I'm not familiar with the contorted logic that you refer to, nor do I understand what the A in your equation above refers to. (Although it doesn't matter, I suppose, since you believe atheism is a pathology below). I think some, maybe many atheists would agree with some tenets of Objectivism but naturally not all. I believe Ayn Rand was a nutcase but I don't think that having overlapping philosophy with her is necessarily an insult as you are trying to use it here.
I can see that you have serious problems with atheist's tendency to be dismissive. It's true. I have no respect for tradition for tradition's sake and I see no need to take a religion seriously because it's been around for a long time and a lot of people adhere to it.
Furthermore you seem to believe that all atheists want to replace religions with their own religious-like structure, which isn't true. First of all, religious are institutions and atheism is not an institution and has no need to wield power to manipulate, which is the main purpose of religious institutions. I suppose you're very colored by your conversation with your friend but I do not agree with him. I do not need to use power to manipulate people. I'm perfectly happy being left alone, which means religion out of public life, and letting everyone else do what they want with their private time and space (including religious practice if they wish).
I'm perfectly happy being left alone, which means religion out of public life, and letting everyone else do what they want with their private time and space (including religious practice if they wish).
-I agree. As much as possible I shy away from religious discussions (unless they come to me willingly) and I don't go about looking for a chance to say my atheistic beliefs. Atheists don't have any practices and in no way means to restrict people, put barriers and wield authority over them. theist can have their God if they want, what bothers me is when in the process of fulfilling their religious duties, they involve people who are enjoying the privacy of their lives, people who are considered less than humans for doing things that did not in any way harm others (such as an adventist I met once and who made it clear that homosexuals deserved no right and are less than humans), when they can use a book to justify murder (muslims killing innocent people because half way around the world their Koran, A BOOK, was burned) and other monstrosities. Those people, take note, are not distorting their beliefs, they are expressing them, expressing what is written on their chosen holy book. Even if they aren't extremist, their sheer number can affect major national decisions that would have been otherwise helpful for the population such as the Reproductive Bill I just described. I'm not really good with this philosophy and shit but I implore theists to prove to me how rational and RIGHT those things are.
Most people who know what they're talking about dismiss Objectivism because it is demonstrably foolish. The only people who disagree are Objectivists.
Similarly, most people who know what they're talking about dismiss new-atheism because it is demonstrably foolish. The only people who disagree are new-atheists.
Boy, what is it with people and reading comprehension on this thread?
I'd be glad to consider an expert's opinion if you'd like to provide the name of an expert or even a summary of said opinion. But until then I'm not sure what you're hoping I'm going to concede to here.
We don't know what's up with your reading comprehension. When you work it out let us know.
I asked whether expert opinion should be given weight or whether facts were only facts if you understood them. You changed the subject and we're trying to work out why.
No, what happened was, you asked me whether an expert opinion should be given weight, and when I asked you to provide an expert and his/her opinion, you proceeded with a bunch of gyrations. I'm glad to consider experts and their opinions, but not in a hypothetical sense. I'd like to know what makes a person a so-called expert and I'd like to actually read what they have to say. You either apparently have no experts to present or were trying to ply me with a sarcastic rhetorical question. So show me your expert or give it up already.
No, I asked you if expert opinion should be given weight over your lay understanding. You then uhmed and ahhed because you're an intellectual lightweight.
The correct answer was: Yes, experts should be given more weight.
I never ummed. I immediately asked you to provide an actual expert opinion for my consideration. And here we are four days and multiple responses later and you STILL haven't produced one.
I suppose the correct answer is that you don't know any.
I can see that you have serious problems with atheist's tendency to be dismissive. It's true. I have no respect for tradition for tradition's sake and I see no need to take a religion seriously because it's been around for a long time and a lot of people adhere to it.
Furthermore you seem to believe that all atheists want to replace religions with their own religious-like structure, which isn't true. First of all, religious are institutions and atheism is not an institution and has no need to wield power to manipulate, which is the main purpose of religious institutions. I suppose you're very colored by your conversation with your friend but I do not agree with him. I do not need to use power to manipulate people. I'm perfectly happy being left alone, which means religion out of public life, and letting everyone else do what they want with their private time and space (including religious practice if they wish).
Reply
-I agree. As much as possible I shy away from religious discussions (unless they come to me willingly) and I don't go about looking for a chance to say my atheistic beliefs. Atheists don't have any practices and in no way means to restrict people, put barriers and wield authority over them. theist can have their God if they want, what bothers me is when in the process of fulfilling their religious duties, they involve people who are enjoying the privacy of their lives, people who are considered less than humans for doing things that did not in any way harm others (such as an adventist I met once and who made it clear that homosexuals deserved no right and are less than humans), when they can use a book to justify murder (muslims killing innocent people because half way around the world their Koran, A BOOK, was burned) and other monstrosities. Those people, take note, are not distorting their beliefs, they are expressing them, expressing what is written on their chosen holy book. Even if they aren't extremist, their sheer number can affect major national decisions that would have been otherwise helpful for the population such as the Reproductive Bill I just described. I'm not really good with this philosophy and shit but I implore theists to prove to me how rational and RIGHT those things are.
Reply
Similarly, most people who know what they're talking about dismiss new-atheism because it is demonstrably foolish. The only people who disagree are new-atheists.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I'd be glad to consider an expert's opinion if you'd like to provide the name of an expert or even a summary of said opinion. But until then I'm not sure what you're hoping I'm going to concede to here.
Reply
I asked whether expert opinion should be given weight or whether facts were only facts if you understood them. You changed the subject and we're trying to work out why.
Reply
Reply
The correct answer was: Yes, experts should be given more weight.
Reply
I suppose the correct answer is that you don't know any.
Reply
Reply
Reply
So much for science!
Reply
Okay, wow.
Reply
Leave a comment