever being told anything about religion have not been referred to as atheists. Those referred to as atheists are from among those who HAVE been informed of religion throughout their lives. Historically, such people (who have never been exposed to religion) have been referred to as pagans. Your argument about this is little more than a straw man.

 

[slayer202]

Historically, children who grew up without ever being told anything about religion have not been referred to as atheists. Those referred to as atheists are from among those who HAVE been informed of religion throughout their lives. Historically, such people have been referred to as pagans. Your argument about this is little more than a straw man.

Learn your terms and you'll see that you are wrong. Someone without any knowledge of religion is an atheist by default. Use the right terms with the correct definitions and this is true

 

[ShawnD1]

Learn your terms and you'll see that you are wrong. Someone without any knowledge of religion is an atheist by default. Use the right terms with the correct definitions and this is true

People without religion are called savages. Then we send in our Christian help crews, teach the savages about Christianity and nothing else, then ask for money on American TV. This method is surprisingly effective. Since it started, Africa's HIV and poverty rates have dropped to 0%.

Not knowing about religion and being an atheist are not the same thing. "Atheism" usually implies a complete lack of spirituality. No gods, no spirits, no magic spells. People can believe there are no gods but still have a spiritual side. Those people never say they are atheists because it's not the same thing. Some of those spiritual no-god people are called pagans, some are wiccans. Hippies with no gods like to say "mother nature" and "mother earth" when talking as if nature or earth was a person.

 

[HumblePie]

Historically, children who grew up without ever being told anything about religion have not been referred to as atheists. Those referred to as atheists are from among those who HAVE been informed of religion throughout their lives. Historically, such people (who have never been exposed to religion) have been referred to as pagans. Your argument about this is little more than a straw man.

No... pagans are those that historically believed in polytheism. The kelts, norse, romans, greeks, and what not were pagans. They had a religious belief that included multiple supernatural beings. THAT is the definition of pagan.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pagan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism

Atheism as a definition means a lack of ANY religious belief. How you arrive at that lack of belief can be that A) you were never exposed or taught any form of religion and thus never formed a religious belief or B) You were exposed to religious ideas and have chosen not to believe in them.

Neither of which is Anti-theist, which is a whole nother can of worms, and is typically what gets theists riled up. These are atheists who actively oppose religious people in some way even if it is just speaking out to discredit religious ideas at every turn.

 

[DrPizza]

Learn your terms and you'll see that you are wrong. Someone without any knowledge of religion is an atheist by default. Use the right terms with the correct definitions and this is true

So, this thread devolved into an argument over what is an atheist. Then, you came along and your argument boils down to "well, your definition is wrong, because you don't know the right definition."

 

[HumblePie]

People without religion are called savages. Then we send in our Christian help crews, teach the savages about Christianity and nothing else, then ask for money on American TV. This method is surprisingly effective. Since it started, Africa's HIV and poverty rates have dropped to 0%.

Not knowing about religion and being an atheist are not the same thing. "Atheism" usually implies a complete lack of spirituality. No gods, no spirits, no magic spells. People can believe there are no gods but still have a spiritual side. Those people never say they are atheists because it's not the same thing. Some of those spiritual no-god people are called pagans, some are wiccans. Hippies with no gods like to say "mother nature" and "mother earth" when talking as if nature or earth was a person.

No, that is NOT the definition of atheism. Spirituality is a part of theism, but not theism. There is a clear and distinct difference. I can believe in the random chance of the universe and chaos theory. That is a form of spirituality that is NOT theism.

A person that is not exposed to any religious ideas will typically not conjure them from thin air as an attempt to explain the workings of the universe. I won't say always because there are plenty of nutcases that like to think of whatever pops into their head as the truth. But an average person without a mental impairment or behavioral problem that has an aptitude for logic and learning will almost never come up with a religious idea on their own as an explanation to the nature of the universe.

 

[HumblePie]

So, this thread devolved into an argument over what is an atheist. Then, you came along and your argument boils down to "well, your definition is wrong, because you don't know the right definition."

No this thread is because people have the wrong idea about what atheism is. That's the whole fucking problem with religious nuts in general. They want to fit whatever they see into their small world view and call it right. It is a learned response.

Atheism means LACK OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF. That is the actual dictionary definition and has been for that word since that word was created. It means nothing more and nothing less. If you lack religious beliefs then you are atheist.

However, atheism is defined by another word, which is religion. So to know how one would lack religious beliefs then one must know the proper definition of the word Religion. Something that many seem to also want to change to suit their views.

Does no one use the dictionary anymore?

