Atheism +

Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by tequila togorgeous, Aug 30, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. tequila togorgeous

    tequila togorgeous New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2002
    Messages:
    7,133
    Never hoped for God to exist more than I do now. I would just fucking love it if god released a sequel to the bible and entitled it Christopher hitchens is not alive to troll these fucks. Fictional gods beat real retards 6 days a week.
    test
  2. J Keeper

    J Keeper Super Jesus

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2010
    Messages:
    14,113
    icwutudidthur.
    test
  3. Carpe Noctem

    Carpe Noctem Neos Helios

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    5,202
    Yeah. It's stupid.

    It takes a simple position of disbelief and brings it a few steps closer towards becoming a splintered religious movement with countless sects and denominations and the same retarded collectivist pitfalls we bang on religion for.
    test
  4. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Does he really need to. hitchen trolled himself unfortunately
    [​IMG]
    test
  5. x calibur

    x calibur

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    54,148
    indeed. atheism is like its own religion.

    1. established doctrine
    2. personal identity built around their tenets
    3. canonized saints (dawkins, hitchens, etc.)
    4. evangelism, aggressive attempts to convert non-atheists
    5. belief in attaining an inherently superior status by joining
    6. groupthink and collectivism
    7. different sects and denominations
    8. wanting to transform the world through holy war/jihad

    seems highly religious to me.
    test
  6. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    i think atheism is ok but there is a very macho quality to it. dawkins and hitchens look like they can suddenly hear the who run it beat whenever they talk about it.



    *crunchy black dances onto a moving escalator*
    test
  7. Sir Bustalot

    Sir Bustalot I am Jesus

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    55,613
    well we must be talking about the extreme cases on both sides, because i know religious folk and atheists who dont insult each other for beliefs or ever present themselves as high and mighty over the other's beliefs...they dont fit the molds were establishing here or of what inhabits this forum.

    i know a ton of atheists whove never heard of dawkin or hitchens
    test
  8. Superman70

    Superman70 edited

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    16,116
    come on, son.
    test
  9. Riz

    Riz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    8,537
    Basketball is like a religion.

    1. established rules
    2. personal identity built around the team you support
    3. canonized saints (Jordan, Bird, etc.)
    4. evangelism, aggressive attempts to convert non-basketball fans
    5. belief in attaining an inherently superior status when supporting a winning team
    6. groupthink and collectivism
    7. different sects and denominations
    8. wanting to transform the world through basketball

    seems like anything can be compared to religion to me.
    test
  10. Riz

    Riz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    8,537
    Teq is like an atheist.

    1. goes against established doctrine
    2. personal identity built around opposing other people's tenets
    3. has no canonized saints (..., ..., etc.)
    4. evangelism, aggressive attempts to convert people to his way of thinking
    5. belief in his inherently superior status because he's just so above everybody else's primative thinking
    6. counter-groupthink and counter-collectivism. counter counter-groupthink counter-collectivism
    7. identifies with different sects and denominations - because he doesn't have any actual solid beliefs or opinions to remain fixed to one
    8. wanting to transform the world through his superior logic
    test
  11. Superman70

    Superman70 edited

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    16,116
    likening atheists to the religious is an old trick.

    too bad you have to ignore the main aspects of being religious to pull it off.
    test
  12. Carpe Noctem

    Carpe Noctem Neos Helios

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    5,202
    This is about Atheism +

    A new strain of atheism that seeks to tie atheism with social justice issues.
    test
  13. x calibur

    x calibur

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    54,148
    those other examples are not nearly as apt and fitting as my own analogy.
    test
  14. UnbrokeN

    UnbrokeN Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2001
    Messages:
    22,569
    Hitchens is trolling the universe

    tho i did not understand the depths and the meanings of this thread due to dimunitive intelligence, i find myself pondering about the fact they even dared to give it a name..Atheism, christianity, isklamn...its all one and the same now .basically..
    test
  15. Riz

    Riz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    8,537
    Not really. The way Dawkins et al. are regarded by atheists (plus or not) is much closer to how sports fans look at the leading figures in their sport of choice than the way the religious look at saints. Any belief system or culture has leading figures that they hold in high regard. Likewise, any group of people will have sub-groups within it.

    It's far better to frame it the way Dex did and say that it's an issue of collectivism and group thinking. The only reason anyone would frame atheism plus as a religion is to try and catch them out for hypocrisy. But by the very broad criteria you're using almost any group of people could be considered a religion (socialism, democracy, America, different branches of philosophy, the scientific method, etc) and the idea of religion then loses any real meaning.

    The second one I did with Teq was just a joke to point out what a wishy washy nancy he is
    test
  16. NightmareEx

    NightmareEx The Beast

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    5,134
    Getting atheists to agree on anything is like herding cats. The idea of atheism being anything like a religion is such a silly ploy. I'm militantly anti-theist and my atheism doesn't define who I am even a fraction of the percentile that a religious person is defined by their religion. By being labeled a Christian, that ties you into so many other beliefs and thoughts and actions. Whether you agree or disagree with certain things makes no difference, the fact is that being a Christian, defines most Christians. And at the very least it defines them much more than ANY atheist.

