Assume Nothing

I'm odd with my persona - I could be extremely extroverted, or extremely introverted. I could be extremely sarcastic, or extremely serious. I could be brutally (and thus bluntly) honest, or extremely tact. I could be deeply understanding, or completely apathetic. It's odd that I can't seem to settle on a happy medium :/

I don't want to make my other post too long, but here's a nice excerpt taken from the r/atheism faqs page (it's not a source of evidence, it's an argument I'm presenting that's taken from another place.): [hide=here's the excerpt]The problem isn't specifically a hatred of gays/women/blacks/etc., or an opposition to Cosmology or Biology. The problem is delusion, dogma, and a willingness to ignore reality that one finds inconvenient. As far as most skeptics are concerned, people who believe uncritically in supernaturalist religion, who are willing to continue believing in extraordinary claims despite the complete lack of evidence, have a fundamentally dishonest worldview that can never fully coincide with evidence and rationality. Furthermore, anyone who demands respect for uncritical acceptance of superstitious nonsense, even mostly harmless nonsense, is indirectly giving aid and comfort to the fundamentalists, because they're making it that much less acceptable to criticize those who hold similar beliefs which are obviously crazy or evil. It's nice that some religious people share some political opinions with some atheists. It's nice that some religious people don't hate gay people, it's nice that some religious people accept evolution, it's nice that some religious people accept that the Big Bang happened. Heck, it's nice that most religious people are willing to accept that the Earth isn't flat. It's certainly better than the alternative. But if you think those things are all that we take issue with, or that those are the only things wrong with theism or religion, then you're missing the point. So, yes, we know you're not as bad as those crazies. But unless you're opposed to all of the things wrong with religion, don't be surprised if you're seen as part of the problem.[/hide] The problem we have is that as humanity secretly wants a loving creator, it would make it even if it was untrue.

I don't appreciate your snark - neither now, nor ever. What do you think the rolling eyes smiley face will achieve? Is there a point to it? No, because your intent is to provoke a reaction, evident by your use of language. There's a thing called 'colloquial interpretation', and understanding a distinction between assumptions and inferences. Assumptions have very little backing, for they are unsupported reasons - whereas inferences are drawn from converging points. It's a nuance that could (and often would) be lost by your deliberate misuse of language through conflation. That's my contention.

The exact same thing can be said of religion... Religions aren't all the same, Christians aren't all the same, Christian Protestants aren't all the same. Stop generalizing. What is an actual issue is a tendency we have to impose our values upon others; this is unrelated to religion (you're a pretty good example). Also, science doesn't allow us to understand, only to explain, to describe. Science doesn't interpret; it doesn't make sense out of the world; it doesn't give it a meaning, and in fact it has a tendency to destroy our ability to finding meaning in it. This is something religion can do. >Generalizing No. Different branches of Christianity is still Christianity; different branches of Islam is still Islam; different branches of Judaism is still Judaism. It falls under sections and subsections, motivated by the same cause, because it's an encompassing world-view, or ideology. It cannot be said for atheism, because that's not a particular mindset or worldview. It's just a negative statement - its convictions is a single 'I don't believe in god/gods'. Science is not supposed to give meaning to life; that's what philosophy and ethics is for. It's merely there to represent and describe reality as it is, so we can learn more from standing on the shoulder of giants. It's the best possible way we could observe things, so I don't follow your criticism of science. The argument about imposing values and ethics upon others I won't deny; but the better question is, which values is better to impose, if at all? I'd argue that secular values are much better to impose, if we must impose them, by any means than Christian or Islamic ones because it's not contingent on some invisible deity's approval - it focuses on the needs of humanity directly, and it adapts to suit culture and timescales. Religious values focus on perpetuating itself through fear of 'sin' and thus the consequences of 'sin', so they're hardly worth mentioning. The golden rule has predated scripture, you do realize - and secular discussions has provided many more meaningful forms of morality. Of course, there are branches of theism that tries to accept science or has worthwhile (cherry-picked and not in fact contingent on a god)'s values, but that misses the point entirely, as I've said in my response to champion. Religious values can often be twisted in a way that makes it dangerous, too - which I'd imagine you wouldn't need examples of. You've missed the point time and time again. I don't care for moderate Christianity, I care for religion as a whole. If it has a net effect of a negative - which it does to a significant degree, even if some trivial benefits can be gained out of moderate theism, you can still conclude that theism is a bad thing on the whole. It's especially so if the benefits that can be gained may be better gained elsewhere, e.g. through secular organizations. I'd argue that the reliance on religion is rather dangerous, especially if it comes with additional baggage like the acceptance of faith and superstition as opposed to sound logic/reason. It's not about moderate vs. fundamentalist vs. atheism vs. anti-theism - not at all. It's a fundamental argument between rationality and faith/supernaturalism - to accept faith/supernaturalism entails the rejection of rationality as they are incompatible (with its obvious contradictions), and it opens the door to many potential issues (that has, and will continue to occur - I could provide the same exhaustive lists if you want). Humanity is much more prone to be stupid (i.e. become radicals) when you force a mind to be uncritical, which is easily proven by the child's susceptibility to the power of suggestion (e.g. Santa/ghosts/fairies/angels/unicorns/wizards, anyone?) leading them to do irrational (i.e. damaging) things, albeit on a minor scale. It's especially so if your 'almighty invisible sky-daddy' has a murderous rage, like Yahweh/Allah.