 

[ShawnD1]

A person that is not exposed to any religious ideas will typically not conjure them from thin air as an attempt to explain the workings of the universe.

Um yes they do. One of my friends thinks the random door opening and closing in her house is caused by ghosts. Nobody told her this. She came to this conclusion on her own.

 

[Kev]

Actually, no. There was no evidence to suggest such a theory. None AT ALL. It was a whim, a dream, and an illogical leap of intuition that made the original set of scientists think of some gluing matter in the universe. Original competing, and more compelling theories until recently I might add, is that science was just not able to measure all the force a super black hole was capable of producing. That makes MUCH more logical sense than to think of some known material that has never been seen, measured, or even conceptualized as the answer.

Do you see what I'm getting at here? It took faith by a group of scientists that their intuition leap of logic was correct enough to pursue the evidence or proof for that hypothesis. There was no observations to use at first. There was no tests or proofs to do. They were stuck for 40 years searching for something observational that could be tested.

By the first definition of the dictionary of Religion, their faith in their answer was Religious. It was only a HYPOTHESIS, and not even a theory until recently. Dark matter was a WAG. It was an answer to a problem that concerned the nature of the universe using forces that could not even be explain, and barely are able to explain now.


I'm trying to make a point that religion is a guess. A bad one, but nothing ore than a WAG (wild ass guess) as to the nature of the universe. For the most part the majority of it has been proven wrong by science. Any religious idea is the guess as to explain some facet of the universe. However, it's only idiots that think their religious ideas are the truth.

I hope you are following me here. Wild ass guess or early hypothesis concerning the nature of the universe or forces there in are actually the very definition of a religion. Sermons, dogma, sacrificing goats, eating cracker wafers, and what not are all religious practices. Or tradtions, or honorings. They go hand and hand with religions, but the are nothing more than a service towards a religion. The act of sacrificing a goat for example is NOT a religion. It is just an act. I could sacrifice a goat in the vain attempt that I think it might cure cancer. I don't have to think I'm sacrificing it to a deity or a super natural power at all. I could just want to do so. In which case it's not associated with a religion. It just becomes an act. So what I'm trying to say is that the ACTS are not what defines the word Religion. Just like many religions have no set of rules, acts, practices, or dogmas.

You're equating a hypothesis with faith. That's ridiculous. Dark energy and dark matter were not accepted as scientific theory until evidence was provided for them.

 

[Kev]

So, this thread devolved into an argument over what is an atheist. Then, you came along and your argument boils down to "well, your definition is wrong, because you don't know the right definition."

I always love it when these threads turn into definition wars

 

[HumblePie]

Um yes they do. One of my friends thinks the random door opening and closing in her house is caused by ghosts. Nobody told her this. She came to this conclusion on her own.

/ le Sigh,

She has exposure to what the idea of a ghost is when someone in her past explained the idea of ghosts to her. She made an illogical jump to a conclusion using bad information given to her previously. People who are not good a logic do this all the time. My girl friend is scared of wooden gates on fences. Why? Because bad things in scary movies happen whenever anyone opens a wooden gate. So she jumps to the conclusion that it will happen the same way in real life. It's a phobia to an extent and thus by definition a mental impairment. That friend of yours has a phobia to ghosts and thus a mental impairment and will be prone to logic problems when trying to apply deduction, reasoning, and critical thinking skills.

 

[HumblePie]

You're equating a hypothesis with faith. That's ridiculous. Dark energy and dark matter were not accepted as scientific theory until evidence was provided for them.

No, I'm stating that believing a hypothesis may be the right answer IS faith. By the dictionary definition that is so. A hypothesis is an answer to a question without any evidence to support it.

*EDIT*

Let me go out on a limb and give you a simplistic analogy.

Science has no evidence as to what may have been the cause for the Big Bang Theory. We have nothing whatever so ever at the moment.

So I can hypothesis that the Big Bang was started a flying spaghetti monster with one of his noodley appendages. That is my hypothesis and my guess. I do NOT need in science evidence of any sort to form a hypothesis at all. I can have faith in my answer being correct and USE that faith to look for ways to either prove or disprove my hypothesis. By definition, since I have put forward a supernatural or unexplained universal power as an explanation to the nature of the universe and have faith that it may be a correct answer, that is RELIGION by definition. I can come up later with religious practices and traditions if I want, but it's not needed. All that is needed is I believe in my hypothesis right now is correct until I find evidence to support or oppose it.

 

[Kev]

No, I'm stating that believing a hypothesis may be the right answer IS faith. By the dictionary definition that is so. A hypothesis is an answer to a question without any evidence to support it.