    At the end of the day, I can choose what I believe to be moral, within context. I am literally a free thinker because I'm free to think as I wish without any kind of fear of repercussion.
    test
  17. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    i think atheism + has an exra dimension to it. there is this basic urge to say that theism is wrong, and this is fair, and then there is an extra urge to parody and make a mockery of it. there is a scorn for it.

    i think that we may have brains constructed in a way to block these kinds of urges and that to do this our brains physically penalize us for it by sending out a very strange and vague sense of dread to us. i think a word that we have created to describe this penalty is guilt. so that when we hurt someone in some way our brains recoil like a kind of gun and send out a guilt kick back to us as penalty.

    there is a sort of physical foot print of this penalty system: the physical act of crying. humans are the only creatures that can do it.

    Crying - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    i think that crying is in the main a signal designed to show that you have been hurt in some kind of way. something very interesting about it is that women have evolved in a way to physically produce more pronounced and robust tears than men.

    Read It and Weep, Crybabies - WSJ.com

    for most of human history i think we were behaving completely by very vague instinct. i think that for a very long time we had even just been creating children completely inadvertently. that is our body was constructed in a way to basically trick us into having children. it was never children that we wanted but a very vague sex reward.

    i think that men, for a very long time, must have probably been very haphazard at trying to access these very vague rewards created by his very vague instinct. i think he probably must have been inadvertently hurting many women and children many times to do it. i think there had to be a way to block him or penalize him whenever he would do this and i think crying may have been this way to do it. women who lacked an ability to cry may have been more likely to get abused by these kinds of men. thus having a more pronounced and robust way to produce tears may have many times saved women from abuses and made them more likely to survive. but this is only half of what women would need to have.

    man would need to have a guilt penalty system activate in his brain whenever this event happened and it would need to work consistently. that is he would need to have a brain that had an ability to always threaten him by penalty at any moment, thus assuring his urges wouldnt haphazardly violate and abuse women and children, and probably, men too.

    but i only say probably because men i think crave many times to violate and terrorize each other. i think that they have this urge purely by instinct as an artifact of his more brutal past. they can do this as they are not as heavily penalized for it.

    i can think of a few reasons to understand this. men do not have as pronounced and robust of an ability to physically produce tears thus invalidating its corresponding penalty. but i think mainly men like to culturally create penalty free zones where they can mock and parody more men, and even at times, physically hurt men. sports i think are these kinds of penalty free zones where men can defeat and hurt more and more men en route to a state of some vague instinct provoked ecstasy. i think that AEH is, in the main, a terror matrix; where men can terrorize each other freely at no penalty. i think the ecstasy that this free terror generates keeps them coming back and they can even form very strong and lasting bonds by it, as they can now use each other to repeatedly create and share in more and more penalty free ecstasy together. i think men have an ability to joke and berate together, and in many ways its just a form of penalty free play. women may not have this ability and are possibly more sensitive and easily agitated by these things.

    i think that soldiers in wars are generally given some kind of engineered rationale by whoever has sent them into war as a way to create a work around to the guilt kick back the brain would reflexively try to send out during war. i thought that this might be an element of post traumatic stress disorder. that is, the guilt kick back is naturally sent out by the brain but as there was an engineered rationale externally created to try to block it, it never manifests as guilt, but sort of just floats around as a very vague sense of doom that the soldier can now no longer access. the guilt kick back starts to grow, but is never recognized.

    this takes me to atheism +

    i think that, in essence, its an engineered way to terrorize and basically tear down others to access some vague instinct provoked ecstasy at no penalty. they use atheism really as just a mask to do this. but this is probably not unique to atheists. i think there is something about it that is very primary and basic to man and that if we look we can see it physically manifesting all around us.
    test
  18. x calibur

    x calibur

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    54,148
    you're correct in stating that religion shares many characteristics with social institutions in general, and especially with organized secular ideologies.

    I'm not trying to put all atheists under one banner. However, there are those who simply run with the arguments of dawkins/hitchens/etc. in order to carry out their objectives. there are those who want to actively impose their ideas on others. these patterns bring them closer to religions and other organized ideologies, rather than just being an intellectual persuasion.

    then there is the most defining characteristic of religion, accepting an idea or set of ideas based on faith. hard atheism falls into that category by positively asserting the non-existence of God. in truth, God is in the category of "cannot prove nor disprove". any claims about what is before or beyond the universe can at best be educated guesses or conjecture. the statement that "the non-existence of God is definite" is an article of faith.

    so, it would be more accurate to say that there are some in atheism+ who approach it with religious qualities. and for the most part, atheism+ is like an organized ideology.
    test
  19. Riz

    Riz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    8,537
    I don't agree that it approaches religion as much as you say, but I can see your argument.
    test
  20. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    @ radium

    i just want to make sure i've got your argument down correctly

    are you saying professional atheists like dawkins and his ilk are basically in it for the game of it all, for the sport of trying to win an argument (produce terror)? and that other atheists who argue the point are doing the same basic thing just without all the spotlight?

    cause i can see some truth to that but i think it would be misleading to suggest that's the whole truth. i know you tried to draw a line between atheism and 'atheism +' but it seems like the line you drew was more between the statement of ones position and the attack of another's position.

    if that's the distinction being made then i don't think your argument applies completely as it assumes there's not a legitimate reason to attack religion, assumes the only possible goal is an ego boost. that's something that can be debated but it shouldn't be assumed up front.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)