I don't follow, how does the belief that gods don't exist based on lack of evidence, inconsistent revelation, and consistently flawed scripture considered 'to know better' as if we didn't? Gods are absolutely unnecessary in any modern context, for we have advanced understanding of how the intricacies of the Universe works, e.g. theories on speciation, evolution, and an understanding of small but accumulating steps that lead us towards a world with intelligent life.

Banned for doing it wrong - now you're forced to listen to it.

'Christians are the ones who are misguided!' 'Christians and the Jews!' 'We must kill the infidels!' ~ paraphrasing Islamic chants. I do concede your point, anti-theism is more irreligious than religious. I just have contention over the tired arguments that atheism/science leads to killing people, etc. when that's not true. Anti-religion, in terms of scrutiny, is admittedly part of new-atheism. Anti-religion, in terms of cult-like behaviour, is hardly motivated by atheism, because atheism isn't an ideology. That's what I'm trying to get at. This 'Stalin/Hitler/Mao were atheists, and they did terrible things' argument is tired, because it's nothing to do with atheism, it was simply coincidence. I could just say that Hitler killed six million Jews because he was vegetarian, but that would be absurd. It's not a perfect analogy, but the same principle applies. Ironically, it's quite commonly cited that Hitler was actually Christian, which makes it more interesting.

I'm supporting my claims with argument/explanation, so the first point seems rather moot. Moving on, the incentive to oppose theism is not because of atheism since that stance only speaks of one thing: 'I don't believe in a God'. It says nothing of their worldviews, their beliefs, etc. - which is why I'm pretty opposed to the idea that atheism is a religion. The incentive to oppose theism is rather, derived from the scrutiny of theistic claims. It's not a double standard to make a distinction between them, as I apply a distinction to both. I understand that fundamentalism is an extremist position of theism, whereas anti-theism is a rather separate school of thought from atheism altogether. That's the difference: anti-religion is motivated not by irreligious views, but by the understanding the effects of religion to society. If you so recall, Islamic theists are quite anti-religion/theistic too, except against their own deity. Fundamentalism is motivated by religious views, as it's precisely what it means: to interpret scripture as a literal truth.

Banned for not lighting it with a match.

No, it doesn't work that way. Atheism is indifferent and simply non-acceptant of religious beliefs from basic skepticism. It's not responsible for anti-religion, that is a derivative of scrutiny. It must have an incentive to be reasonably called a 'cause of action', and thus far, there has been no illustration that there exists an incentive for atheists to oppose religion (let's define atheists correctly here, those who simply disbelieve in god/gods). I'm not rejecting your point that animal right activists are responsible for their actions, for they have motivation for their cause. But it is irrelevant, because atheism is quite simply put, a negative claim - i.e. there's no motivation from the position of atheism to oppose religion. It would be more appropriately labelled anti-religion that's actually opposed to the idea of religious belief.

... today, I've stumbled across this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18268677 I was hearing about it so much yesterday, but I didn't want to believe it. It's true :/

Atheism as a concept is not responsible for anti-theism, or even anti-religion. It's funnier still when you realize that theists tend to be strongly anti-religion/theistic, they just don't apply it equally to all religions. I find this claim particularly striking though: >Religion is not bad because there is fundamentalism. If that's your assertion, then how so? I'd argue that by simply providing the platform of religious motivation, with deliberately ambiguous scripture is already a recipe for disaster, which in turn, makes it a bad thing.

The point is to illustrate the oppressive movement of religion, how it propagates itself in such an unsavory manner, the damage it does to our intellectual potential as a species, and how it inhibits free speech, etc. I really don't see the point in trying to distinguish moderates from fundamentalism. It both operates on the same principles, but with the false belief that the religious beliefs are 'justified' (ironic how the leap of faith gets harder that the religious feel the need to 'prove' god now). It doesn't matter, as long as religion is there, fundamentalism is there. I'm attacking religion as a whole, you're completely missing the point when you bring up the phrase 'We're not fundamentalists'. I guess what I was trying to do in a few posts above was a very simple goal: show what's wrong with religion by exposing why it's difficult to leave. It's easy to agree that people subscribe to religion because their social networks all effectively force it among them, and that the uncritical mind of a child can be effectively forced to believe anything with the right psychological nudges (or, in this case, jabs). It's useful to understand why atheism, or irreligion is a growing 'movement' recently, on a global annual scale of the millions.