A hypothesis is an answer to a question that requires evidence to support it, or else it isn't accepted.

Faith is an answer to a question that doesn't require evidence to support it.

 

[HumblePie]

A hypothesis is an answer to a question that requires evidence to support it, or else it isn't accepted.

Faith is an answer to a question that doesn't require evidence to support it.

Go re-read my analogy to the post above.

An no, a hypothesis does NOT require any evidence to support it at all. None what so ever. A good working scientific hypothesis typically does have some evidence to support it and help formulate more tests for it, but it is not required to have evidence what so ever to form a hypothesis. That's why it's called a guess, or some like to think it's an "educated" guess when they are trying to form a hypothesis based on some previous evidence.

 

[slayer202]

Um yes they do. One of my friends thinks the random door opening and closing in her house is caused by ghosts. Nobody told her this. She came to this conclusion on her own.

Humble is right. She had that view because of what she has been exposed to. However, it seems like most cultures have created supernatural ideas when they couldn't explain things. The problem is that if you create a million different sects of people, they'll all create their own unique and partially overlapping religions.

 

[slayer202]

So, this thread devolved into an argument over what is an atheist. Then, you came along and your argument boils down to "well, your definition is wrong, because you don't know the right definition."

Atheist = No belief in God.

You have to be taught a religion and when you are capable enough to understand, you have to decide whether or not you believe it. There's no difference between two people, one a modern day atheist, and another who hasn't been exposed to any sort of religion. They have the same view. They are atheists.

You can't get defensive when you aren't using sound logic. Feel free to rebut

 

[HumblePie]

Humble is right. She had that view because of what she has been exposed to. However, it seems like most cultures have created supernatural ideas when they couldn't explain things. The problem is that if you create a million different sects of people, they'll all create their own unique and partially overlapping religions.

No, we get these things because not everyone on this planet is a vulcan, but humans do tend to think a like do to human behavior. However, there are differences. For example, I can't name a single person I've ever met that doesn't like music. What is music? Sounds set to a measured rhythm. But as humans we can't all agree on the best music type or even have one best music sound. Do you see where I'm going here with this analogy yet?

Basically it's human nature to WANT to learn, to WANT to find answers. It's also human nature to be lazy to an extent. So people want answers, but they want easy answers. Not all people, but the majority for sure.

Humans are also social animals and like attention. What gives a person more attention than not? Having the answers! Especially if they are simple and easy answers. Then you factor in imagination, mental impairments, psychedelic chemicals and all that other jazz throughout human history and you will find that people will come up with fantastical answers and try to pass them off as truthful answers for various reasons. Hence, why we have all these religions, many of which share similar elements because humans typically think in broad terms very much alike (aka humans like music). Then on can factor in the fact that its easier to convert someone to ones own religion when you steal all their practices and call it your own the make the transition for them easier as to why religions share many elements.

 

[slayer202]

Not sure what the no was directed at, but I'm pretty sure that was just an expanded answer on my statement lol.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

Parenting involves lots of dog training. Examples:
Sleep training your baby (go to sleep and wake up at specific times)
Operant training your baby (behavior modification)



You don't seem to understand what autism is. Autism is not a physical disability like parkinsons. Autism is a mental disorder like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. You can tell a kid is autistic when he doesn't listen to people, he doesn't interact with others, and he doesn't respond to his own name. People with autism like to keep things ordered. People with autism stick to very tight rituals and they freak out when things don't go according to plan. My gf's older brother is severely autistic, and his behavior is really the only thing that's wrong with him. He's healthy, he's strong, and he shows signs of intelligence. He can learn things, but he can't be influenced by others. He has been labeled dangerous because he's physically capable of causing a lot of trouble when things don't go his way, and that has happened before.

Autistic people are more like cats, less like dogs. They do their own thing and they are very difficult to train. I just thought of that analogy right now but a quick google search says I'm not the first person to think of that idea.
http://cats.about.com/od/youandyourcat/a/catsandautism.htm

Interesting

I think you are confused what autism is. The term autism comes from Greek auto, meaning “self,” and refers to an abnormal withdrawal from the world outside oneself. Severe social withdrawal is found in schizophrenia—in fact, autism was originally misclassified as a type of childhood schizophrenia. However, the symptoms of schizophrenia include bizarre behavior or delusions that do not otherwise impair intelligence and communication capabilities.

Autism was originally thought to be a form of schizophrenia, but it has been recognized since the 1960s as a distinct developmental disorder that is not a psychosis.