I ask this because the Islamic penalty is very clear. If the country is ruled by the religion of Islam (i.e. Sharia's Law), then leaving the blind faith of Islam equates to execution. It's quite similar in the Biblical verses, although it's more muddled with the newer derivatives of Christianity sects that cherry-pick verses and chapters to accept/deny, as if to justify their shortcomings. Here's a verse or two that can be easily Googled. Christianity 2 Chronicles 15:13 But that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman. Deuteronomy 13:6-11 “If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which neither you nor your fathers have known, some of the gods of the peoples who are around you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. ... Islam Qur'an (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them" Qur'an (9:11-12) - "But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail Our revelations for a people who have knowledge. And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief - Lo! they have no binding oaths - in order that they may desist."

It could be demonstrated by answering one question: what's the Islamic and Christian penalty for apostasy?

Banned because the words "good fight" come to mind.

Banned for being evasive about your dislike of Blaze.

Banned for being so naive that you'd try to extinguish a grease fire with water.

Curious question - would a theist want to try on atheistic ideas for a week? If not, why refuse? EDIT - scrap that, the discussion won't be very enlightening either way. Here's a better question: why is it so hard for theists, especially Christians, to leave their religion? - especially if they want to.

You know my stance on that: it's a meaningless claim because it is based on rather obvious human limitations, e.g. calculated by the deterioration rate of organs. It's a bit like the claims that pork should not be consumed - it's based on the likeness of the pig to a human (in terms of organs like the heart), and because pigs didn't eat very selectively so they'd get a lot of disease. The point is, it's based on obvious facts that we can observe, rather than divinely inspired wisdom. According to a quick Google search, Jeane Calment lived until the age of 122, so the '120 limit' claim seems a little inaccurate. It would be interesting to see if there's any correlation between the people with the longest lives; I'd imagine vegetarianism would be rather common amongst them?

I'm not entirely sure how the wonder-pill will work, as this is entirely abstract until we can analyze the effects of a proposed 'solution'.

I got a reaction didn't I? Of course you did, that's the point of debate. It was somewhat less than cordial because you seem rather intent on getting some form of twisted gratification from receiving a response. I never said I wasn't a fool. I gracefully accept the fact that I have an inferior mental capacity to yours. In any case, I just glanced over at your user name and it said "Assume Nothing." I just thought that it was slightly ironic. It should be interpreted colloquially. I chose the name from the phrase 'assume nothing, question everything', for your info. I'll submit that your posts are irritating, because it seems that you can't seem to convey an ambiguous point without some unnecessary snark. I'm curious though, when have I ever stated and/or suggested that I have a superior mental capacity, precisely? I hardly think raising an objection to unsound logic is indicative of that. Does this mean that we actually have slowed the aging of mice or that we are working on slowing the aging process? If you have a link or something, I'd like to see more information about this. As for this, I'd guess it would be useful to find out what aging really is - for that is to say, to pose the question 'why does aging cells deteriorate?' It could be possible that, in theory, we should be able to live forever. I think that would be more so of a curse than a gift, though - our mortality is what gives purpose to life (request elaboration if you wish, we could make this a philosophical topic if you want).

What's your point? 'Oh, it is an ASSUMPTION.' 'You're making an ASSUMPTION.' 'You're ASSUMING that a god doesn't exist.' 'That's an ASSUMPTION.' Is there anything you're trying to imply here? Anything specific? If it's an assumption, what's wrong with it? Is it necessarily evil? Do you know what an 'assumption' is, without going into a dictionary to get the definition? This specific criticism that you seem to enjoy is rather moot, especially so without explanation which you seem to enjoy not including. It would almost seem as though you know your criticisms are flawed, but you say them intentionally to invoke reactions. It is only reasonable to suggest that he does watch Torchwood, since the series are of the same genre (whereby one is a parent series of the other). It's bitterly ironic that you're assuming that I'm making an assumption, now who's the fool here?

Like this? It's funny how frequent these things could be.

In debate, we call this a 'non-argument'. In other words, you haven't provided anything to convince us that your position is of any strength, only vile rhetoric that could be reasonably called malicious. It's interesting to see this pattern emerge from you. Here's a tip: don't use wikipedia as a direct source. I like the part where you make it sound like Merriam-W made the mistake, and not you. This is just one case where atheists are just as bad as theists. Too much blind faith on your idiotic propaganda websites. If Wikipedia's sources are credible, then what argument do you have? Is it unreasonably implausible to claim that their definitions is appropriate? I don't see your point, which seems to be emerging as rather consistent throughout this entire thread.